Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2007.06.18
CIT7 G BURLINGAME QT9j' BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday,June 18, 2007 Joint Council and Beautification Commission Meeting—6:00 p.m. Conference Room A 1. CALL TO ORDER— 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— Budget Study Session of May 30, 2007 and Regular Council Meeting of June 4, 2007 5. PRESENTATIONS a. Recognition of Centennial Essay, Poetry & Poster contest winners b. Recognition of Fire Personnel c. Report by PG&E addressing concerns of citizens expressed at Town Hall meeting in March 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Certification of a final Environmental Impact Report, determination of parking standard for Animal Shelter/Animal Rescue Facility uses in the City; approval of Conditional Use Permits for building height and uses as an Animal Shelter/Animal Rescue Facility; and design review of structures at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, Burlingame, California(APN 026-102-050) (Zone M-1; Property Owner: Henry Horn & Sons, Incorporated; Applicant: Peninsula Humane Society& SPCA; Architect: George Miers &Associates) (FINAL ACTION ON THIS APPLICATION WAS CONTINUED FROM JUNE 4,2007-THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ON JUNE 4,2007,AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE TAKEN ON THIS APPLICATION AT THIS MEETING) b. Adopt 2007-08 Budget and Gann Limit Resolutions 1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Consider appointments to the Library Board of Trustees—APPOINT b. Consider appointment to the Beautification Commission - APPOINT c. Presentation of the City's Urban Forest Management Plan—Discuss 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Resolution approving agreement with Winzler & Kelly for Professional Engineering Services for the Marsten Storm Drain Outfall Pipeline and Discharge Structure Project, Phase 3 b. Adoption of a Resolution granting approval to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with EIP/PBS&J to perform environmental review services related to the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan c. Adoption of policy for use of private barbecues in City Parks d. Approval of Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center Mediation Services Contract for FY 2007/08 e. Approval of Chamber of Commerce Promotional Services Contract for FY 07/08 f. Community Groups Funding Awards for FY 07/08 g. Approval of out-of-state travel for Finance Director to East Elmhurst, NY h. Warrants & Payroll 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 12. OLD BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking , April 12, 2007; Parks & Recreation, May 17, 2007; Planning, June 11, 2007 b. Department Reports: Building, May, 2007; Police, May, 2007; Finance, May, 2007 2 15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION a. Labor Negotiations pursuant to (Government Code § 54957.6): City Negotiators: Jim Nantell & Deirdre Dolan Labor Organizations: AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829; BAMM; Teamsters Local 856; Department Heads; and Unrepresented Employees b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of David McNinch& Gisela Paulsen and claim of Laila Mousa 16. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—MONDAY, JULY 16, 2007 3 JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE B URLINGAME CITY COUNCIL & B URLINGAME BEA UTIFICA TION COMMISSION JUNE 18, 2007 6:00 P.M. CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD,BURLINGAME, CA Conference Room A L. Roll Call/Introductions II. Public Comments (At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter. The Ralph M Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on a matter which is not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes.) III. Update on Easton Drive Tree Selection W. Update on Street Tree Planting on Blocks with Few Trees V. Centennial Tree Planting VI. Proposed Landscape Award VII. Creation of a Separate Advocacy Group for Trees in Burlingame CITY BURUNGAME m "Nai[C Juwe 6. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Budget Study Session May 30, 2007 CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed Budget Study Session of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the Lane Community Room of the Main Library. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. All Council members were present. I. OPENING COMMENTS CM Nantell reviewed accomplishments of City staff over the past three years. In reviewing City Council Goals, CM Nantell noted that no. 5 will reflect the new title of the reforestation plan which will be the Burlingame Urban Tree Management Plan with criteria added for tree management when roadways are impacted. Asst. DPW Murtuza stated that standards will be developed for requesting tree removal. The finalized plan will be presented to Council on June 18, 2007. The final decision on the Easton tree will be made in August. II. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED FY 2007-08 BUDGET FinDir Nava provided highlights of the Proposed FY 2007-08 Budget. Vice Mayor O'Mahony recommended increasing funding for low-flush toilet rebates so that hotels, businesses, apartments and condominiums would be included in the rebate program. Their participation in this program would greatly reduce water consumption. III. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND FIVE-YEAR PLAN Asst. DPW Murtuza gave an overview of Capital Improvement Projects and the Five Year Plan. IV. DEPARTMENT BUDGET REPORTS Each department gave highlights of their FY 2007-08 budget proposal. Councilman Cohen requested a breakdown of the number of Fire service calls received and how many were for mutual aid. Mayor Nagel requested that no. 4 of the City Council Goals be changed to: Develop neighborhood preparedness program and community communications, as well as crime prevention. At Council consensus, FinDir Nava will revisit the costs to determine upgrades to the Council Chambers sound system and ADA improvements as well 1 Burlingame City Council May 30,2007 Unapproved Minutes V. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Root, 728 Crossway Road, spoke on various items. VI. COMMUNITY AGENCIES FUNDING REQUESTS After discussion, Council agreed to provide recommendations on funding allocations for the various agencies to be compiled and averaged out by FinDir Nava. Mayor Nagel and Councilman Cohen advised that they agreed with the proposed funding submitted by FinDir Nava. VII. COUNCIL DIRECTION ON FUNDING Council agreed to increase rebate funding for single families to $15,000 and add to the rebate program $15,000 for multi-family dwellings and $15,000 for commercial; to add $6,000 for Planning for new furniture and modifications; to add $6,000 for Public Works for replacement street light poles; to add $700 for Police for a digital camera to investigate crime scenes; and to add $24,000 for Planning for a part-time Planner position and $50,000 for a Business Ambassador position. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 2 Burlingame City Council May 30,2007 Unapproved Minutes CITY BURUNGAME y, m bpi 00 $wwT[o./uu[6• BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of June 4, 2007 JOINT COUNCIL AND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING Burlingame City Council met with the Parks &Recreation Commission. Agenda items discussed were New Recreation Center—CEP Plan, Bayside Fields 3 and 4 Fundraiser update, and School Board/City relationship. 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Mary Hunt. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Two corrections were made to the minutes of the May 21, 2006 regular Council meeting: Add to Item 8.b.: Vice Mayor O'Mahony asked during the discussion that the G.O. bond financing mechanism be retained for like considerations since it is less burdensome on 59% of the residential homeowners according to the 2005 study. Correct Item 9. to read: Councilman Cohen requested removal of Items b. and d. from the Consent Calendar... Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the May 21, 2007 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATIONS a. BEST OF BURLINGAME AWARD Mayor Nagel presented Martha Rosman May with the Best of Burlingame award. During the past 35 years, Martha May has devoted thousands of hours to Burlingame's archives, and she still works at least 10 hours a week on them. In appreciation of her efforts, the Burlingame Lions Club named her"Citizen of the Year" in 1983. She has said that "...the friendships, experiences and teamwork here have given me greater rewards than I ever expected." 1 Burlingame City Council June 4,2007 Unapproved Minutes b. RECOGNITION OF CENTENNIAL PARADE CHAIR, MIKE McQUEEN Mayor Nagel presented a proclamation honoring Mike McQueen for a successful Centennial Parade held on Saturday, June 2nd. The parade was the biggest ever held in Burlingame and kicked off the start of a year- long Centennial celebration. C. CITIZEN LIFE-SAVING AWARD COP Van Etten honored two local citizens who performed a life-saving feat by jointly rescuing the driver of a car submerged in San Francisco Bay near Airport Boulevard in April. Becky Reynoso and Lawrence Rensch each received a Certificate of Commendation and a Life Saving Medal. Council members thanked the two local heroes for preventing a tragedy. d. AT&T LIGHT SPEED PROJECT Tedi Vriheas, Director of AT&T External Affairs Department, made a presentation on their plans for Burlingame to upgrade broadband for services provided through the telephone line. 6. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. UPDATE ON PLANS FOR BURLINGAME'S CENTENNIAL PLAZA P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report providing Council with an update on the plans for the Centennial Plaza and asked Council to consider the proposal of an historical timeline ribbon plan and to direct the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission to consider reduction or elimination of the parking in front of the Burlingame Train Station. P&RD Schwartz introduced Jennifer Pfaff and Jean Silveira who presented their proposal of a self- supporting project to develop a list of 100 significant moments in Burlingame history to be inscribed on pavers forming a timeline ribbon which would encircle the plaza. Each inscribed paver would be engraved with the donor's name. Council supported the inclusion of the Burlingame history timeline ribbon project. After Council discussion, Council had consensus to direct the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission to consider reduction or elimination of parking spaces in front of the Burlingame Train Station. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT CP Monroe reviewed the June 4, 2007 staff report with attachments, including 224 e-mails in support and one in opposition and the desk items placed this evening. She noted that Council should hold a public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and project; and then take action first to certify the Final EIR and then on the project including the conditional use permits for animal shelter use and a structure over 35 feet in height, the determination for the parking ratio; and the design review for compliance with the applicable design guidelines in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. There were no questions of staff. 2 Burlingame City Council June 4,2007 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Nagel reviewed the procedure for the public hearing and asked the applicant to present the project. The applicant was represented by Ken White, President of the Peninsula Humane Society& SPCA, and Pablo Daroux of Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, noise consultant. Issues noted were: PHS & SPCA mission, services not to be provided and provided at the project site; submitted petitions and post cards in support of the project including a map showing 50 businesses in support of the project in the vicinity of the project; supporting Final EIR, economic study and other documents prepared; issues addressed included noise, odor, wastewater; escorting animals to cars; not want to be under-parked, bad for customers glad to do parking studies and identify solutions if needed; agree to all conditions, Commission added number 44, support buses, like to modify language to remove `on-site' would still provide prearranged parking; suggested programming for local residents. Council questions addressed: service area; drop off of stray animals; disposal of waste; noise from multiple barking dogs; on-site deliveries; and plans to expand. Speaking in opposition were Kevin Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road, Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road, and Jim Knapp, Citizens for Accountability, consultant to Albert Guibara. Submitted letter and documents addressing issues; also noted project is too big, building is too tall, parking calculation is inaccurate,parking not consistent with Municipal Code; alternatives; inconsistent with subdivision CCandR's; adoption rate misrepresented; status of PHS/SPCA contract with the County; and unions. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. The following members of the public spoke: William Nack, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City; Dan Andersen, 728 Vernon Way; Debbie Fischer, 361 Half Moon Bay Lane, Daly City; Gene Condon, 1308 Mills Avenue; Mike Swanson, 1519 Rollins Road; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way; Marilyn Porto, 76 Woodridge Road, Hillsborough; Rebecca Allen, 217 Arkansas Street, San Francisco; Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; Bruce Thompson, 1600 Granada Drive; William St. Lawrence, DVM, 832 Morrell Avenue; Karen Key, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue; and Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue. Comments included: support project; not impact Rollins Road, agreed to abide by all conditions; asked supporters to stand, for record Mayor noted about 90-95% of capacity-filled room stood; office across from animal hospital is a good neighbor; valuable public service; project will `build community' in Burlingame; not a pound; help wildlife; right type of facility; similar facilities located in San Francisco have no problems in more sensitive residential and retail neighborhoods; and project use is appropriate in the context of commercial recreation uses allowed in the immediate area. There were no further public comments. Mayor Nagel asked the opponents to the project if they would like to respond. Jim Knapp, Citizens for Accountability; and Ramona Martinez, 709 Walnut, spoke. Questioned project alternatives,project violates subdivision CCandR's and common interests. Concern about barking caused by noise from sirens from fire and ambulance facilities in the Rollins Road area, will affect people in area; asked if this was the best place for this use, not like the location. There were no further comments. Mayor Nagel asked the project sponsors if they would like to respond. Tim Tosta, attorney of Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, spoke. Net new square footage proposed without aviary is less than is presently on the site; fewer people will be employed on the site than presently employed there; logic no significant impact but decided to take to Final EIR document so have a higher standing in court; alternatives are a grosser instrument for analysis and have less precision than conditions, particularly when there are no significant issues to address, the question is were there sufficient alternatives to satisfy decision makers' questions about the project; and law suits. Council asked questions of applicant regarding: ADA accessible parking, walking dogs in neighborhood; requiring neutering of male dogs; LEEDS objectives; frequency of follow-up parking studies; location of staff parking; enforcement of limitation on source of animals from outside the county; when rolling roof is 3 Burlingame City Council June 4,2007 Unapproved Minutes open; managing odor from stored waste; location for deliveries; floor area ratio; height. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was closed. Council Discussion and actions: Final EIR: Councilwoman O'Mahony moved to certify the Final EIR finding that the document was adequate for the reasons stated by the City Council and Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Council findings regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR included the many comments made by the opposition did a service and ensured that all the issues raised by the project were addressed particularly odor, noise, waste disposal, traffic and parking; and the 90-plus conditions ensure that the project will incorporate the necessary elements to address the environmental issues raised; site drains to Easton Creek not Mills Creek, and the on-site drainage improvements will provide benefit to the ecology of the Creek not offered by the current development on the site, City has experience at other locations that such filters built into the parking lot drainage benefit the Red Legged Frog and its habitat; for traffic and parking have enough information to evaluate the issue, do not know if parking will be sufficient in the long term since this is a new use, so condition for required studies over time and implementation of solutions including programmatic changes, parking lifts, or other solutions which may emerge adequately address the concern; studies of trip generation document that this project will effect no change on the existing level of service at either the Broadway or Millbrae interchanges serving the Rollins Road area which is the objective in the Specific Plan for this area; concerned about the safety of pedestrians in this area,but the requirement to provide a stop light at Edwards Court and Rollins Road, should the warrants emerge, should address this. Council noted that a reasonable range of alternatives has been considered; felt that common sense should be applied since there were no significant unavoidable impacts, believe that the number and range of alternatives was effective and do not need more; would have been different if the EIR studies had identified any significant unavoidable impacts, would want an alternative which reduced the unavoidable impacts, but there were no impacts which could not be reduced to an acceptable level, so the alternatives presented did what they needed to do. Council had consensus that no additional issues needed to be studied; that the report was very thorough, done with great care; that the document did not need to be recirculated and that the document disclosed all the potentially significant issues and included mitigations to reduce them to less than significant. Council then discussed the project including the hours that the rolling roof should be open in the dog exercise area. There were four actions required for the project. Parking Determination: Councilwoman Keighran moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation including their findings to adopt a parking ratio for animal shelter/rescue use of 1.6 parking spaces per 1000 SF (1:625 SF) and to adopt the ratio of 1:5000 SF for outdoor habitat/aviary space. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. In making the second she noted that there is a wide range of standards used by others for parking for outdoor space, the proposed 1:5000 is supported by standards for similar types of outdoor activity used in more urban San Francisco and by the parking studies done for this project's EIR. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. It was noted that these ratios will become the city's parking standard for animal shelter/rescue uses. Hecht. Councilwoman Keighran moved to approve the conditional use permit to exceed 35 feet in height, noting that this is not a variance but opportunity to review the height in relation to other buildings in the area, that the design guidelines allow a maximum of 60 feet in height and the 42 feet of this building is consistent with other buildings in the area and well below the maximum in the specific plan for this area so will not be detrimental, particularly since the intention of the plan was to encourage some increase in density in the 4 Burlingame City Council June 4,2007 Unapproved Minutes Rollins Road area and including the findings for the height in the Planning Commission's action. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Animal Shelter Use. Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve the animal rescue/shelter use, the Center for Compassion project; at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, including the findings of the Planning Commission,with the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission as amended by the City Council. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. In their discussion of the motion the Council noted the following amendments to the proposed conditions of approval each accepted by consensus: ■ Condition 45, change period for longitudinal parking studies from the end of the first and second year, to at the end of the first, third and fifth years after occupancy. ■ Condition 44, delete the words `on-site'. ■ Condition 64, increase the frequency of picking up cat litter containers from once a week to twice a week or as frequently as needed to control odor. Design Guidelines: Councilwoman Keighran moved that the proposed design complies with the design guidelines for the Rollins Road area as set out in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, including the findings for consistency with the design guidelines made by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Comments on the motion included: that the project complies with the requirements of the M-1 zoning district and with the intent of the design guidelines for the Rollins Road area identified in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and the design is compatible with the area; Planning Commission did a thorough deliberation and complete review of the design review criteria as a part of the Specific Plan and determined what the City wants for this area, no housing, no office parks, in Burlingame this area is light industrial uses only, the proposed design and use are appropriate in the area and reflect the values of the community. Staff advised that they would return to the June 18, 2007 meeting with the conditions revised as directed and a resolution for action regarding the Council's actions tonight. Mayor Nagel confirmed that the public hearing on the Final EIR and project are complete. There will be no public hearing on the resolution at the June 18, 2007 meeting. The Mayor called for a break at 10:35 p.m. The Council reconvened at 10:40 p.m. b. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1809 CLARIFYING CLAIM FILING REQUIREMENTS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 1809 clarifying the application and process of claim filing requirements for claims not encompassed by the Tort Claims Act. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1809 amending Section 4.15.010 of the Municipal Code to clarify claim requirements; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. 5 Burlingame City Council June 4,2007 Unapproved Minutes The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on various subjects. Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way, spoke on the Centennial Plaza. Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue, spoke on the Centennial Parade. Gene Condon, 1308 Mills Avenue, spoke on various subjects and Centennial events. There were no further comments from the floor. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH SPANGLE ASSOCIATES FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATIVE TO THE PREPARATION OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CDD Meeker requested Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Spangle Associates for project management services related to the preparation of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Agenda Item No. 12.a. There were no further comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS a. COUNCIL FEEDBACK ON PROPOSAL TO PUT COUNCIL REPORTS ON CITY WEBSITE After Council discussion, Council had consensus to leave the Council Reports process as it exists. 13. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, March 20 &April 17, 2007; Planning, May 29, 2007 b. Department Reports: Police, April 2007 c. Letter from Comcast concerning programming adjustments 6 Burlingame City Council June 4,2007 Unapproved Minutes d. June 1, 2007 Memo from City Attorney Mayor Nagel requested the City Attorney to discuss the essence of his June 1St memo. CA Anderson stated that the memo described where the case law and the Brown Act stand with regard to written communications between staff and among Council members. CA Anderson recommended that the suggested guidelines in the memo be used as guidance for future communications. 15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Nagel adjourned to Closed Session at 11:13 p.m. in memory of the following long-time Burlingame residents: Bud Worrall, Aaron Chilcoat and Burlingame's first City Manager, Chuck Schwalm. CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of Georgia Novo 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 7 Burlingame City Council June 4,2007 Unapproved Minutes MEETING MINUTES Joint Meeting of the City Council and Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Monday, June 4, 2007 The joint meeting of the Burlingame City Council &Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Mayor Nagel at 6:02 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame. ROLL CALL Council Present: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony Commissioners Present: Dittman, Hesselgren,Muller, Shanus, Comaroto, Castner-Paine Commissioners Absent: Larios Staff Present: City Manager, Jim Nantell; Parks &Recreation Director,Randy Schwartz, Account Clerk III Joleen Butler; NEW BUSINESS New Recreation Center—City CIP Plan Summary of discussion is as follows: Council responded to Commission's question as to the status of a new recreation center by stating that flood control is the priority capital project and discussed the potential for an upcoming bond measure on the local ballot. Council stated their hope for passage of Senator Leland Yee's proposed measure in Sacramento that will allow a bond measure on a local ballet to pass with a 55%majority for the purpose of storm drain funding. More will be known on the matter by late summer. There will still be time to exercise the option of a survey to get a measure on the local ballet in June of 2008. Bayside Fields 3 &4 Fundraiser Update Several months ago Council approved a fundraising effort by several non-profit local organizations for improving the fields at Bayside Park in terms of installing artificial turf to provide year round playability. Schwartz reported that nothing has been developed so far in terms of an organized fundraising effort,but that representatives from the organizations should be meeting at the end of the month. School Board/City Relationship Schwartz reported that two Council members and two Burlingame School District School Board members met about two weeks ago. At the meeting,the group agreed to emphasize the positive aspects of the relationship and the benefits to the community. Another meeting is scheduled for late summer and the duties of a Parks &Recreation Commissioner liaison to the School Board will be developed at that time. Council appointed Commissioner Michael Shanus as the liaison. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joleen Butler Burlingame Parks &Recreation Account Clerk III CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 6a - ITEM# MTG. Hoo4. Som ED—E DATE 6.18.07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY �Aaw DATE: JUNE 11, 2007 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY Contact Number: (650)558-7250 SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION TAKING ACTION ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DETERMINE PARKING STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY USES, AND PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING CONDIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USE AND HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW OF STRUCTURES FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY& SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should take action on the resolution prepared for action on the Final Environmental Impact Report, determination of parking standard for animal shelter/rescue facility uses, and the conditional use permits and design review for the PHS & SPCA project. The public hearing was closed at the Council meeting of June 4, 2007; so no further public testimony will be taken. The Council should review the proposed decision and make any changes or additions it wishes. The proposed decision is extensive, so the Council should be certain that it reflects the facts, findings, and conclusions as the Council sees them. The action on the resolution concludes the City's administrative review of the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA's proposed project at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court. BACKGROUND: At the June 4, 2007, regular Council meeting,the City Council heard presentations and testimony from the applicants and opponents of this project, as well as the public. Following these comments and testimony, the Council held a public hearing and took testimony from the other members of the public. The attached resolution encapsulates the direction, the recommended conditions on the project including the mitigation monitoring plan, and the findings of the Planning Commission which Council incorporated into their action. In addition the resolution includes dditional findings and modifications to the recommended conditions of approval made by the City Council at the June 4, 2007 meeting. (see City Council Unapproved Minutes, June 4, 2007, attached) ADOPT RESOLUTION TAKING ACTION ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DETERMINE PARKING STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY USES,AND PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING CONDIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USE AND HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW OF STRUCTURES FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 ED WARDS COURT June 18,2007 The record to support the City Council's action on this project includes: ■ Draft EIR Center for Compassion, September 2006; ■ Response to Comments, Final Environmental Impact Report, April 2007; ■ Planning Commission Special Study Session Staff Report, Study of Environmental Impact Report and Proposed Project for Reconstruction and Addition to an Existing Building for the Peninsula Humane Society/SPCA, May 1, 2007, with attachments; ■ Planning Commission Action Staff Report, Public Hearing and Action an Environmental Impact Report and Proposed Project for the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, May 14, 2007, with attachments; ■ City Council Action Staff Report, Public Hearing and Action on an Environmental Impact Report and Proposed for the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, June 4, 2007, with attachments; and ■ The proposed Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Affirming a Decision of the Planning Commission to Certify a Final Environmental Impact Report, Determine Parking Standards for Animal Shelter/Animal Rescue Facility, and Design Review of Structures at 1450 Rollins Road/20 including the conditions of approval. Project Review, including Planning Commission Action This project began before the Planning Commission with a request for determination about the animal rescue/shelter use in the Rollins Road area in 2005. That determination was never appealed or challenged.1 Subsequent to the use determination, the applicant submitted an application on May 9, 2005 for a Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court. The Planning Commission held hearings on this project relating to the design and the environmental documents on September 26, 2005, and February 27, 2006. On May 1, 2007, the Planning Commission held a study meeting on the Final EIR and project. On May 14, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and took action, recommending to the City Council,the adequacy of the Final EIR, the parking determination, and the project related requests. The Commission's action was appealed to the City Council; and on May 21, 2007, the City Council set the public hearing. The City Council held a public hearing on the Final EIR, the parking determination and projects requests on June 4, 2007, and deliberated the issues, finding that the Final EIR was adequate; modifying the parking determination, adding a standard for outdoor habitat/aviary area; supporting the conditional use permits for use and height; and supporting the consistency of the project design with the design guidelines for the Rollins Road area in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Staff then drafted the proposed resolution to make findings on each of the issues presented for Council consideration. EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes, June 4, 2007, Item 7 a.: Public Hearing and Action on an Environmental Impact Report and Proposed Project for the Peninsula Humane Society& SPCA at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court. The Council also adopted new zoning regulations for the project area(RR district)in 2006,which expressly included animal shelters and animal rescue facilities as conditional uses. These regulations were challenged as being inconsistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. As the Council knows,the San Mateo Superior Court issued a decision in April 2007 affirming the consistency of those provisions with the Plan,and the decision is now final. 2 } f ADOPT RESOLUTION TAKING ACTION ON THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DETERMINE PARKING STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL SHELTERIANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY USES,AND PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING CONDIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USEAND HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW OF STRUCTURES FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 18,2007 Attachment B: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Affirming the Decision of the Planning Commission to Certify a Final Environmental Impact Report, Determine Parking Standard for Animal Shelter/Animal Rescue Facility Uses in the City, Approve Conditional Use Permits for Building Height and for Use as an Animal Shelter/Animal Rescue Facility, and Design Review of Structures. 3 ATTACHMENT A Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes June 4, 2007 Excerpt 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT CP Monroe reviewed the June 4, 2007 staff report with attachments, including 224 e- mails in support and one in opposition and the desk items placed this evening. She noted that Council should hold a public hearing on the Final Environmental Impact Report and project; and then take action first to certify the Final EIR and then on the project including the conditional use permits for animal shelter use and a structure over 35 feet in height, the determination for the parking ratio; and the design review for compliance with the applicable design guidelines in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. There were no questions of staff. Mayor Nagel reviewed the procedure for the public hearing and asked the applicant to present the project. The applicant was represented by Ken White, President of the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA, and Pablo Daroux of Wilson, Ihrig and Associates, noise consultant. Issues noted were: PHS & SPCA mission, services not to be provided and provided at the project site; submitted petitions and post cards in support of the project including a map showing 50 businesses in support of the project in the vicinity of the project; supporting Final EIR, economic study and other documents prepared; issues addressed included noise, odor, wastewater; escorting animals to cars; not want to be under-parked, bad for customers glad to do parking studies and identify solutions if needed; agree to all conditions, Commission added number 44, support buses, like to modify language to remove `on-site' would still provide prearranged parking; suggested programming for local residents. Council questions addressed: service area; drop off of stray animals; disposal of waste; noise from multiple barking dogs; on-site deliveries; and plans to expand. Speaking in opposition were Kevin Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road, Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road, and Jim Knapp, Citizens for Accountability, consultant to Albert Guibara. Submitted letter and documents addressing issues; also noted project is too big, building is too tall, parking calculation is inaccurate, parking not consistent with Municipal Code; alternatives; inconsistent with subdivision CCandR's; adoption rate misrepresented; status of PHS/SPCA contract with the County; and unions. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. The following members of the public spoke: William Nack, 1153 Chess Drive, Foster City; Dan Andersen, 728 Vernon Way; Debbie Fischer, 361 Half Moon Bay Lane, Daly City; Gene Condon, 1308 Mills Avenue; Mike Swanson, 1519 Rollins Road; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way; Marilyn Porto, 76 Woodridge Road, Hillsborough; Rebecca Allen, 217 Arkansas Street, San Francisco; Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road; Bruce Thompson, 1600 Granada Drive; William St. Lawrence, DVM, 832 Morrell Avenue; Karen Key, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue; and Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes June 4, 2007 Excerpt Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue. Comments included: support project; not impact Rollins Road, agreed to abide by all conditions; asked supporters to stand, for record Mayor noted about 90-95% of capacity-filled room stood; office across from animal hospital is a good neighbor; valuable public service; project will `build community' in Burlingame; not a pound; help wildlife; right type of facility; similar facilities located in San Francisco have no problems in more sensitive residential and retail neighborhoods; and project use is appropriate in the context of commercial recreation uses allowed in the immediate area. There were no further public comments. Mayor Nagel asked the opponents to the project if they would like to respond. Jim Knapp, Citizens for Accountability; and Ramona Martinez, 709 Walnut, spoke. Questioned project alternatives,project violates subdivision CCandR's and common interests. Concern about barking caused by noise from sirens from fire and ambulance facilities in the Rollins Road area,will affect people in area; asked if this was the best place for this use, not like the location. There were no further comments. Mayor Nagel asked the project sponsors if they would like to respond. Tim Tosta, attorney of Luce, Forward, Hamilton and Scripps, spoke. Net new square footage proposed without aviary is less than is presently on the site; fewer people will be employed on the site than presently employed there; logic no significant impact but decided to take to Final EIR document so have a higher standing in court; alternatives are a grosser instrument for analysis and have less precision than conditions, particularly when there are no significant issues to address, the question is were there sufficient alternatives to satisfy decision makers' questions about the project; and law suits. Council asked questions of applicant regarding: ADA accessible parking, walking dogs in neighborhood; requiring neutering of male dogs; LEEDS objectives; frequency of follow- up parking studies; location of staff parking; enforcement of limitation on source of animals from outside the county; when rolling roof is open; managing odor from stored waste; location for deliveries; floor area ratio; height. There were no further comments, and the public hearing was closed. Council Discussion and actions: Final EIR: Councilwoman O'Mahony moved to certify the Final EIR finding that the document was adequate for the reasons stated by the City Council and Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Council findings regarding the adequacy of the Final EIR included the many comments made by the opposition did a service and ensured that all the issues raised by the project were addressed particularly odor,noise, waste disposal, traffic and parking; and the 90- plus conditions ensure that the project will incorporate the necessary elements to address the environmental issues raised; site drains to Easton Creek not Mills Creek, and the on- site drainage improvements will provide benefit to the ecology of the Creek not offered Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes June 4, 2007 Excerpt by the current development on the site, City has experience at other locations that such filters built into the parking lot drainage benefit the Red Legged Frog and its habitat; for traffic and parking have enough information to evaluate the issue, do not know if parking will be sufficient in the long term since this is a new use, so condition for required studies over time and implementation of solutions including programmatic changes, parking lifts, or other solutions which may emerge adequately address the concern; studies of trip generation document that this project will effect no change on the existing level of service at either the Broadway or Millbrae interchanges serving the Rollins Road area which is the objective in the Specific Plan for this area; concerned about the safety of pedestrians in this area,but the requirement to provide a stop light at Edwards Court and Rollins Road, should the warrants emerge, should address this. Council noted that a reasonable range of alternatives has been considered; felt that common sense should be applied since there were no significant unavoidable impacts, believe that the number and range of alternatives was effective and do not need more; would have been different if the EIR studies had identified any significant unavoidable impacts, would want an alternative which reduced the unavoidable impacts, but there were no impacts which could not be reduced to an acceptable level, so the alternatives presented did what they needed to do. Council had consensus that no additional issues needed to be studied; that the report was very thorough, done with great care; that the document did not need to be recirculated and that the document disclosed all the potentially significant issues and included mitigations to reduce them to less than significant. Council then discussed the project including the hours that the rolling roof should be open in the dog exercise area. There were four actions required for the project. Parking Determination: Councilwoman Keighran moved to support the Planning Commission recommendation including their findings to adopt a parking ratio for animal shelter/rescue use of 1.6 parking spaces per 1000 SF (1:625 SF) and to adopt the ratio of 1:5000 SF for outdoor habitat/aviary space. Motion was seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. In making the second she noted that there is a wide range of standards used by others for parking for outdoor space, the proposed 1:5000 is supported by standards for similar types of outdoor activity used in more urban San Francisco and by the parking studies done for this project's EIR. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. It was noted that these ratios will become the city's parking standard for animal shelter/rescue uses. Hecht. Councilwoman Keighran moved to approve the conditional use permit to exceed 35 feet in height, noting that this is not a variance but opportunity to review the height in relation to other buildings in the area, that the design guidelines allow a maximum of 60 feet in height and the 42 feet of this building is consistent with other buildings in the area and well below the maximum in the specific plan for this area so will not be detrimental, particularly since the intention of the plan was to encourage some increase in density in the Rollins Road area and including the findings for the height in the Planning Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes June 4, 2007 Excerpt Commission's action. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Animal Shelter Use. Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve the animal rescue/shelter use, the Center for Compassion project; at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, including the findings of the Planning Commission, with the conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission as amended by the City Council. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. In their discussion of the motion the Council noted the following amendments to the proposed conditions of approval each accepted by consensus: ■ Condition 45, change period for longitudinal parking studies from the end of the first and second year, to at the end of the first, third and fifth years after occupancy. ■ Condition 44, delete the words `on-site'. ■ Condition 64, increase the frequency of picking up cat litter containers from once a week to twice a week or as frequently as needed to control odor. Design Guidelines: Councilwoman Keighran moved that the proposed design complies with the design guidelines for the Rollins Road area as set out in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, including the findings for consistency with the design guidelines made by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Comments on the motion included: that the project complies with the requirements of the M-1 zoning district and with the intent of the design guidelines for the Rollins Road area identified in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and the design is compatible with the area; Planning Commission did a thorough deliberation and complete review of the design review criteria as a part of the Specific Plan and determined what the City wants for this area, no housing, no office parks, in Burlingame this area is light industrial uses only, the proposed design and use are appropriate in the area and reflect the values of the community. Staff advised that they would return to the June 18, 2007 meeting with the conditions revised as directed and a resolution for action regarding the Council's actions tonight. Mayor Nagel confirmed that the public hearing on the Final EIR and project are complete. There will be no public hearing on the resolution at the June 18, 2007 meeting. ATTACHMENT B 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AFFIRMING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CERTIFY A 4 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, DETERMINE PARKING STANDARD FOR ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY USES IN THE CITY, 5 APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR USE AS AN ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY,AND DESIGN REVIEW 6 OF STRUCTURES 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 7 (APN 026-102-050) ZONE M-1 8 PROPERTY OWNER: HENRY HORN& SONS INCORPORATED APPLICANT: PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA 9 ARCHITECT: GEORGE MIERS &ASSOCIATES 10 11 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: 12 WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council for public hearing on June 4, 2007, 13 on appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission certifying the Final Environmental Impact 14 Report and approving conditional use permits for building height and use as an animal shelter/animal 15 rescue facility, and design review and making a determination as to the parking standard for an 16 animal shelter/animal rescue facility, and was regularly noticed in accordance with State and City 17 law; and 18 WHEREAS, the Council visited the neighborhood and spoke with neighbors and the 19 applicants; and 20 WHEREAS, the following is adopted as the decision of the City Council of the City of 21 Burlingame on the above-entitled application: 22 23 Project Process 24 In September 2004,the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific 25 Plan. 26 On April 27,2005,the Applicant filed an application for use of the property at 1450 Rollins 27 Road/20 Edwards Court,which is located in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area. 28 On May 9, 2005, the Burlingame Planning Commission made a determination pursuant to 1 1 Burlingame Municipal Code §§ 25.44.030(22) and 25.16.150 that an animal shelter use in the M-1 2 District would be a use that is similar to another permitted or conditional use in the City, in 3 particular, a veterinary hospital and associated animal care facilities; this entitled the applicant, as 4 well as any other person, to apply for a conditional use permit for such a use in the M-1 District. 5 That determination was not appealed nor was any application made for a re-determination of that 6 decision by the Commission. 7 Between September 2005, and June 2006, the Planning Commission and the City Council 8 held extensive hearings and study on the zoning provisions needed to implement the North 9 Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan that was previously adopted. On June 5, 2006, this City 10 Council adopted the Rollins Road Zoning District and zoning regulations for the area in which the 11 proposed project would be located. That ordinance explicitly made animal shelters and animal 12 rescue facilities a conditional use in the area. 13 Albert Guibara,Rilco-Edwards LLC, and Aerobay Office Park filed a petition for a writ of 14 mandate against the City contending that animal shelters and animal rescue facilities were 15 inconsistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. In 16 April 2007, the San Mateo Superior Court denied the petition filed by the three parties. 17 After review of the plan submittal, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed design 18 review study and environmental scoping session on September 26, 2005. At that time, public 19 comments were taken and the Commission gave direction with regard to issues to be studied in the 20 environmental review. 21 Following additional study,the applicant decided that preparation of an environmental impact 22 report seemed warranted, so an initial study was prepared for the project.A notice of preparation of 23 an EIR was posted on February 16, 2006. 24 A second environmental scoping session was duly noticed and held by the Planning 25 Commission on February 27, 2006. At that time, further public comments were taken, and the 26 Commission gave additional direction with regard to issues to be addressed in the EIR and design 27 of the project. 28 A Draft EIR was prepared by consultants retained by the City and made available for public 2 1 review and comments on September 5, 2006. The Draft EIR contained all of the technical reports 2 as well as the Initial Study in the form of an electronic disk provided with each copy of the Draft 3 EIR. In addition, a hard copy of the same material was available on request from the City. 4 On September 25,2006,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the 5 Draft EIR to receive any public comments on the Draft EIR, and the Commission made comments 6 regarding the Draft. Written comments were also accepted through the end of the public comment 7 period on October 20, 2006. 8 A Response to Comments Document and revisions to the Draft EIR were then prepared by 9 the consultants retained by the City with review and oversight by the City. The Response to 10 Comments and Revisions to Draft EIR Document was released on April 18, 2007. 11 On May 1, 2007, the Planning Commission held a study session at which the Commission 12 reviewed the Final EIR,consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and Revisions to 13 the Draft EIR Document,and the Initial Study and Technical Reports contained in both the Draft EIR 14 and the Response to Comments Document,with the consultants who had prepared the EIR and City 15 staff. Public comments were also taken at this study session. 16 On May 14,2007,the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider 17 the EIR and the proposed project and necessary land use approvals. The Commission heard and 18 considered all written and oral testimony submitted for the hearing. The Commission then voted to 19 approve and certify the Final EIR for the proposed project,to approve the conditional use permit for 20 building height of forty-one feet six inches, to approve the conditional use permit for use as an 21 animal shelter/animal rescue facility with conditions, and to approve the design review of the 22 proposed structures including fencing and aviary/outdoor habitat. 23 On May 16,2007,the Planning Commission's approvals were appealed to the City Council, 24 which then held a duly noticed public hearing on June 4, 2007. The public hearing was closed on 25 June 4, 2007, and staff prepared a proposed decision. 26 At the June 4 public hearing,the City Council received and considered all written and oral 27 testimony submitted, including but not limited to, letters received up to and at the public hearing. 28 The City Council has also reviewed a box of un-collated written materials submitted by Albert 3 1 Guibara at the public hearing. The City has not received any testimony or correspondence stating 2 that the notice given of the hearings and study sessions on this project were inadequate or did not 3 comply with State law. 4 In making this decision,the City Council has reviewed and considered all of the staff reports 5 and attachments of correspondence,documents, studies, and other materials. The City Council has 6 also reviewed and considered the transcripts of the proceedings before the Planning Commission on 7 May 1 and May 14, 2007. 8 The City Council has reviewed and considered the Final EIR that was approved and certified 9 by the Planning Commission, consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments and the 10 Revisions to the Draft EIR Document,and the Initial Study and Technical Reports contained in both 11 the Draft EIR and the Response to Comments document. 12 13 Final Environmental Impact Report 14 The Initial Study identified five issues for detailed study: aesthetics, odor, land use and 15 planning, noise, and transportation and circulation. 16 Aesthetics. The Final EIR finds that with landscaping,the building design of the project will 17 blend into the surrounding environment. The only issue of potential significant impact was new 18 sources of lighting, and the EIR establishes mitigation measures that will reduce the intensity and 19 dispersal of light so that any potential light or glare impact will be reduced to less than significant. 20 Odor. The Final EIR contains extensive discussions of potential odor impact, and the 21 discussion before the Planning Commission on May 1, 2007, expands on that discussion even 22 further. The EIR established mitigation measures for cleaning, maintenance, and waste disposal, 23 including an odor management plan,that reduce any potential odor impacts to less than significant. 24 Land Use and Planning. The Final EIR finds the proposed project to be in compliance and 25 consistent with the Burlingame General Plan,the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan,the 2 6 M-1 Zoning, and even the design guidelines of the recently adopted RR Zoning that would govern 27 future approvals on this property. No significant conflicts or impacts were identified. 28 Noise. The Final EIR identified a potentially significant impact from dogs barking, so the 4 1 Final EIR establishes three mitigation measures to reduce noise to less than significant levels. The 2 discussion of the noise consultants demonstrates that ambient noise in the area from the Bayshore 3 Freeway is already high;the dog exercise area has been located interior to the buildings. In addition, 4 the conditions of approval attached to this decision require the roof of the animal exercise area to 5 be closed during nighttime hours. 6 Transportation and Circulation. The Final EIR finds that the contribution to traffic in the 7 area is insignificant,particularly at peak traffic hours. In order to ensure proper circulation on-site, 8 the Final EIR establishes mitigation measures for loading and unloading and proper parking. The 9 Final EIR studied other similar facilities and found that the proposed parking will provide sufficient 10 parking so that there will be no significant impact on the area. In addition, there is abundant on- 11 street parking in the area. 12 As a product of the odor analysis, the Final EIR also dealt with water and water quality 13 issues, and the mitigation measures will ensure that waste products are kept out of the storm drain 14 and creek systems of the City. The filtering systems that will be installed in the project will improve 15 the runoff from this site from what exists now. 16 The Final EIR has been prepared with great care and completeness and provides an excellent 17 discussion of all the issues involved in this project and provides more than adequate information to 18 the City and the public on them. Persons may differ on the conclusions or the analysis. However, 19 no expert testimony or reports have been submitted that differ with the conclusions or analysis,and 20 both the Planning Commission and the City Council find the information and analysis more than 21 sufficient to proceed to a decision on the application. 22 The Final EIR concludes that there are no potentially significant impacts that cannot be 23 mitigated to less than significant by the proposed mitigation measures. In addition,this discussion 24 has led to additional conditions of approval on the project that would reduce those impacts even 25 further. 26 Recirculation. There is no requirement in CEQA that all new information that is received 27 after the Final EIR is released but prior to certification and the decision on the project has to be 28 included in the Final EIR. Instead, the decision makers (Planning Commission and City Council) 5 1 can determine if the new information is "significant" and therefore requires revision and 2 recirculation of some kind or to some extent. 3 First, in determining this issue, the City must decide if the information is new. 4 Second,the City must decide if the new information that was received after the completion 5 of the Final EIR is significant. "Significant"means: 6 1. The new information shows a new,substantial environmental impact resulting either 7 from the project or from a mitigation measure; or 8 2. The new information shows a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental 9 impact. However,recirculation is not required if mitigation that reduces the impact 10 to insignificance is adopted; or 11 3. The new information shows a feasible alternative or mitigation measure that is 12 considerably different from those considered in the EIR that clearly would lessen the 13 environmental impacts of the project, and the applicant refuses to adopt it. 14 Recirculation is not required when the new information merely clarifies or amplifies information 15 already contained in the Final EIR. In addition, disagreement about the conclusions, or between 16 experts about information, contained in the Final EIR is not a basis for requiring recirculation. 17 Opponents to the proposed project contend that the Final EIR needs to be recirculated for the 18 following reasons: 19 1. The opponents have found some tadpoles nearby and believe that there may be red-legged 20 frogs in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. The opponents have not provided 21 any expert analysis of the situation nor have they described how this project would in any way affect 22 the habitat that they believe might contain the frogs. This is not new information nor is it significant. 23 From the inception of the City's study of this project,the City identified the nearby red-legged frog 24 habitat as an issue—Initial Study at pages 23-24: 25 a. No Impact. The project site is fully developed and no suitable habitat for special-status plant or animal species is present. California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 26 draytonii),a federally listed Threatened species,is known to occur in the project area and has been documented approximately 0.25 mile from the project site within a freshwater drainage 27 (North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan 2004). The project site is located approximately 190 feet south of the Mills Creek tidal drainage channel and approximately 28 440 feet north of the Easton Creek tidal drainage channel. Although these off-site channels 6 1 are tidally influenced and do not provide optimal habitat, they could support red-legged frogs.The proposed prof ect does not include any alterations or construction-related activities 2 within 190 feet of these drainages. Additionally, red-legged frogs would not be expect to disperse onto the site from these drainages given the lack of suitable habitat on the project 3 site and adjacent properties, and due to the presence of buildings, paved areas, and fences that would inhibit movement of individuals of this species. Given the above,no impacts to 4 special-status species are expected to occur. b.No Impact.No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities occur on the 5 project site.The prof ect site is located approximately 190 feet from the Mills Creek drainage channel and 440 feet from the Easton Creek drainage channel; the NB/RR Specific Plan 6 designates both of these drainages as"Natural Areas."The proposed project would not result in any alterations to these drainages or associated vegetation. Therefore, no impacts to 7 riparian or other sensitive natural communities would occur. c.No Impact. There are no jurisdictional resources as defined by Section 404 of the 8 Clean Water Act on the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in any alterations to the off-site drainage channels in the project area, that is,Mills Creek and 9 Easton Creek. Therefore, no impacts to jurisdictional resources would occur. d.No Impact. Due to the location of the project site within an urban/industrial area, 10 the developed condition of the project site, and the lack of contiguous or otherwise suitable wildlife habitat on the project site, the project site is not part of an established wildlife 11 movement corridor or a native wildlife nursery site. Therefore, no related impacts would occur. 12 13 A similar discussion was contained in the Draft EIR at pages 7.0-8 to 7.0-10. 14 The project opponents did not provide any comment on this issue until a letter dated April 15 29, 2007, some six months after the public comment period on the EIR concluded. The letter was 16 apparently drafted by citizens without any review by any expert on biological, water, or habitat 17 matters. The letter contained no new or significant information. In addition,the applicant retained 18 an expert to respond to the opponents' letter, which confirmed the conclusions of both the Initial 19 Study and the Draft EIR. 20 2. The opponents' attorney did not discover the technical reports and initial study that were 21 provided in every copy of the Draft EIR on compact disk in Adobe .pdf form until after the public 22 comment period closed. The opponents contend that this deprived the public of an opportunity to 23 review the technical reports. 24 The compact disk is obviously placed on the end flap of the Draft EIR and is readily readable 25 on almost any computer. The contents are referenced throughout the Draft EIR. Hard copies of the 26 contents were readily available to any person who requested them from the City Planning 27 Department throughout the Public Comment period. In November 2006, the City also placed the 28 contents of the compact disk on the City's website together with the EIR materials. 7 1 From September 2006 to June 2007, only one person commented on the availability of the 2 materials on the compact disk, and that was the opponents' attorney. The comments from the 3 attorney about the technical reports, in particular noise, were addressed in the Response to 4 Comments Document at pages 3.0-24 to 3.0-27 and the issue was fully aired at the public hearings 5 on the proposed project. 6 Nothing about the availability of the materials on the compact disk or the materials 7 themselves or comments about the materials constitutes new significant information or requires 8 recirculation. 9 3. As discussed elsewhere, the alternatives to the proposed project were extensively 10 discussed in the Draft EIR and no new information regarding alternatives was developed that was 11 significant or new. Instead,the City found an additional Alternative 4(1350/1360 Rollins Road)in 12 order to ensure a full discussion of alternatives,and review of the Rollins Road alternative confirmed 13 the alternatives analysis that was contained in the Draft EIR, particularly given that the proposed 14 project did not have any potential significant impacts that could not be mitigated to less than 15 significant. 16 There appears to be no real basis to the opponents' request that the CEQA process on this 17 proposed project be delayed by recirculating the Final EIR,nor have the opponents described how 18 recirculation would result in any new, significant information. No new significant information has 19 been received that would require recirculation. 20 Alternatives. State law requires an EIR to identify and describe a reasonable range of 21 alternatives so that the decision makers,such as the City Council and the Planning Commission,and 22 the public can evaluate the comparative merits of a proposed project against alternatives on an 23 impact-by-impact basis. 24 An alternatives discussion is required even though the EIR may conclude that all potentially 25 significant environmental impacts of a proposed project can be reduced to insignificant levels by 26 mitigation measures. 27 First,the CEQA Guidelines require that a"no project"alternative be discussed. In this FEIR, 28 the "no project" alternative is to leave all of the applicant's activities at their current location at 8 1 Coyote Point. The effect of such a decision on Burlingame is discussed at length in the Draft EIR. 2 Leaving or enhancing activities at Coyote Point is not before the City Council; that is left to other 3 agencies. 4 CEQA then requires identification and discussion of other alternatives measured by a rule 5 of reason,with an analysis of the alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned approach. The analysis 6 must be specific enough to permit informed decision-making and public participation; it does not 7 need to consider in detail each and every conceivable variation of the alternatives stated. It also is 8 not necessary to consider every alternative that might be suggested. 9 In instances where the EIR determines that all potentially significant environmental impacts 10 can be avoided or substantially reduced by mitigation measures,the City is not required to make any 11 findings on the feasibility of proposed alternatives. 12 Finally, CEQA does not require the City to select or impose an alternative even though the 13 alternative may have less of an environmental effect than the proposed project. 14 In this FEIR, a reduced density alternative is discussed that shows that with a different mix 15 of animals, some of the noise impacts might be further reduced. The Draft EIR also identified and 16 discussed two alternatives that were not located in Burlingame, but which had problems of 17 acquisition. The Draft EIR identified and discussed at length an alternative site on Adrian Road that 18 would also lend itself to different noise impacts. This alternative provided a useful analysis of how 19 the project might function at a different location off Rollins Road and closer to the Bayshore 20 Freeway. However,following release of the Draft EIR,the owner of that real property wrote the City 21 that he did not have a current intent to sell the property. 22 While the Draft EIR found that there were no significant impacts that could not be mitigated 23 by the proposed mitigations,the City went ahead and identified and analyzed another property that 24 was available in Burlingame for a long-term lease that would satisfy most of the project objectives 25 of the applicant. This site was similar to the site that had been identified on Adrian Road and 26 completed a good description of options in Burlingame. 27 Because the Draft EIR found no remaining significant impacts, the City was not obligated 28 to discuss or determine the feasibility of the alternatives that were identified.However,the City has 9 1 done so in the FEIR and identified the limitations and advantages posed by each of the alternatives. 2 The possible eviction or extension of a lease between the applicant and the County of San 3 Mateo, or the future of animal control in this County, has never been an issue for the Planning 4 Commission or the City Council with regard to this application. The City properly removed that 5 issue from the feasibility discussion of alternatives in the Final EIR because it was so speculative. 6 In addition, the applicant submitted an extensive discussion of the efforts that it had made 7 to locate alternative sites throughout San Mateo County in a memorandum dated May 8, 2007. 8 The opponents to the project have told the City that it has to analyze a different parcel of 9 some 42 acres in Half Moon Bay that has become available for purchase. The City finds that 10 suggesting that an adoption center for the County that depends on volunteers should be located on 11 the other side of the Santa Cruz Mountains from its clients and volunteers is unreasonable. 12 Commonsense tells us as well that this alternative does not work for an adoption center. 13 It is the City's obligation to determine if the alternatives discussion in the Final EIR provides 14 sufficient information to measure the comparative impacts of the proposed project against a 15 reasonable range of alternatives. This EIR has done so. The Final EIR contains alternatives that 16 have been independently selected and analyzed by the City. This Council and the public know what 17 leaving the services at Coyote Point would look like for the City and what impacts that might have; 18 what a smaller project would look like and what impacts that might have; what a project at two 19 different locations in the City would look like and what impacts they might have; and even what a 20 project in San Carlos or Half Moon Bay in more general terms might look like, together with the 21 feasibility of each of those alternatives. 22 This is a reasonable range of alternatives with sufficiently detailed analysis of impacts, 23 benefits, and feasibility. The Planning Commission and the City Council are well-informed about 24 what alternatives might be available to this proposal. 25 26 Parking Determination 27 Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.70.042 provides as follows: 28 For uses not listed in the above schedule of required parking,spaces shall be supplied 10 1 on the same basis as provided for the most similar use, or as determined by the city planner. 2 For such determination such matters as type of use and user,number of employees,number 3 of visitors and similar factors shall be considered,in any case,where the decision of the city 4 planner is contested by the applicant, his or her decision may be appealed to the planning 5 commission. The commission may approve, disapprove or modify the decision of the city 6 planner. 7 The City Planner recommended a parking ratio for use as an animal shelter or animal rescue facility 8 because such a use was not listed in the parking schedule in Chapter 25.70. This determination will 9 apply to future animal shelter or animal rescue facilities in the City. 10 Fehr & Peers, the subconsultant to Impact Sciences in preparing the Final EIR, surveyed 11 other facilities to determine parking demand. Fehr & Peers recommended a parking standard of 12 between 1.56 and 1.66. City staff confirmed the data derived by Fehr and Peers,and confirmed that 13 none of the facilities seemed to have any parking problems. Parking requirements for similar uses 14 in other cities' zoning codes seemed to fall in a similar range. 15 With regard to accessory outdoor habitats such as aviaries,staff found that the City&County 16 of San Francisco has a Zoning Code standard of 1 parking space per 4,000 square feet(0.25 per one 17 thousand square feet) for greenhouses. 18 The Planning Commission determined that aparking ratio of 1.6 parking spaces per thousand 19 square feet (or 1 parking space per 625 square feet) for an animal shelter or animal rescue facility 20 was a good standard to apply to such uses in the City. In addition,the Commission determined that 21 when used in conjunction with such an animal shelter or rescue facility, an aviary would require 1 22 parking space,based on the analysis that found that the presence of one employee on the project site 23 would be attributable to the aviary. 24 In order to make a clear city-wide standard, the City Council adopts the recommended 25 standard of 1.6 parking spaces per thousand square feet(or 1 space per 625 square feet) for animal 26 shelters or animal rescue facilities, and further that a requirement of 1 space per 5,000 square feet 27 be established for outdoor habitat provided in connection with such facilities. 28 11 1 Conditional use permit for height 2 The M-1 District provided that any structure over thirty-five (35) feet in height required 3 review as a conditional use. Former Burlingame Municipal Code §25.44.030(17). In other words, 4 if a property owner wanted to go above thirty-five feet,the Planning Commission was to review the 5 structure as a conditional use under the Zoning Code to determine whether it was appropriately 6 located and designed. 7 Project opponents argue that the City should not be allowed to permit structures in the City 8 to exceed any height limit without a variance. 9 Consistent with State law, conditional use permits are governed by Municipal Code § 10 25.52.010 as follows: 11 (a) Conditional use permits may be issued as provided in this chapter for any of the uses 12 or purposes for which such permits are required or permitted by the terms of this article upon 13 conditions designated by the planning commission. 14 (b) The purpose of the use permit is to allow the proper integration into the community 15 of uses which may be suitable only in specific locations in a zoning district, or only if such 16 uses are designed or arranged on the site in a particular manner. 17 (c) The planning commission may impose such requirements and conditions with respect 18 to location,construction,maintenance,operation,site planning,traffic control and time limits 19 for the use permit as it deems necessary for the protection of adjacent properties and the 20 public interest. The commission may require tangible guarantees or evidence that such 21 conditions are being, or will be, complied with. 22 The first sentence of Section 25.44.030 specifically provides that uses such as heights over thirty-five 23 feet are a use: "The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit:" In addition, buildings 24 above certain heights in many of the City's zoning districts (Sections 25.28.060, 25.40.025(e), 25 25.42.030(h), 25.45.025(k), 25.47.025(1), 25.48.025(a), 25.49.025(f)) are governed by special and 26 conditional use permit provisions as a valuable part of integrating good building design into the 27 community. 28 The Planning Commission unanimously determined that the proposed height of the project 12 1 at forty-one feet six inches was appropriate. This height allows the applicant to adequately screen 2 the mechanical equipment on the roof and to make the design of the structure of the building more 3 pleasing to the eye. 4 Nothing about this additional height will be harmful or injurious to property or improvements 5 in the vicinity, and no evidence was presented that it would be detrimental to the public health, 6 safety, general welfare or convenience. In fact, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan 7 contemplates building heights of up to sixty feet,and taller buildings are encouraged;therefore,the 8 proposed height is consistent with the Burlingame General Plan and Specific Plan. The building 9 height approved in this decision is limited to the locations found on the approved plans and any 10 increase in height or any expansion of the area of the building would require additional design 11 review and approvals under the Zoning Code. Therefore,the conditional use permit for height meets 12 the terms of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.52.020. 13 14 Conditional Use Permit for Animal Shelter or Animal Rescue Facility 15 On May 9, 2005, the Planning Commission determined that an animal shelter or animal 16 rescue facility application could be made in the M-1 District for a conditional use permit under then- 17 existing Section 25.44.030(22): "Any commercial or industrial use similar in nature to a permitted 18 or conditional use in this or any other district." That final decision has now resulted in this 19 application coming forward for review under the City's conditional use permit standards of Chapter 20 25.52. 21 The proposed project has been reviewed under a Final EIR that found no potentially 22 significant impact that could not be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measures. 23 The City has drafted additional conditions of approval that address operation,parking, odor,noise, 24 class sizes, and a myriad of other aspects of the project. There is abundant on-street parking in the 25 vicinity. 26 The applicant has submitted extensive documentation and testimony regarding the storm 27 drainage in the vicinity,the proposed handling of waste,the operational details of the use, and even 28 an economic study showing its possible effect on the area. Testimony and documentation also shows 13 1 that similar facilities are operating in commercial and industrial areas with no discernible adverse 2 impacts. With regard to parking,the applicant has shown that should additional parking be needed 3 on-site, a system and space are available to install lifts for additional spaces. 4 Finally, it appears that the site was previously used for animal research without any 5 noticeable effects on surrounding properties. 6 The City Council is convinced that this project as conditioned by this decision will not be 7 harmful or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, nor will it be detrimental to the 8 public health,safety,general welfare or convenience. The community has overwhelmingly testified 9 to the need and usefulness of the proposed project, and the suitability of the location. 10 This Council expressly found that animal shelters and animal rescue facilities in this area 11 were consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in June 2006. That decision 12 was affirmed by the San Mateo Superior Court in April 2007. The community has looked long and 13 hard at this area, and concluded that it should remain in light industrial uses such as this proposed 14 project, and this project is consistent with and compatible with the goals and objectives of the 15 Specific and General Plans. 16 The comprehensive set of conditions of approval has established the standard for this 17 particular project, as well as future developments in the Edwards Court neighborhood. Finally, the 18 conditions of approval establish a regular review period to ensure that the operation of the project is 19 meeting expectations for parking impacts and parking issues related to the project are not causing a 20 nuisance in the neighborhood. 21 Therefore, the conditional use permit for use as an animal shelter or animal rescue facility 22 meets the terms of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.52.020. 23 24 Design Review 25 The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan establishes design guidelines for projects 26 in the area. These are spelled out at pages 4.0-11 to 4.0-12 of the Response to Comments and 27 Revisions to Draft EIR Document. The project meets or exceeds each of the standards set out in the 28 Plan,including landscaping,build-to lines,and fencing. These guidelines were more fully delineated 14 1 in the adoption of the implementing zoning of the RR District. Although the RR District specifics 2 do not apply to this application,which was made under the preexisting zoning,this project complies 3 with those standards. 4 The applicant provided a detailed, physical model that demonstrated that the project will 5 integrate into the area well. 6 The Planning Commission,which had drafted the Specific Plan and the design guidelines and 7 had studied the project in four public meetings, determined that the proposed design met the design 8 standards for the area as set out in the Specific Plan. 9 The City Council further finds that the proposed project meets not just the standards but the lo intent of the Plan's design guidelines.The City undertook a deliberative process to look long and hard 11 at this area in 2002 to 2004 and decided to keep this area as a light industrial neighborhood with this 12 type of use. 13 Floor area ratio (FAR) in the City of Burlingame is generally governed by the definitions in 14 Section 25.08.265(a): 15 "Floor area ratio" or"FAR"means the ratio of the gross square footage of the floor 16 area of a building or buildings to the lot on which the building or buildings are located.FAR 17 for any lot includes new structures to be built and those remaining. 18 Section 25.08.264-1: 19 "Floor area, gross square footage"means the total area of all floors of a building or 20 buildings as measured to the outside surfaces of the exterior walls of the structure or structures 21 and including such areas as halls, stairways, covered porches and balconies, covered 22 walkways and arcades, elevator shafts, service and mechanical equipment rooms and 23 basements, cellars, and improved space in attic areas. 24 And Section 25.08.410 of the Municipal Code: 25 "Lot area"means the total horizontal area within the boundary lines of a lot. 26 No deductions from lot area are taken for easements. The sidewalk required in Condition of 27 Approval No. 32 does not reduce the lot size. In calculating floor area ratio, the City counts the 28 conditioned and covered areas of structures. Uncovered areas are not, and have not, been counted 15 1 toward floor area of a structure. The M-1 District did not have any maximum floor area ratio, and 2 neither does the recently adopted RR District. 3 The proposed project will encompass 51,270 square feet of covered structure on a lot area of 4 51,270 square feet. In addition, the project will include a 5,940 square foot aviary that will "be 5 enclosed in a barely visible high strength mesh fabric often seen in zoos." DEIR,at page 3.0-21. The 6 materials of the screen have been provided for review to both the Planning and the City Council. 7 There will be no roof on the aviary/outdoor habitat; during inclement weather, the aviary/outdoor 8 habitat would be partially covered. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan sets a 9 maximum Floor Area Ratio standard of 1.0, which this project would meet. 10 The FEIR describes the aesthetics of the building and includes the aviary/outdoor habitat in 11 analyzing the overall bulk and mass of the building's appearance. However,it was not the intent of 12 the Specific Plan to include an open, un-roofed, and unconditioned aviary in the calculation of a 13 maximum FAR. Such an interpretation would disallow similar amenities, such as outdoor dining, 14 rooftop gardens, and recreation area, in the Specific Plan area. In addition, the Specific Plan 15 specifically recognizes that the FAR that is encompassed within the Plan policies is related to traffic 16 impacts and protecting habitat or creeks. It is clear that the aviary/outdoor habitat will not generate 17 any additional traffic and functions entirely as just an animal enclosure. In addition, Condition of 18 Approval No. 1 specifically provides that"the aviary and outdoor habitat shall never be covered with 19 a permanent roof or be converted to conditioned space." Therefore, the proposed FAR meets the 20 standard of the Specific Plan. 21 The building's design, including mass and bulk, meets the letter and intent of the North 22 Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. 23 24 Miscellaneous Issues 25 The CC&R's for this subdivision are under litigation between the applicant and project 26 opponents, and the court has apparently not yet determined the validity or applicability of the 27 CC&R's. Therefore, the private contracts and disputes between the opponents and the applicant 28 cannot affect the City's decision, and any consideration of those CC&R's and their effect would be 16 1 entirely speculative. 2 The ongoing negotiations between the applicant and the County of San Mateo have not played 3 a part in this decision. The City has purposefully and intentionally removed any reference to the 4 possibility of the termination of the agreement for animal control services between the applicant and 5 the County or termination of the lease of the real property at Coyote Point from the Final EIR in 6 connection with judging the feasibility of the alternatives available.Any such discussion would only 7 be speculative at best. The City Planner was both justified and authorized to make that decision, and 8 her judgment in making that decision is expressly affirmed. 9 Project opponents have accused the applicant of fraud in the applicant's Environmental 10 Information Form and have contended that the City must deny the application on that ground alone. 11 Whether anyone believes what the opponents allege in this connection, the City, through its staff, 12 consultants, Planning Commission, and City Council, as well as its public process, has subjected 13 every request and aspect of applicant's application to over two years of testing and analysis. 14 Therefore,even if the opponents'allegations are true in any particular,no fraud has occurred because 15 the City has not taken that original information sheet at face value. 16 Finally,the City Council formally rejects the allegations made by project opponents that the 17 City Council,the Planning Commission,or City staff have been agents of the applicant or have been 18 improperly influenced by members of the governing board of the applicant. 19 20 NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows with regard to the 21 application for use of the real property at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court as an animal 22 shelter/animal rescue facility: 23 1. The Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR,the Response to Comments and Revisions to 24 the Draft EIR Document, and the Initial Study and Technical Studies, adequately discloses and 25 discusses the potential significant impacts ofthe proposed project,provides sufficient,understandable 26 mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to less than significant, and reflects the independent 27 judgment and analysis of the City. 28 2. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental 17 1 Quality Act, and the Final EIR has been reviewed and considered in making this decision. 2 3. The decision of the Planning Commission is affirmed as follows and with the changes as 3 described: 4 a. A parking standard of one parking space for each 625 square feet of gross floor area is 5 established for animal shelters and animal rescue facilities in the City. Any outdoor habitat area,such 6 as an aviary, in connection with such a shelter or facility shall require one parking space for each 7 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. 8 b. A conditional use permit for a building height of forty-one feet six inches, a conditional 9 use permit for use of the property as an animal shelter/animal rescue facility, and design review of 10 the proposed project are approved subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A hereto. 11 This resolution shall be recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo. 12 This decision is a final administrative decision of the City of Burlingame. Anyone wishing 13 to challenge this decision in a court of competent jurisdiction must do so within 90 days pursuant to 14 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. 15 16 17 Mayor 18 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 19 foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18m day of June, 2007, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: 20 21 AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: 22 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: 23 24 City Clerk 25 26 27 28 18 I EXHIBIT A 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR USE AS AN ANIMAL SHELTER/ANIMAL RESCUE FACILITY, 3 AND DESIGN REVIEW OF STRUCTURES AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT,BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 Construction 7 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department 8 date stamped April 17, 2007, A.1 through A5.2 and CLI, and that any changes to building 9 materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an 10 amendment to this permit; that the hardscape in the memorial garden area shall be paved 11 with pervious material to support the landscaping and runoff from the site and that the 12 aviary and outdoor habitat shall never be covered with a permanent roof or be converted 13 to conditioned space(Planning) 14 15 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 26, 2006,August 22, 2005 and 16 July 1, 2005,memos,the City Engineer's April 24, 2006, August 24, 2005 and July 7, 17 2005,memos, the Fire Marshal's April 24, 2006,memo, the City Arborist's April 26, 18 2006 and August 31, 2005 memos, the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2006 and July 6, 19 2005,memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 24, 2006 and July 5, 2005, memos 20 shall be met; (Building,Public Works, Fire, Planning) 21 22 3. that any hazardous materials on the site and in the existing building to be demolished 23 shall be investigated and identified by a licensed engineer who will prepare a plan for 24 their removal which shall be approved by the Burlingame Fire Department and Building 25 Division before a building permit is issued; and that any such material shall be removed 26 in compliance with regulations and the plan before demolition of the building can 27 commence; (Building, Fire) 28 EXHIBIT A- 1 1 4. that the building plans for all new construction and remodel of any existing structure on 2 this site shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention 3 in the Burlingame Municipal Code before issuance of a building permit, and all 4 construction shall be inspected for compliance with these requirements as a part of the 5 final building inspection; (Public Works, Building) 6 7 5. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second 8 half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of$5,384.82, 9 made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 10 (Building, Planning) 11 12 6. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm 13 Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; (Public Works) 14 15 7. that the project shall include an on-site filtration system designed to remove solid 16 material generated from this use which could reduce the capacity of the City's sewer 17 collection system serving this site and area,the location and filter system design and 18 maintenance schedule shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the 19 issuance of a building permit; the installation of the filter system shall be inspected by the 20 Building and Public Works as a part of the regular construction inspections on the site; 21 and following installation during operation of the facility the filter system installation 22 shall be inspected regularly on a schedule determined by the staff of the Waste Water 23 Treatment plant; all material cleaned regularly from the filters shall be stored in 24 containers and disposed of by the same method as the soiled cat litter; failure to provide, 25 maintain and properly dispose of filtered material and used filters shall cause review of 26 the conditional use permit for this use on this site. (Public Works, Building) 27 28 EXHIBIT A- 2 1 8. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a 2 complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and 3 irrigation plans at time of permit application; (Public Works) 4 5 9. that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined where possible and 6 installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting 7 details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit 8 is issued; (Building) 9 10 10. that any changes to the size or envelope of building,which would include changing or 1 I adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural 12 features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 13 (Planning) 14 15 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed Exterior Lighting Plan shall be 16 provided to the City of Burlingame for review. The lighting plan shall be based on the 17 following standards: 18 19 (a) The cone of light shall be focused on the site and stray light shall be controlled 20 through use of low-brightness fixtures with optical controls; 21 (b) All exterior light sources shall be shielded and fully blocked from off-site views, 22 except for the street address; 23 (c) No lighting of the structure or vegetation will be permitted from any outdoor light 24 fixture; and 25 (d) On-demand exterior lighting systems shall be employed where feasible. Area 26 lighting and security lighting will be controlled by the use of timed switches 27 and/or motion detectors. (Building,Planning) 28 EXHIBIT A - 3 1 12. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading for site preparation shall be 2 required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to 3 issuance of a demolition and building permit by the Building division; that no such 4 demolition and site work shall occur until after a building permit has been issued; and 5 that all requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit shall be 6 complied with during construction; (Building) 7 8 13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling 9 Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to 10 submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full 11 demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12 (Building) 13 14 14. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public 15 right-of-way shall be prohibited; (Public Works) 16 17 15. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of 18 Burlingame Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 19 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 20 p.m. on Sundays and holidays; (Building) 21 22 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or designer, or another 23 architect or design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the 24 architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, 25 such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; 26 architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be 27 submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 28 (Planning, Building) EXHIBIT A - 4 1 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the 2 highest point of the building (roof ridge, parapet or mechanical screening) and provide 3 certification of that height to the Building Department; (Building) 4 5 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance 6 of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has 7 been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (Planning) 8 9 19. that the landscaping noted on sheets L-2 and L-3 shall be installed according to plan and 10 shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive 11 on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; and that prior to 12 issuance of a building permit, the Planning Commission shall review the revised 13 landscape plans as an FYI item; (Planning, Building) 14 15 20. that tree grates selected by the City and consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins 16 Road Specific Plan design criteria shall be installed around all trees to be planted in 17 sidewalk areas on Trousdale Drive,per City guidelines; (Planning, Building) 18 19 21. that the project landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist 20 prior to issuance of any grading and/or building permits, and all landscaping shall be 21 installed prior to scheduling final inspection. (Building) 22 23 22. that during demolition of the existing stracture(s), site preparation and construction of the 24 structure(s),the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as 25 identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site 26 sedimentation of storm water runoff; (Public Works) 27 28 EXHIBIT A- 5 1 23. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing 2 BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from 3 entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property 4 lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of 5 cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; 6 existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas 7 on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access 8 routes, Staging areas and washout areas; that compliance shall also include the 9 requirements of the conditions included the mitigation monitoring plan; (Public Works) 10 11 24. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff 12 shall be diverted around exposed construction areas; (Public Works) 13 14 25. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt 15 fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and 16 covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain 17 temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion 18 controls have been established; (Public Works) 19 20 26. that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, 21 petroleum products, chemicals,washwater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and 22 disposed of properly to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; 23 (Public Works, Fire) 24 25 27. that if the project is constructed during the wet season(October through May), an erosion 26 control and/or sediment control plan, compliant with the City's NPDES (stormwater 27 control)requirements, shall be prepared and implemented, to the satisfaction of the Public 28 EXHIBIT A- 6 1 Works Department, prior to the onset of the wet season, and shall be maintained 2 throughout the construction period; (Public Works) 3 4 28. that all project grading, construction and subsequent operations shall comply with the 5 provisions of the City's NPDES requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 6 (SWPPP) outlining construction phase and post-construction phase measures to reduce 7 pollutant discharge from the site shall be submitted for review and approval by the 8 Engineering Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits; (Public Works) 9 10 29. that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in 11 designated areas which runoff is contained and treated; (Public Works) 12 13 30. that construction access routes are limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the 14 public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping 15 methods; (Public Works) 16 17 31. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, 18 promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides; 19 (Planning, Public Works) 20 21 32. that the property owner shall, as a part of project construction, widen the sidewalks,place 22 a root barrier along the inner edge of the sidewalk, and build the sidewalks to City 23 sidewalk standards along the Rollins Road and Edwards Court frontages of the property; 24 that the sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width; and-that the required 25 street trees as shown on the approved plans shall be placed two feet from the inner edge 26 of the sidewalk with supporting irrigation installed from the project site; (Public Works, 27 Planning, Building) 28 EXHIBIT A - 7 1 33. that the project contractor shall implement best management practices for noise reduction, 2 such as muffling and shielding intakes and exhausts of gas powered tools, generators, and 3 other noise-producing equipment.; (Building) 4 5 34. that trucks shall be fully loaded to minimize the number of necessary trips and to further 6 reduce noise related to truck travel; (Public Works) 7 8 35. that during construction radios on-site shall be limited to those needed to manage the 9 construction activity. (Building) 10 11 36. that the project shall have a LEEDS certification with silver as the goal, and that the 12 LEEDS checklist shall be submitted as an FYI item to the Planning Commission before 13 the building permit is issued; (Planning) 14 15 37. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform 16 Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building) 17 18 Operation 19 38. that the following services shall never be allowed at the PHS/SPCA Center for 20 Compassion: initial triage; dead animal pick-up and disposal; housing of stray animals; 21 housing of aggressive animals prior to a mandated hearing; quarantine for rabies and 22 other possible zoonoitic illnesses; euthanasia of animals without the presence of their 23 owners and an appointment; spay/neuter for the public's animals and shelter animals; lost 24 and found services, 24/7 animal ambulance service, local code enforcement, and, except 25 in circumstances of individual members of the public misunderstanding, animal 26 receiving; (Planning) 27 28 EXHIBIT A - 8 1 39. that the Center shall have a maximum of 30 staff people on-site at any one time 2 consisting of both paid professionals and volunteers; the Center shall have a maximum of 3 two people present on-site after business hours for 24-hour coverage; that any permanent 4 increase in the number of employees over 30 on site at any one time shall require an 5 amendment to this permit; shall accommodate a maximum of 200 domestic animals and 6 218 native animals at one time, and shall never exceed the number of 45 dogs on site at 7 one time; (Planning) 8 9 40. that to reduce barking, all dogs kept at the facility shall be neutered at the Coyote Point or 10 other site before arrival unless a veterinarian recommends that the neutering procedure 11 would be unsafe for the animal's health or age, when this is the case the Center shall be 12 responsible for the neutering of the animal when it is determined to be safe; (Planning) 13 14 41. that the Center may not be open for business for adoptions, animal deliveries or 15 permitted veterinary services except during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven 16 days a week; in addition to business hours classes/educational activities may occur 17 between 10:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. seven days a week,with the last class ending no later 18 than 10:00 p.m.; class and educational events shall be scheduled with a minimum of 19 fifteen(15) minutes between classes/educational events to insure adequate turnover of 20 on-site parking; (Planning) 21 22 42. that because of on-site parking the maximum class size shall be limited to 20 students; for 23 animal behavior classes, the class size shall be limited to ten pet owners and a maximum 24 of 2 instructors at one time; instructors of animal behavior classes shall be in the parking 25 lot to meet students and shall escort them to their vehicles at the end of the class; 26 (Planning) 27 28 EXHIBIT A- 9 1 43. that the facility operator shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to determine a feasible 2 directional program to the facility site including on site parking, the facility operator shall 3 fund the signage and its installation; (Public Works, Planning) 4 5 44. that only one bus at a time shall bring visitors or students to the animal rescue and shelter 6 facility, parking for the bus shall be provided at a pre-arranged location and the green 7 curb adequate for loading and unloading shall be retained along the Rollins Road street 8 frontage of the site; (Planning) 9 10 45. that a parking study using methodology approved by the City shall be prepared at the end 11 of one year, three year and five year intervals after the Center opens and, following this 12 period after the center opens at regular intervals it be determined to be necessary based on 13 the first three studies; that this study shall evaluate the use of the on-site parking 14 throughout the week and particularly during peak usage periods (including during class 15 sessions); the study shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for 16 review, should the study document that on-site parking is inadequate or that those seeking 17 parking regularly prefer to use the public street, then the facility operator shall prepare, 18 within 3 months, an alternative parking plan which shall address the reasons for the 19 parking shortages identified and ways to address them; this plan shall be reviewed and 20 approved by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer and 21 submitted to the Planning Commission for review and amendment to the conditional use 22 permit; failure to provide a remedial plan and appropriate, effective solutions for on-site 23 and off-site parking problems identified in the studies shall result in Planning 24 Commission review of the conditional use permit for the on-site program; (Planning, 25 Public Works) 26 27 46. that the retail sales area in the Center for Compassion shall be designed to serve the needs 28 of those adopting animals from the site, the sales area shall be limited to 800 SF and shall EXHIBIT A - 10 1 not be designed to be a destination or wholesale/discount location for pet supplies; 2 (Planning) 3 4 47. that any and all cleaning agents used by the facility which will be washed into the public 5 sewer or into the surface drainage serving the site shall be approved by the operator of 6 the Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant and by the City's NPDES inspector,prior to 7 their being used; failure to use approved products and demonstrated problems at the 8 City's treatment plant or surface drainage channels shall require a public hearing before 9 the Planning Commission including consideration of amendments to the conditional use 10 permit for this use; (Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant) 11 12 48. that all animals arriving at the Center for Compassion, except those accompanied by their 13 owners to participate in behavior training classes and those brought by their owners for 14 veterinarian services within 30 days of adoption, shall enter the facility only through the 15 enclosed, staff parking area; the arrival and departure of animals with their owners 16 outside of the caged parking area shall be supervised by a trained staff member who shall 17 supervise the quiet unloading and loading of the animals into their owners vehicles; 18 (Planning) 19 20 49. that no stray animals shall be accepted at the Center for Compassion, that should an 21 animal be abandoned at the Center the facility shall provide a holding cage in side the 22 building to secure the animal until the Animal Control Services have been contacted and 23 arrive to remove the animal; (Planning) 24 25 50. that the 62 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the visitors and employees of the 26 Center and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on 27 this site or by other businesses for off-site parking; (Planning) 28 EXHIBIT A- 11 1 51. that no more than fifteen (15)percent of the domestic animals, cats and dogs, housed for 2 adoption at the San Mateo Center for Compassion each year shall enter the facility from 3 locations outside of San Mateo County; that the facility operator shall provide to the 4 Community Development Director an annual report documenting by month the source of 5 the domestic animals housed on the site; this report shall be submitted to the Community 6 Development Director no later than December 30, of each year; failure to submit such a 7 report will result in review by the Planning Commission; (Planning) 8 9 52. that the facility shall have posted on the site at an accessible location an odor 10 management plan to address basic and additional measures to minimize odors such as 11 more frequent pick up, earlier in the day, application of deodorizing agents, etc.; this plan 12 shall be prepared and reviewed by the City prior to the scheduling of the final inspection; 13 the site shall be inspected for compliance with the posting of the plan and the procedures 14 set out in the plan at the same time that the waste water filter facilities are inspected, 15 failure to comply with the requirements of the plan or valid complaints shall result in a 16 report to the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board and review by the Planning 17 Commission; (Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant) 18 19 53. that, in the event of air quality violations based on odor, the property owner shall install 20 charcoal air filters or any other devise required by the Bay Area Air Quality Control 21 Board on air exhaust vents and that the air evacuation system for the building shall 22 provide for a minimum of twelve (12) air exchanges per hour; (Public Works, Building, 23 Planning) 24 25 54. that the rolling roof over the dog exercise area shall be closed between the hours of 9:00 26 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. each day; (Planning) 27 28 EXHIBIT A - 12 1 55. that the facility operator shall comply with the behavioral selection criteria set out in the 2 Response to Comments document on pages 3.0-28and 29, attached to the project 3 approval, these requirement will be enforced by requiring that this operator or any other 4 operator of this use shall comply with these criteria for selection of animals to be housed 5 on the Center site; failure to comply with these selection criteria shall cause this permit to 6 be subject to public hearing before the Planning Commission and remediation addressed 7 to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission for continued use of the site; (Planning) 8 9 56. that in the interest of safe pedestrian access to the Center and safe access across Rollins 10 Road at Edwards Court to the Center, should the traffic warrants based on the City's 11 standards for traffic signal or lighted pedestrian crosswalk ever be achieved, the property 12 owner shall fund the installation of a lighted pedestrian crosswalk or two legs of the 13 required traffic signal, whichever the City's Traffic Engineer determines to be necessary; 14 Public Works) 15 16 57. that deliveries of equipment and supplies to the facility shall be limited to trucks with a 17 maximum length of 22 feet,that such deliveries shall not be made during peak traffic 18 hours (7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or during the on-site peak parking demand 19 hours of 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. daily; the peak parking demand hours shall be confirmed in the 20 first year parking study and the truck delivery limitations adjusted if the peak on-site 21 parking hours of use is different. (Public Works, Planning) 22 23 Mitigation Monitoring Plan 24 58. that the project's design shall be consistent with the proposed site plan,building 25 elevations, and landscaping plan illustrated in Figures 3.0-2, 3.0-3, and 3.0-6 of the Draft 26 EIR. Any alternations to the final approved design shall require approval from the City 27 prior to implementation and be determined to be consistent with the conclusions of the 28 environmental impact report; (Planning) EXHIBIT A - 13 1 59. that the landscaping on-site shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. Trees 2 along Rollins Road and Edwards Court shall be replaced in minimum 24-inch box size if 3 any of the trees planted along these roads become severely diseased or do not survive. 4 The City shall approve any changes to the landscaping plan illustrated on Figure 3.0-6 of 5 this EIR; (Planning) 6 7 Lighting 8 60. that to minimize light and glare low profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward 9 shall be used for the parking lot area and all security lighting including that in the rear of 10 the building;(Building) 11 12 61. that shielded fixtures shall be used on all exterior fixtures except lights to illuminate signs 13 at the project site to minimize glare produced by lighting on-site; (Building) 14 15 62. that all lighting associated with the project shall comply with by the City's Illumination 16 Ordinance;(Planning,Building) 17 18 63. that all signs shall have indirect illumination with shielded focused fixtures or be back lit 19 or ground lit to avoid flooding adjacent walls with light; (Planning,Building) 20 21 Waste Handling and Treatment 22 64. that cat feces and urine, including cat litter, shall be bagged daily into heavy duty 23 industrial plastic bags, sealed tight with duct tape, and placed in United Nations (UN) and 24 Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) approved sealed-tight steel drums, up to 25 55-gallons, with removable lids and locking ring located in an enclosed are within the 26 building or parking structure of the Center. The drums shall be picked up twice a week, 27 or more frequently as required to control odor,by a qualified contractor and disposed of 28 at a landfill that accepts cat litter and diatomaceous earth;(Public Works) EXHIBIT A - 14 1 65. that waste from dogs shall be disposed into the sanitary sewer. Each individual kennel 2 and room shall have drains that feed into the sanitary sewer. A manual grate shall be 3 placed over each drain to allow PHS/SPCA staff to dispose of feces directly into the 4 sewer line. The grate shall be closed at all times, except during cleaning. The disposal 5 drain shall have an automatic flushing system,with a flush valve. Kennel floors shall be 6 washed frequently and appropriately disinfected daily; (Public Works, Wastewater 7 Treatment Plant) 8 9 66. that dog feces produced in the Indoor Dog Exercise area shall be collected in the kennel 10 drain system into the sanitary sewer;(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant) 11 12 67. that animal waste from the wildlife housed in small enclosures shall be disposed of into 13 drains that discharge into the sanitary sewer;(Building, Public Works) 14 15 68. that the animal waste from the native wildlife enclosed in the stationary aviaries and 16 duck/diving pools shall be hosed down into sewage drains,which connect to the sanitary 17 sewer. The outdoor wildlife areas shall be hosed with water and appropriately disinfected 18 daily;(Public Works) 19 20 Odor 21 69. that an odor management plan shall be developed by the owner and approved by the City 22 of Burlingame. The odor management plan shall include: 23 a. Outdoor areas shall be cleaned frequently; 24 b. Waste shall be stored properly and collected for disposal frequently; 25 C. Odor neutralizers shall be used; 26 d. A wind sock shall be used to determine in what direction the odors would drift 27 and trash containers shall be placed in order to minimize drift created by 28 prevailing winds; EXHIBIT A- 15 1 e. Trash receptacles shall not be left in sunlight; and 2 f. Trash receptacles shall have high surrounding fences and overhang.(Public 3 Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant) 4 5 Noise 6 70. that dogs shall be housed in kennels that are designed to minimize the view of other dogs 7 to eliminate or reduce barking. Dogs shall only share a kennel with dogs that have been 8 specifically matched for compatibility as approved by the licensed veterinarian on-site; 9 (Planning) 10 11 71. that the acoustics of the facility shall be constructed and designed with specific materials 12 and elements as approved by a noise consultant to attenuate noise, including barking. 13 This includes,but is not limited to the following: 14 a. Minimum sound isolation properties of the classroom exterior windows shall be 15 STC 24; 16 b. Acoustical tile shall be used for the ceiling above the dog kennels; 17 C. The windows and ceiling pads in the lobby area shall have a minimum STC 24 18 isolation rating, with a single layer of 5/8 gypsum for the ceiling and a single pane 19 of 1/8-inch glass for the window; and 20 d. The minimum reduction from any component of the exterior wall of the building 21 shall be STC 24 for the windows, assuming a single pane of 1/8-inch 22 glass.(Planning) 23 24 72. that prior to acceptance at the Center, dogs shall be screened by professional animal 25 behaviorists for serious behavioral problems (e.g., constant barking, aggression, food 26 guarding, etc.). A dog diagnosed with behavioral problems shall not be transferred to the 27 Center unless that behavior is treated and determined to be resolved by a licensed 28 veterinarian prior to transfer;(Planning) EXHIBIT A - 16 I Parking/Circulation/Traffic 2 73. that the applicant shall notify vendors using the site that deliveries made by vehicles 3 greater than 22 feet must use the joint access easement. Vehicles less than 22 feet would 4 be allowed to use the parking area. To the extent possible, the applicant shall work with 5 vendors to schedule deliveries during non-peak traffic times;(Planning) 6 7 74. that the project applicant shall design a marked loading zone on-site;(Planning,Public 8 Works) 9 10 75. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a dust control plan that is 11 compliant with City requirements. This plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame 12 Public Works Department, which shall be responsible for field verification of the plan 13 during construction. The dust control plan shall include the basic, enhanced, and optional 14 dust control measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 15 (BAAQMD), including the measures listed below. 16 17 Basic Control Measures (for all construction sites) 18 (a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. 19 (b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks 20 to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 21 (c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all 22 unpaved access roads,parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites. 23 (d) Sweep daily(with water sweepers) all paved access roads,parking areas, and 24 staging areas at construction sites. 25 (e) Sweep streets daily(with water sweepers) or more frequently as required by the 26 City if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. 27 28 EXHIBIT A - 17 1 Enhanced Control Measures (for individual or combined construction sites of larger than 2 four acres) 3 (a) Hydro seed or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas 4 (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 5 (b) Enclose, cover,water twice daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil binders to exposed 6 stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). 7 (c) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour(mph). 8 (d) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public 9 roadways. 10 (e) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 11 12 Optional Measures (based on requirements by the City) 13 (a) Install wheel washers for all existing, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks 14 and equipment leaving the site. 15 (b) Suspend excavation and grading activity when sustained winds exceed 25 mph. 16 (c) Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at 17 any one time.(Public Works) 18 19 Cultural 20 76. that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction 21 activities, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper 22 protection measures, as determined by a qualified expert, can be implemented; (Planning) 23 24 77. that if previous unknown human remains are encountered during construction, an 25 appropriate representative of Native American groups and the County Coroner shall be 26 informed and consulted, as required by State law; (Planning) 27 28 EXHIBIT A- 18 1 78. that any new structures shall be constructed and installed according to the standards of the 2 Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at 3 the time a building permit is issued;(Building, Public Works) 4 5 Construction 6 79. that a design-level final geotechnical report shall be required for the project. This report 7 shall include specific recommendations to minimize post construction settlements. The 8 design-level geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed by the Burlingame Department 9 of Public Works for compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. The City 10 field inspectors shall inspect construction for implementation of the recommend site 11 preparation activities;(Building, Public Works) 12 13 80. that all storm water discharge shall adhere to State and Federal requirements. All storm 14 drainage that discharges into public water shall be required to meet water quality 15 standards outlined in the NPDES permit requirements;(Public Works) 16 17 81. that best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be developed for the site and approved by 18 the City;(Public Works) 19 20 82. that hazardous materials or wastes found or generated at the project site shall be 21 transported and handled in accordance with applicable disposal regulations;(Building, 22 Fire) 23 24 83. that any hazardous waste generated at the project site shall be removed by a licensed 25 hazardous waste hauler for approved disposal off-site;(Building, Fire) 26 27 84. that the BAAQMD shall issue a permit and be notified 10 days in advance of any 28 proposed demolition or abatement work on-site;(Building) EXHIBIT A- 19 1 85. that the local office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) shall be 2 notified in writing of any asbestos abatement to be carried out as a part of 3 demolition;(Building, Fire) 4 5 86. that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs (SWPPP) shall be developed and 6 approved by the City. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs that will minimize sedimentation 7 and contamination of storm water runoff generated during construction;(Public Works) 8 9 87. that the modifications to the existing buildings on-site, as well as new construction, shall 10 comply with the requirements in Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention of the 11 Burlingame Municipal Code;(Public Works) 12 13 88. that an acoustical engineer, familiar with aviation noise, shall prepare an acoustical study 14 in accordance with Title 24. The study shall determine if construction design of the 15 project site would comply with the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound 16 Transmission Controls and FAR Part 150, Appendix A, table 1 criteria, in order to 17 achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB or less for noise episodes associated with aircrafts; 18 (Building,) 19 20 89. that the project shall incorporate appropriate design measures (interior sounds insulation) 21 to reduce aviation noise if the acoustical study(prepared as part of mitigation measure 22 Noise 1) determines that the design of the project would not achieve an indoor noise level 23 of 45 dB;(Planning, Building) 24 25 90. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with requirements found in the California 26 Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling 27 and Disposal, Article 5 Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards. The containers 28 shall be replaced as needed to ensure compliance with this regulation; (Planning) EXHIBIT A - 20 1 91. that the applicant shall obtain a sanitary sewer discharge permit from the City's Office of 2 Environmental Compliance. The design of this project's system shall be approved by the 3 City's Office of Environmental Compliance through the permitting process;(Public 4 Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant) 5 6 92. that no cat litter or diatomaceous earth shall be disposed of into drains that feed into the 7 sanitary sewer system. Such litter will be disposed of into 55-gallon steel drums;(Public 8 Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant) 9 10 93. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with the following requirements found in 11 the California Code of Regulations Title 14 Chapter 3: Minimum Standards for Solid 12 Waste Handling and Disposal Article 5; and Solid Waste Storage and Removal 13 Standards, particularly Section 17315, Garbage Containers.(Public Works, Wastewater 14 Treatment Plant) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXHIBIT A - 21 �c'Ty STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6b MTG. �cDA 9Dm DATE June 18,2007 DAATED JUNE 0 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT E BY DATE: June 6, 2007 APP OVED Y FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: FY 2007-08 Budget Adoption and Gann Limit Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: That City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the two annual budget approval resolutions in the following order: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Adopting Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets for the City of Burlingame Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008." "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2007-2008 Appropriation Limit for City of Burlingame Pursuant to Article XIII(B) of the California Constitution." BACKGROUND: The City Council held a Budget Study Session on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 to review the Proposed Budget for FY 2007-08. An overview of the proposed budget was presented at the study session. Department directors then presented a report on their individual departments' budgets. The Council added certain expenditures to the proposed budget. Those expenditures are reflected in the adopted budget amount. The amendments are delineated in this report. The FY 2007-08 budget totals that are recommended for adoption are as follows: Revenues: $78,579,303 Expenditures: $78,579,303 Proposed Adopted Amendments Budget Budget to the Budget General Fund...................................................... $ 38,132,819 $ 38,219,519 $ 86,700 Water, Sewer, Parking and Waste Enterprise Funds......... $ 23,385,879 $ 23,420,879 $ 35,000 Financing Authority and Shuttle Grant........................ $ 4,490,905 $ 4,490,905 $ -0- Capital Improvements Fund..................................... $ 12,448,000 $ 12,448,000 $ -0- Total Budget........................................................$ 78,457,603 $ 78,579,303 $ +121,700 The amendments are made for the following reasons: 1 General Fund Amendments: Community Development Department Business Ambassador Reallocation $50,000 Part-time Planner (Code Enforcement) $24,000 Department Directors Furniture $ 35000 Public counter modifications $ 3,000 Total Planning: $8000 Police Department Digital Cameras Capital Outlay $ 700 Public Works Replacement Streetlight Poles $ 69000 Total General Fund Amendments: $869700 Water Fund Amendments: Low-Flow Toilet and Washing Machine Rebates Single family $ 55000 (for a total of$15,000) Multi family $155000 Commercial $159000 Total Water Fund Amendments: $35,000 GRAND TOTAL BUDGET AMENDMENTS: $121,700 Note: Public Works Gas Detectors to be purchased from current resources. ARTICLE XIII(B) APPROPRIATION LIMIT (GANN LIMIT) Article XIII(B) of the State Constitution limits all state and local government budgets to a formula based upon the 1978-79 budget plus adjustments for cost of living and population changes. In 1990, voters approved modifications to permit use of the percentage change in commercial assessed valuation to increase the limit under certain conditions. In addition, major capital improvements were excluded from the appropriation subject to the limit. Other exceptions are allowed for service charges, Federal grants and mandated programs. The Appropriation Limit pursuant to Article XIII (B) has been calculated and reviewed by the City's audit firm. The City continues to be well below its appropriation limit of$54,457,993. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A. FY 2007-08 Budget Adoption Resolution Attachment B. FY 2007-08 Appropriation Limit Resolution 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,2008 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS,the City prepares an annual budget to plan expenditures in light of expected revenues; and WHEREAS,the City Council has received the proposed budget from the City Manager, conducted public study sessions on January 27, 2007, February 28, 2007, March 19, 2007, and May 30, 2007, and conducted a public hearing on June 18, 2007, and the Council has received and considered all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with the budget; and WHEREAS, the proposed budget as submitted and amended makes wise choices in spending and funding among competing programs and services, NOW, THEREFORE, IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The operating and capital improvement budget requirements for the coming year of the City of Burlingame as detailed in the copy of the Budget on file in the Office of the City Clerk are hereby adopted for the City of Burlingame for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. 2. The budget total is $78,579,303 and consists of: General Fund of$38,219,519; Water, Sewer, Parking, and Waste Enterprises $23,420,879; Capital Improvement Fund $12,448,000; and Financing Authority and Shuttle Grant$4,490,905. Mayor 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolutions were introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING 2007-2008 APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, in November 1979, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 4, the Gann Appropriation Limit Initiative, which states that beginning July 1, 1980, all state and local government budgets are limited to a formula based upon the 1978-79 budget, plus adjustments for cost of living and population changes, and specific exceptions for service charges, federal and state grants, reserve funds, etc.; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted Government Code Section 7900, implementing Article XIII B of the California Constitution, and Proposition 111 adopted in June 1990,provides new adjustment formulas; and WHEREAS, in accordance with these State laws, the City of Burlingame has prepared documentation establishing the 2007-2008 appropriation limit, and has made this documentation available to the public in the proposed 2007-2008 budget for more than fifteen(15) days before this resolution was adopted, NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows: 1. For 2007-2008,the City of Burlingame's appropriation limit is $54,457,993. 2. The Adopted Budget for 2007-2008 includes $18,576,454 in appropriations that are subject to the limit, and proceeds of taxes of$34,887,499. 3. For 2007-2008,the City of Burlingame is within the limits of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. Mayor 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolutions were introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 2 ARTICLE XIII(B)APPROPRIATION LIMIT Article XIII(B)of the State Constitution limits all state and local government budgets to a formula based upon the 1978-79 budget plus adjustments for cost of living and population changes. In 1990,voters approved modifications to permit use of the percentage change in commercial assessed valuation to increase the limit under certain conditions. In addition, major capital improvements were excluded from the appropriation subject to the limit. Other exceptions are allowed for service charges,Federal grants and mandated programs. In accordance with State implementation legislation(SB 1352,Chapter 1205,1980 Statutes) and the League of California Cities Uniform Guidelines,the following is Burlingame's appropriation limit calculation: APPROPRIATION LIMIT 2006-07 Appropriation Limit $51,910,337 Plus Percentage Growth per State 1.049078 2007-08 Appropriation Limit $54,457,993 APPROPRIATION SUBJECT TO LIMIT CALCULATION Proceeds of Taxes $34,887,499 Exclusions: Qualified Capital Projects and Debt (16,311,045) Appropriation Subject to Limit $18,576,454 2007-08 Appropriation Limit $54,457,993 Appropriation Subject to Limit 18,576,454 Over/(Under)Limit ($35,881,539) xxxi BURLINGAME MILESTONES DURING 2006-07 During the past year, our city has made some remarkable achievements: 1 . Together, Burlingame and Hillsborough saved $2.5 million this past year because of their merger of fire services. 2. We completed a $33 million Pension Obligation Bond and prepaid the C a1PERS debt f or o ur u nfunded 1 iability, r esulting i n a n o verall s avings o f $ 4 in illion a nd annual savings of $300,000 for the first 10 years of borrowing. We also achieved a one-time budget saving of $1 .7 million for the current fiscal year, due to the prepayment of normal costs. The budget savings are being used to fund capital improvements in the new budget. 3. In April, the city issued $25 million for water and sewer capital improvements. As part of that process, the rating agency, Standard and Poor's, reviewed the city's progress on its 10-year financing plan. Based upon our success with the plan, Standard & Poor's upgraded our credit rating from AA-minus to AA, which immediately saved us $100,000 on the bond insurance premium. 4. We redesigned the city's Web site so that is it more user-friendly and helpful and saves our staff time in answering questions. 5. Our free city e-newsletter now reaches 4,666. 6. We will receive a check next month for $160,000 from PG&E for our co-generation system in the wastewater treatment plant, which reuses methane gas to power 80 percent of the facility. This rebate was due to our participation in one of PG&E's energy-saving programs. 7. We held a free electronic recycling event in June. 8. In March we held a Town Hall Meeting with Pacific Gas & Electric representatives regarding power outage problems. They reported on their plan for making improvements on June 18. 9. We have made citizen participation a major priority, with expanded citizen comment periods during meetings, more informal council meetings with opportunities for public comment, and information about volunteer opportunities and facilities available for meetings and performances on our Web site. 10. During the past three years, we have increased circulation of library materials by 16 percent and doubled circulation at the Easton Branch Library. [CORRECTION IS FROM PAT HARDING] 11 . We held two community meetings to obtain feedback on Building Division customer service improvements and implemented recommendations. 12. We amended our Bayfront Specific Plan and adopted new zoning for the north end of our city, to invite new types of development that will enhance our city. 13. We lowered the solar energy permit fee from $1,100 to $309 to encourage use of solar energy in development. 14. We are in the middle of a 10-year plan to completely overhaul and modernize the critical parts of our water and sewer systems. 15. We implemented a shared services agreement with Hillsborough for an in-house video sewer inspection and cleaning program that saves us $100,000 per year. 16. We helped with the effort to win flying rights for Virgin America, which already generates $5 million to $10 million a year in spending to the local economy. The airline is expected to create 1,600 jobs in the Bay Area, and each year should 1 generate $240 million in business revenue and $24 million in state and local taxes, according to a Bay Area Economic Forum analysis. 17. The city negotiated $13 million in improvements with Caltrain for the Burlingame Avenue train station platform improvements project. The improvements represent the consensus of a wide variety of stakeholders. They include landscaping and beautification of the train station frontage, as well as safe pedestrian and vehicular crossings at the railroad tracks. Work will begin this summer. 18. After five years of hard work and perseverance, the city obtained a Project Study Report for Broadway Interchange at U.S. Hwy 101. This is a significant milestone in proceeding with the next phase of the project which is engineering design, environmental documentation, funding and ultimately its construction. Once constructed Broadway Interchange will provide traffic congestion relief. 19. A dedicated group of City Council members, local residents and city staff volunteered thousands of hours to educate the public about a proposed flood control bond measure on the November 2006 ballot that narrowly missed getting the required two-thirds vote. 20. Thanks to strong partnerships with the Chamber of Commerce and business improvement districts, as well as improved parking arrangements and the influx of many new businesses, business is booming in our retail areas. Sales tax increased above projected 5%to 6.86% for a quarterly collection of 1,662,928. 21. The housing market in Burlingame is very healthy and remains one of the highest housing markets in the county, and it is doing much better than the rest of the country, according to the San Mateo County Board of Realtors. [FROM GEORGE MOZINGO] We have also received some extraordinary recognition during the past year: 1. The Finance Department received "Excellence in Financial Reporting" awards from the Government Finance Officers of America and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers. 2. The city's Sewer Division was recently awarded second place in the state by the California Water Environment Association (CWEA) for "Outstanding Professional Accomplishments in 2006." Those achievements included reducing calls for service from 4,000 in 1997-98 to less than 700 in 2005-06, implementing a capital improvement program of more than $2 million for pipe replacement, developing an overflow reduction plan and certifying 86 percent of the division's employees as having the skills required to operate and maintain the sewer system in accordance with state regulations. 3. For the 16th year, our library materials won the Public Relations Award from the American Library Association. 4. The City of Burlingame achieved the highest waste diversion rate in its history: 53 percent. TRUE??? FIRST TIME BUSINESSESHAVE EXCEEDED 50 PERCENT?--*** Joe Cyr to provide number. 5. We have received the "Award for Program Excellence" from the International City Management Association for our Fire Department shared service programs with Millbrae, Hillsborough. 2 For the first year since 9/11, we do not have to make significant cuts to the city's budget for the coming fiscal year and will be able to offer some new services in the coming year, including: 1. For the first time, we will have a maintenance worker dedicated to keeping our Broadway and Burlingame Avenue retail areas clean on a regular basis instead of hiring contractors to perform this work. This person will provide better service at no increase in cost,because of the savings on overtime and contract services. 2. With help from citizen volunteers, many other areas of our city are being well maintained and enhanced with planters of flowers on a regular basis. 3. We will soon hire a business ambassador to bring new businesses to town and helps all businesses navigate the development approval process. 4. This fall, we will offer a Citizen's Academy that invites residents to get a close-up look at how the city works. Signups will be offered in the fall Rec Center catalog. 5. Also in the fall Rec catalog, we will offer Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training to give people important skills that will help them respond to the community's needs during a disaster. 6. We are developing a neighborhood preparedness program that combines the Neighborhood Watch concept of crime prevention with a coordinated response effort and state-of-the-art communication techniques. 7. This summer, we will launch a customer response system that tracks every suggestion and complaint made to the city, in an effort to provide even better service than we have now. 8. We will soon have better signage at City Hall to welcome and help the public navigate the building. 9. We have created a Green Ribbon Task Force to inventory current "green" and sustainable practices and evaluate appropriate measures to undertake. 10. We completed an economic development analysis and hosted a charrette to begin creating visions for our downtown, and now we are beginning to create a whole new Specific Area Plan for the area around Burlingame Avenue that will include lots of community input and will provide a roadmap for future development. 11. We will install bike lanes on Howard Avenue and California Drive, as well as a lighted crosswalk on Broadway, using grant funds received earlier this year. 12. We are back at the table with Safeway — this time, with a variety of stakeholders representing different interests. A preliminary design criterion is expected to be discussed in a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council in August. 13. We kicked off a year-long celebration of our Centennial with a giant parade on June 4, and look forward to many more events celebrating our city. We continue to welcome your feedback on the services we provide and your ideas for improvements. You can reach us at council e burlingame.or . Terry Nagel, Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony, Vice Mayor Cathy Baylock, Council Member Ann Keighran, Council Member Russ Cohen, Council Member 3 Page 1 of 1 CLK-Mortensen, Doris From: MGR-Silva, Ana Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 3:41 PM To: GRP-Council Subject: Burlingame Milestones for Budget Discussion final.doc Attachments: Burlingame Milestones for Budget Discussion final.doc The Mayor asked that I forward the attached document for tonight's meeting. Ana 6/18/2007 CITY 0 BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT I I m AGENDA ooq e° °RATE°-NE6 ITEM 1Y a MTG. DATE June 18,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: June 14, 2007 BY FROM: Ana Silva APPROVED Tel,No.: 558-7204 By SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO LIBRARY BOARDTRUSTEES RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment to fill two expired terms or take other action. BACKGROUND: Two Board positions are due for appointment because of term expiration. The positions were publicized and notification letters were sent to past commission and board applicants. Eight applications were received as of the deadline of May 29, 2007. The following seven applicants (one withdrew) were interviewed by the full Council on: June 12, 2007 — Leslie Finlev; Pat Toft; and Michelle Koskella; and June 13, 2007—Catherine McCormack; Renee Rojas; Elise Clowes; and Patty Apostol Rally. The appointee term will be for three years, ending in June 2010. CITY C BUIWNGAME STAFF REPORT � 00 AGENDA oq 9 ITEM# 8b MTG. DATE June 18,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ff)) DATE: June 14, 2007 BY FROM: Ana Silva APPROVED �/ ~0 Tel.No.: 558-7204 By �d SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO BEAUTIFICATION CO MISSION RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment to fill one term or take other action. BACKGROUND: One Commission position is due for appointment due to the resignation of Commissioner Geraldine O'Connor. The position was publicized and notification letters were sent to past commission applicants. Two applications were received as of the deadline of June 11, 2007. The following two applicants were interviewed by the full Council on June 12, 2007: Bobbi Benson and Panna Sharma. The appointee term will be for three years, ending in October 2010. STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA Sc ITEM# MTG. 6/18/07 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBTIED BY �.G* DATE: June 10, 2007 APP D FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY G suBJECr: PRESENTATION OF THE CITY'S URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the June 5, 2007 compilation of the Urban Forest Management Plan. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame has a long history of proactive tree planting and proper tree care. From the late 1800's when trees were planted along El Camino Real and Easton Drive to the current day, we have enjoyed the many benefits trees provide to an urban area. This Urban Forest Master Plan is a compilation of information, statistics, policies and procedures that the Burlingame Parks &Recreation Department has had in place for many years. The Plan is designed to give the reader a background of the City's vision and tree philosophy, show the benefits of an urban forest, list the City's existing tree policies and varieties, describe existing maintenance practices, show the criteria used to consider tree removals, list the trees that are allowed as replacements in street planting strips and explain the process for public appeals of staff decisions. Attachments include tree permits, street tree lists, criteria used to remove trees due to either sidewalk impacts or health concerns, an inventory of street trees listed by species and the Beautification Commission's rules of procedure. Information for several sections of this plan is still being compiled including Trees & Sidewalk Impacts, Pruning Standards Specific to Species,Pesticide Spraying& Injections,Protection During Construction and Landscaping Impacts. Additionally, the Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission is working with Public Works to develop the section on Trees & Roadway Impacts. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact associated with this report. ATTACHMENTS: A. Urban Forest Management Plan—June 5,2007 BURL CITY OF BURLINGAME URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN �!`oaso LN Table of Contents PHILOSOPHIES.POLICIES AND STATISTICS Introduction 4 Mission Statement&Definitions 5 Goals of Urban Forest Management Plan 6 Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas 7 Statistics &Facts 10 City Street Tree Policies 11 Private Tree Policies 12 Inventory of Existing Trees 13 TREE MANAGEMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES Burlingame Maintenance Program • Maintenance Standards 14 • Maintenance Cycles 14 • Maintenance Policies 14 • Trees & Sidewalk Impacts 16 • Pruning Standards Specific to Species 16 • Pesticide Spraying&Injections 16 • Protection During Construction 16 • Landscaping Impacts 16 • Trees & Sidewalk Impacts 17 Criteria for Removal 18 Approved Replacement Species 18 Plan to plant in new areas 19 Public/Political Input and Appeals Process 21 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ATTACHMENTS A. California Tree City USA's 22 B. Tree Permit 24 C. Protected Tree Removal Permit 25 D. Street Tree Inventory Report (Tree frequency by species) ` 26 E. Criteria for City Street Tree Removal 31 When There is On-going Sidewalk Damage F. Tree Evaluation Form: Matheny-Clark 32 G. City Street Tree Removal Process 35 H. Street Tree Lists 1. Trees Under Utility Lines 36 2. Trees in Planting Strips Under 3' Wide 38 3. Trees in Planting Strips 3' to 6' Wide 40 4. Trees in Planting Strips Over 6' Wide 42 5. Easton Drive 44 I. Burlingame Beautification Commission Rules of Procedure 45 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 3 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Introduction The City of Burlingame has a long history of proactive tree planting and proper tree care. From the late 1800's when trees were planted along El Camino Real and Easton Drive to the current day, we have enjoyed the many benefits trees provide to an urban area (see Section IV). Burlingame's urban forest management program is one of the elite programs in San Mateo County and is used by independent arborists as a model for proper tree care. Some examples are: -Burlingame is one of the few cities in the County that has an in-house crew dedicated to the care and maintenance of its trees and the City Council has for several decades included funds in the annual budget to supplement staff's efforts with a tree contractor for large trees or assistance during winter storms. -The City Arborist works directly with the Planning,Building and Parks Divisions and the Planning Commission to add new trees to landscaping plans where possible, protect existing trees during construction and ensure healthy, protected trees are not removed. The Parks Supervisor, also a Certified Arborist, inspects and directly oversees the maintenance of City street trees including contract pruning. -The City's grid pruning program was established so trees would be inspected and maintained on a four-year cycle;the very large, mature trees are inspected and maintained every three years. The National Arbor Day Foundation was established to inspire people to plant, nurture and celebrate trees. The Foundation's annual award"Tree City USA" is given to cities that meet four standards: (1) a tree board or department, (2) a tree care ordinance, (3) a community forestry program with an annual budget of a least$2.00 per capita and(4) an Arbor Day observance and proclamation. More information about the Tree City USA program can be found at: http://www.arborday.org/programs/treecitydirectory.cfm. Burlingame's Iongtime commitment to trees is evidenced by recognition as a "Tree City USA" for 28 consecutive years. This is the longest streak in the County, 5th longest in the State and one of the longest in the Country for receiving this award. A listing of the California cities that have received Tree City USA awards is included as Attachment"A". This Urban Forest Master Plan is a compilation of information, statistics, policies and procedures that the Burlingame Parks &Recreation Department has had in place for many years. The Plan is designed to give the reader a background of the City's vision and tree philosophy, show the benefits of an urban forest, list the City's existing tree policies and varieties, describe existing maintenance practices, show the criteria used to consider tree removals, list the trees that are allowed as replacements in street planting strips and explain the process for public appeals of staff decisions. Attachments include tree permits, street tree lists, criteria used to remove trees due to either sidewalk impacts or health concerns, an inventory of street trees listed by species and the Beautification Commission's rules of procedure. Compiled June.i, 2007 -4 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Mission Statement The Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department is Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play by • Providing well-maintained playgrounds, street trees,park spaces and recreational facilities; • Offering a high-quality, diversified program of recreational activities; and • Supporting local community groups Definitions Reforestation: • The reestablishment of a forest, either by natural regeneration or by planting in an area where forest was removed • Planting of trees,yet the site need not be deforested prior to being reforested • The reestablishment of forest cover, either naturally or artificially • Reforestation occurs on land where trees have been recently removed Grid Pruning A systematic pruning per pre-designed district, grid or trim route to be trimmed on a set cycle to include all trees on the block. Benefits of a Grid Pruning Program—A systematic tree program reduces cost in the long run, and the need for"emergency" or"service request"pruning,help prevent liability problems (such as dead or weak branches),reduce tree mortality and improves the urban forest's health and real value over the long term. Urban Forestry Management: "The systematic management and care of landscape, trees, collectively in human settlements" Sustainable Urban Forestry: "Sustainable Urban Forestry is based on the concept of stainable urban ecosystems or landscapes designed and managed to minimize impact on the environment and maximize value received for dollars expended in the long term.'' Urban Forestry: Urban or community forestry is the planning for, and management of, a community's forest resources to enhance the quality of life. The process integrates the environmental, economic, political, historical, and social values of the community to develop a comprehensive management plan for the urban forest. A community in this definition is an area of human settlement in a rural or metropolitan region. The urban or community forest includes the vegetation, open space, and related natural resources of the area. Compiled June 5, 2007 - 5 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Goals of Urban Forest Management Plan An important part of understanding the status of the urban forest is knowing how it has been managed. This requires information on both past and current management methods and actions, such as: • municipal tree care practices,including planting,maintenance,and removal; • existing ordinances,and the level of enforcement practiced(numbers of violations,permits and citations issued,penalties and fines collected); • planning regulations and guidelines that pertain to trees,and numbers of tree-related permits granted, modified,or denied; • activities of municipal departments and public utilities that impact trees. • Urban forestry needs can be grouped into three broad categories, although many needs may actually fall into more than one category. Biological needs are those that are related to the tree resource itself. Typical needs in this category include the need to: • increase species and age diversity to provide long-term forest stability; • provide sufficient tree planting to keep pace with urban growth and offset tree removal; • increase the proportion of large-statured trees in the forest for greater canopy effects; • ensure proper compatibility between trees and planting sites to reduce sidewalk damage and conflicts with overhead utilities that lead to premature tree removal. Management needs refer to the needs of those involved with the short-and long-term care and maintenance of the urban forest. Some common management needs include: • develop adequate long-term planning to ensure the sustainability of the urban forest; • optimize the use of limited financial and personnel resources; • increase training and education for tree program employees to ensure high quality tree care; • coordinate tree-related activities of municipal departments. Community needs are those that relate to how the public perceives and interacts with the urban forest and the local urban forest management program. Examples of community needs include: • increase public awareness of the values and benefits associated with trees; • promote better private tree care through better public understanding of the biological needs of trees; • foster community support for the urban forest management program; • promote conservation of the urban forest by focusing public attention on all tree age classes, not just large heritage trees. Compiled June S, 2007 - 6 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Benefits of Trees in Urban Areas Below are some of the benefits of trees in urban areas (Glatting Jackson and Walkable Communities, Inc; May, 2006). Occasionally seen as highly problematic for many reasons, street trees have proven to be a great value to people living, working, shopping and motoring in and through urban places. While proper management of trees in urban places is costly,the benefits are so great that a sustainable community cannot be imagined without these important green features. 1. Reduced and more appropriate urban traffic speeds. Urban street trees create vertical walls framing streets, and a defined edge,helping motorists guide their movement and assess their speed(leading to overall speed reductions). Street safety comparisons show a reduction of run-off-the-road crashes and overall crash severity when street tree sections are compared with equivalent treeless streets. (Texas A and M conducted simulation research which found people slow down while driving through a treed scape. These observations are also noted in the real world when following motorists along first a treed portion of a street, and then a non treed portion. Speed differentials of 3 mph to 15 mph are noted. 2. Create safer walking environments,by forming and framing visual walls and providing distinct edges to sidewalks so that motorists better distinguish between their environment and one shared with people. If a motorist were to significantly err in their urban driving task, street trees can deflect or fully stop a motorist from taking another human life. 3. Trees call for planting strips, which further separate motorists from pedestrians, buildings and other urban fabric. 4. Increased security. Trees create more pleasant walking environments, bringing about increased walking, talking, pride, care of place, association and therefore actual ownership and surveillance of homes,blocks,neighborhoods plazas,businesses and other civic spaces. 5. Improved business. Businesses on treescaped streets show 20%higher income streams, which is often the essential competitive edge needed for main street store success,versus competition from plaza discount store prices. 6. Less drainage infrastructure. Trees absorb the first 30%of most precipitation through their leaf system, allowing evaporation back into the atmosphere. This moisture never hits the ground. Another percentage (up to 30%)of precipitation is absorbed back into the ground and taken in and held onto by the root structure, then absorbed and then transpired back to the air. Some of this water also naturally percolates into the ground water and aquifer. Storm water runoff and flooding potential to urban properties is therefore reduced. 7. Rain, sun, heat and skin protection. For light or moderate rains, pedestrians find less need for rain protection. In cities with good tree coverage there is less need for chemical sun blocking agents. Temperature differentials of 5-15 degrees are felt when walking under tree canopied streets. Compiled June S, 2007 - 7 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 8. Reduced harm from tailpipe emissions. Automobile and truck exhaust is a major public health concern and contains significant pollutants, including carbon monoxide (CO),volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter(PM). Tailpipe emissions are adding to asthma, ozone and other health impacts. Impacts are reduced significantly from proximity to trees. 9. Gas transformation efficiency. Trees in street proximity absorb 9 times more pollutants than more distant trees, converting harmful gasses back into oxygen and other useful and natural gasses. 10. Lower urban air temperatures. Asphalt and concrete streets and parking lots are known to increase urban temperatures 3-7 degrees. These temperature increases significantly impact energy costs to homeowners and consumers. A properly shaded neighborhood, mostly from urban street trees, can reduce energy bills for a household from 15-35%. 11. Lower Ozone. Increases in urban street temperatures that hover directly above asphalt where tailpipe emissions occur dramatically increase creation of harmful ozone and other gasses into more noxious substances impacting health of people, animals and surrounding agricultural lands. 12. Convert streets, parking and walls into more aesthetically pleasing environments. There are few streetmaking elements that do as much to soften wide, grey visual wastelands created by wide streets, parking lots and massive,but sometimes necessary blank walls than trees. 13. Soften and screen necessary street features such as utility poles, light poles and other needed street furniture. Trees are highly effective at screening those other vertical features to roadways that are needed for many safety and functional reasons. 14. Reduced blood pressure, improved overall emotional and psychological health.People are impacted by ugly or attractive environments where they spend time. Kathlene Wolf, Social Science Ph.D. University of Washington gave a presentation that said"the risk of treed streets was questionable compared to other types of accidents along with the increased benefit of trees on human behavior, health, pavement longevity, etc." She noted that trees have a calming and healing effect on ADHD adults and teens. 15. Time in travel perception. Other research and observations confirm that motorists perceive the time it takes to get through treed versus non-treed environments has a significant differential. A treeless environment trip is perceived to be longer than one that is treed(Walter Kulash,P.E.; speech circa 1994, Glatting Jackson). 16. Reduced road rage. Although this may at first seem a stretch, there is strong, compelling research that motorist road rage is less in green urban versus stark suburban areas. Trees and aesthetics, which are known to reduce blood pressure, may handle some of this calming effect. Compiled.lune 5, 2007 - 8 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 17. Improved operations potential. When properly positioned and maintained, the backdrop of street trees allow those features that should be dominant to be better seen, such as vital traffic regulatory signs. The absence of a well developed Greenscape allows the sickly grey mass of strip to dominate the visual world. At the same time, poorly placed signs, signals, or poorly maintained trees reduces this positive gain, and thus proper placement and maintenance must be rigidly adhered to. 18. Added value to adjacent homes, businesses and tax base.Realtor based estimates of street tree versus non street tree comparable streets relate a$15-25,000 increase in home or business value. This often adds to the base tax base and operations budgets of a city allowing for added street maintenance. Future economic analysis may determine that this is a break-even for city maintenance budgets. 19. Provides a lawn for a splash and spray zone, storage of snow, driveway elevation transition and more. Tree lawns are an essential part of the operational side of a street. 20. Filtering and screening agent. Softens and screens utility poles, light poles, on-street and off-street parking and other features creating visual pollution to the street. 21. Longer pavement life. Studies conducted in a variety of California environments show that the shade of urban street trees can add from 40-60%more life to costly asphalt. This factor is based on reduced daily heating and cooling(expansion/contraction) of asphalt. As peak oil pricing increases roadway overlays,this will become a significant cost reduction to maintaining a more affordable roadway system. 22. Connection to nature and the human senses.Urban street trees provide a canopy, root structure and setting for important insect and bacterial life below the surface; at grade for pets and romantic people to pause for what pets and romantic people pause for; they act as essential lofty environments for song birds, seeds, nuts, squirrels and other urban life. Indeed, street trees so well establish natural and comfortable urban life it is unlikely we will ever see any advertisement for any marketed urban.product, including cars, to be featured without street trees making the ultimate dominant,bold visual statement about place. Compiled June 5, 2007 - 9 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Statistics & Facts (2006-07 Budget Year) Tree Crew Full Time Equivalents: 5 1. Annual tree plantings: Gross 334 Per Crew FTE 66.8 2. Annual tree removals: Gross 199 Per Crew FTE 39.8 3. Annual tree trimmings: Gross 1350 Per Crew FTE 270 4. Total City maintained street trees per capita: .43 Per Crew FTE 2,549 5. Percentage completed of the annual section trimming. 95% 6. Initial inspection for Protected Tree application within 5 business days. 100% The Tree Crew continued its program to inspect or prune every City street tree in designated areas of the city. The Division is on schedule to service or inspect every street tree using a four- year cycle, expect the eucalyptus trees on Easton and Burlingame Ave which are on a 3 year cycle. The Parks Division processed sixty seven(67)permit applications for the removal of private protected trees in fy 2006-07. 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 Tree Plantings 334 240 165 213 245 Tree Removals 199 144 162 144 173 Tree Trimmings 1350 1307 1041 1173 1918 Permit Applications 67 85 72 94 86 Claims vs Trees 4 8 13 9 13 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 10 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT City Street Tree Policies Many trees growing in Burlingame are City-owned trees and are maintained by the City. Street Trees are trees that grow in the public right-of-way. In most areas, this right-of- way is located between sidewalk and street. Where no planting strips exists, City right- of-way generally extends five feet behind the sidewalk. The width of public right-of-way varies widely from the street to street and homeowners should check deeds to determine how much right-of-way is located in front of their home. Residents may NOT cut or trim on City trees in the City right-of-way. Work on City trees is handled by City tree crews, City-hired contractors or PG&E. Trees located on El Camino Real, a state Highway, are owned and maintained by the State Department of Transportation(Caltrans), while many of the trees along California Drive, adjacent to the railroad tracks, are owned and maintained by the City of San Francisco or CalTrain. Street Tree Rules Q May I trim my own City tree? A Only in rare cases will the City Arborist issue a no fee permit to a property owner so that a qualified tree maintenance company can perform pre-authorized trimming on a city Street Tree. See TREE PERMIT,Attachment "B" Q What if I forget to get a trimming permit? A Penalties for removing or trimming City owned trees without a permit can be costly. Fine revenues are placed in a fund so that new City trees can be planted. Q What may I plant in City planter strip right-of-way? A Each single family residence is entitled to one tree at no charge. If space is available, additional trees may be requested at the home-owner's expense. Landscaping, ground cover& low shrubs (up to three feet in height, not encroaching on the sidewalk or street) are allowed without a permit. Q Whom do I call about Street tree matters? A Call the Parks Division at(650)558-7330. Compiled June 5, 2007 - I I - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Private Tree Policies Large private trees in Burlingame are protected by City Ordinance. The Urban Reforestation Ordinance was created to insure that our city remains green and beautiful. City Ordinance regulates removal or heavy pruning of trees on private property that have a circumference of 48 inches at a height of 54 inches above the ground. Trees of this dimension are designated as "Protected Trees" and a City permit is required prior to removal or heavy pruning. Failure to acquire a permit can result in financial penalties. Permit applications for removal or heavy pruning of protected trees may be obtained at the Parks Division office or can be downloaded from our website at www.Burlingame.org. There is a $50.00 fee for filing a permit application. The permit process involves a formal inspection by the City Arborist to determine the tree's health, structure, and impacts to neighboring properties, as well as replacement requirements. Contact the Parks Division office at (650) 558-7330 for additional information about the permit process. Attachments PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION,Attachment "C" Compiled June 5, 2007 - 12 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Inventory of Existing,Trees All City trees with a residential street address were inventoried in 1984. The inventory has been updated as trees have been removed and replaced. Diameter and height data has not been updated for trees still in place from the original inventory. Trees in City Parks do not exist on an inventory, with the exception of the trees in Washington Park. Public Trees without an associated street address do not appear on an inventory. The City is in need of an updated inventory of its residential trees. Staff is looking at grants for which an updated inventory might be eligible. The Parks &Recreation Department has a data base of each street tree in the City that includes its location, specie, approximate size and maintenance history. Attachments • Street Tree Inventory Report,Attachment"D" Compiled June S, 2007 - 13 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Burlingame Maintenance Program Maintenance Standards The City of Burlingame Tree Crew uses maintenance standards approved by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The purpose of these standards is to develop specifications for tree pruning. The reason for tree pruning may be to reduce risk, maintain or improve tree health and structure, improve aesthetics or satisfy a specific need. Several pruning types are used to achieve these standards: • Pruning for Structure • Pruning to Clean or Remove Deadwood • Pruning to Thin • Pruning to Raise • Pruning to Reduce • Pruning to Restore Maintenance Cvcles Each street tree is maintained on a four year cycle. The City is divided into 4 grid areas. Each year a specific grid is targeted and each tree is inspected or pruned. Street trees not in the grid are maintained or inspected at least every 6 years. • Larger trees (such as eucalyptus)are being maintained every three years. Because of their maturity and potential liability, the trees on Easton are evaluated by an outside arborist every three years. • Sycamores are being maintained on a 4 year cycle. • Misc. street trees are being maintained on a 4-6 year cycle. The following policies help to accentuate the goals of the City's representatives and its citizenry in maintaining an important resource for generations to come: Maintenance Policies 1) The Park Division plants,trims, sprays, and removes trees in the City planter strips and or right-of-ways (where there is no planter strip, City right-of-way generally extends 5-7 feet, behind the sidewalk, into the front yard of residence). Residents are not allowed to trim or remove City trees and must call the Park Division when there are maintenance needs or emergencies. Requests for service are usually responded to within 2-3 weeks unless the request is of a more urgent nature. 2) The City of Burlingame only removes dead, diseased or structurally unstable trees. Requests for removal of healthy trees will be inspected by City staff. If removal is denied, property owner may request removal in writing to the Beautification Commission. Compiled June 5, 2007 - 14 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT 3) The Park Division plants trees in spring and fall and will plant 1 tree at no charge at each address or will replace a tree when removal of a tree is necessary. Upon request from the resident, additional trees may be planted (if space is available) for a charge of$75.00 for each additional tree. 4) Upon request, roots in the planter strip may be pruned by the Park Division. After consulting with City staff, roots behind the sidewalk may be pruned by the property owner. By appointment, City staff will meet with residents to discuss root pruning and installation of root barriers behind the sidewalk. 5) Sidewalks damaged by City tree roots are patched and later contracted for repair by the Public Works Department. By action of the Council City, trees are not removed due to sidewalk damage. Callers should be referred to the Public Works Dept. at 558-7230 for all sidewalk damage. 6) The tree crew will trim City trees around, street lights, and lines that run from the pole to the house. 7) City trees under primary utility lines are pruned by P.G.&E. City staff will inspect these trees to determine if referral to P.G.&E. is warranted. 8) Sycamore trees are trimmed by City crews on a rotating 4 year cycle. Sections are established by City staff. 9) Eucalyptus trees on City planter strips or in City right-of-ways are trimmed by a tree pruning contractor on a 3 year cycle. Sections are established by City staff. 10) Eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real(State Highway) are responsibility of CalTrans. City crews occasionally respond to-emergencies but callers should be referred to CalTrans at 650-358-4127. 11) Trees in alleyways between residences were not planted by the City and are not maintained or removed by City crews. Property owners on either side of the easement are generally responsible for maintenance and/or removal of easement trees and may contact private tree companies to perform the work. They should be encouraged to coordinate the work with adjacent property owners. If the trunk of the tree is 48" in circumference or more (rendering it a "protected" tree) an application for private tree removal or crown pruning by more than 1/3 must be submitted to the Parks Division for the Arborist's review. If the alleyway or easement is determined to be City owned and if an immediate hazard exists (i.e. limb/tree on structure, drop to house, etc.)the City's tree crew will respond to remove the immediate hazard only. 12) Water lines, laterals, irrigation systems, etc. behind the sidewalk are the responsibility of the property owner. The Street& Sewer Department maintains water lines, mains, clean- outs, etc. from the sidewalk to the center of the street. City staff can inspect sites to determine jurisdiction and responsibility. The Street and Sewer Department's telephone number is 558-7670. Compiled June 5, 2007 _ 15 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Trees & Sidewalk Impacts To be included Pruning Standards SiDecific to Species To be included Pesticide Spraying & Iniections To be included Protection During Construction To be included Landscaping Impacts To be included Compiled June S, 2007 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Trees & Roadway Impacts Compiled June S, 2007 URBANFOREST MANAGEMENT Criteria for Removal "Identifying and managing the risk associated with trees is a subjective process. Since the nature of tree failures remains largely unknown, our ability to predict which trees will fail and in what fashion is limited. As currently practiced, tree evaluation involves examining a tree for structural defects, associating those defects with a known pattern of failure and rating the degree of risk. " (Matheny/Clark) "Hazard tree evaluation is the systematic process of assessing the potential for a tree or one of its parts to fail and injure people or damage property. The primary goal of hazard evaluation is to idents potentially hazardous trees so they can be treated before failure occurs. All hazards cannot be eliminated. However, by evaluation trees and rating the hazards associated with them, the arborist can prioritize and schedule abatement treatments to reduce the level of risk" (Matheny/Clark) Generally, City staff only permits trees for removal based upon health concerns. PROTECTED TREES Appeals to staff decisions can be made to the Beautification Commission(see Public/Political Input and Appeals Process). • Attached are: 1. Criteria for City Street Tree Removal When there is Ongoing Sidewalk Damage, Adopted Copy, updated June 2006,Attachment"E" 2. Tree Evaluation Form: Matheny-Clark, approved by the Beautification Commission April 2007,Attachment"F" 3. City Street Tree Removal Process, updated January 23,2007,Attachment "G" 4. Protected Tree Removal Permit Application,Attachment "C" Compiled June S, 2007 - 18 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Approved Replacement Species • The City has five separate street tree lists in place for selection of replacement trees, distinguished by the planting space (size,power lines or location) • Property owners are generally required to replace trees that are removed • Property owners are allowed to select a tree off the list applicable to their property Attachments • TREES TO BE USED UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES,Attachment H.1. • TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 3' WIDE AND UNDER AND IN ALL PLANTING SPACES IN PAVED AREAS,Attachment H.2. • TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER 3' AND UNDER 6' WIDE, Attachment H.3. • TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 6' WIDE AND OVER, Attachment H.4. • TREES TO BE USED ON EASTON DRIVE BETWEEN EL CAIVIINO REAL AND VANCOUVER,Attachment H.5. Compiled June 5, 2007 - 19 - URBAN F®REST MANAGEMENT Plan to Plant in New Areas The City has consistently encouraged home owners to plant new trees on their property. The City has added nearly 300 more trees than have been replaced in the past four years (averaging 75 additional trees each year) The Department's 2007-08 budget submittal includes $5,000 for street tree reforestation—the first time we have ever budgeted for additional trees PLANTING ON STREETS WITH FEW TREES In late 2006 Council requested that the Burlingame Beautification Commission make a recommendation concerning the planting of vacant planting sites in the City(residential addresses with a designated City planting strip). Tree planting by the Parks Division focuses on planting trees where they have been removed and on planting vacant sites when requested by the associated property owner. The Commission is in the process of identifying those vacant sites. It is also considering means of funding the program to plant the vacant sites. Concurrently Staff is exploring grant options for the funding of the project. A strategy for implementation will follow the above assessments. Compiled June 5, 2007 -20 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Public/Political Input and Anneal Process The Burlingame Beautification Commission was appointed by the City Council in 1968 to oversee advise the Council and staff on issues related to our urban forest. The Commission serves as the public appeals board on staff decisions related to tree removals. Commission decisions can also be appealed to the City Council. Below is listed the Commission's Powers &Duties. 3.28.050 Powers and duties. Subject to the approval of the city council,the beautification commissions, shall: (a)Act in an advisory capacity to the city council, the city manager, and director of parks and recreation in all matters of city trees and protected private trees and to cooperate with other governmental and civic groups in the advancement of sound reforestation and tree protection planting and programs; (b)Recommend, develop, support and implement programs and activities to promote community awareness and participation in city beautification; (c)Recommend a master street tree plan for adoption by the city council; (d)Recommend an"Official Street Tree List"to the city council for adoption, designation specific types of trees which can be planted on any street, based on pertinent local street and tree factors; (e)Recommend specific types of street trees for any new subdivision; (f)Recommend a survey to be made from time to time to determine those street trees which are to be retained and those which should be removed to conform to the street tree planting and maintenance program,having regard for both the immediate and long-term needs of the city. (g)Recommend or comment on plans and programs for the planting, maintenance and removal of all street trees in the city; (h) Recommend or comment on plans and programs for the uniform planting, care and maintenance of street trees and of shrubs, grass plots and other ornamental or beautifying plantings upon the streets and highways; (i)Recommend or comment on plans and programs for the development and beautification of the public parks,parkways and buildings belonging to, or leased by,the city; 0) Consider the annual budget of the parks and recreation department during the process of its preparation and make recommendations thereto to the city council and city manager and, in the case of capital improvement, also to the planning commission; (k)As part of each commission meeting,provide the opportunity for citizens to address the commission; and (1)Perform such other duties as may be delegated to it by the city council from time to time. (Ord 884 Sec 1 (part); August 19, 1968)(Ord 1637 Sec 21, Amended, 09/05/2000) Attachments • BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION'S RULES. OF PROCEDURE, Attachment J • CITY STREET TREE REMOVAL PROCESS,Attachment G Compiled June 5, 2007 - 21 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Attachment 4G�" CALIFORNIA TREE CITY USA's Commerce 20 13,292 Hayward 20 146,027 CITY YEARS POPULATION L Burbank 29 104,000 a Verne 20 38.000 Santa Fe Springs 20 16,600 Sacramento 29 430,000 South San Francisco 20 60,552 Davis 28 64,500 Hemet 19 65,044 Santa Rosa 28 156,200 Lompoc 19 42,320 Burlingame 27 29,050 Monrovia 19 37,566 Gilroy 27 46,594 Newark 19 43,708 La Mesa 26 56,049 Santa Clara 19 109,106 Los Gatos 26 30,000 Atascadero 18 28,677 Modesto 26 207,634 Carpinteria 18 14,300 Oroville 26 13,250 La Canada Flintridge 18 21,500 Santa Barbara 26 95,000 La Mirada 18 50,136 Concord 25 121,780 Riverside 18 281,515 Fullerton 25 135,672 San Buenaventura 18 105,000 Merced 25 73,600 Corona 17 141,000 Monterey 25 30,300 Cypress 17 45,000 Redding 25 80,000 Glendora 17 52,000 Redwood City 25 76,000 Morro Bay 17 10,522 San Mateo 25 93,630 Orange 17 136,701 Santa Maria 25 88,793 Rancho Cucamonga 17 147,000 Santa Monica 25 90,000 Sunnyvale 17 131,700 Stockton 25 261,300 Tulare 17 50,000 Arroyo Grande 24 17,005 Atherton 16 7,200 Campbell 24 39,312 Highland 16 50,860 Roseville 24 102,191 Irvine 16 180,803 San Jose 24 923,000 Los Banos 16 36,000 San Rafael 24 56,000 Newport Beach 16 80,800 West Covina 24 106,500 Ontario 16 170 373 San Luis Obispo 23 44,500 Pasadena 16 133,936 Visalia 23 102,684 Anaheim 22 345,000 Pittsburg 16 59,650 Santa Clarita 16 164,900 Chico 22 73,558 Escondido 15 141,350 Glendale 22 200;200 Grover Beach 22 13,067 Manteca 15 61,927Napa 15 74,000 Lakewood 22 74,000 Pismo Beach 15 8,200 Oakland 22 351,000 Oxnard 22 182,027 Turlock 15 67,009 Chula Vista 14 215,000 Whittier 22 85,500 Millbrae 14 20,800 Beverly Hills 21 33,784 Pomona 14 155,000 Claremont 21 35,077 Ceres 13 37,388 Coronado 21 26,000 Hanford D 48,070 Los Angeles 21 3,900,000 Livermore 13 76,500 Palo Alto 21 62,000 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 22 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Porterville 13 42,000 San Fernando 4 24,564 Santa Cruz 13 56,300 Santee 4 55,097 Arcadia 12 53,054 Westminster 4 92,270 Garden Grove 12 169,000 Azusa 3 47,165 Lancaster 12 1-3131,500 Lemoore 3 21,950 Weed 12 3,005 Santa Barbara County 1 3 164,000 Redlands 11 70,324 Temple City 3 33,000 Sonora 11 4,573 Carmel-By-The-Sea 2-1 4,200 Fontana 10 151,965 La Puente 2 44,000 Fremont 10 210,000 Antioch 1 101,049 Menlo Park 10 30,000 San Bruno 1 40,165 Tustin 10 70,871 Solvang 1 5,342 Bakersfield 9 295,000 Brea 9 39,584 El Cajon 9 96,664 San Leandro 9 79,542 South Pasadena 9 25,789 Calabasas 8 23,123 Cerritos 8 51,000 Costa Mesa 8 113,011 Downey 8 110,700 La Habra 8 61,188 Montclair 8 35,245 Mount Shasta 8 3,600 San Marino 8 12,945 St Helena 8 6,000 Thousand Oaks 8 126,081 Upland 8 46,000 Beale AFB 7 7,500 Covina 7 49,565 Mission Viejo 7 98,197 Petaluma 7 56,000 Poway 7 50,675 Santa Ana 7 348,000 Yuba City 7 58,368 San Ramon 6 50,000 Simi Valley 6 122,485 Woodland 6 52,519 Diamond Bar 5 59,487 Mountain View 5 71,000 El Segundo 4 16,600 Huntington Beach 4 200,000 Lodi 4 60,000 Martinez 4 36,000 Milpitas 4 64,998 San Diego 4 1,300,000 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 23 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Attachment. CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS &RECREATION DEPARTMENT NO TREE PERMIT DATE Name of Applicant Address of Applicant EXPIRATION DATE Location of Work DESCRIPTION OF WORK Number of Trees Variety Remarks TO TRIM TO TOP TO REMOVE TO PLANT As provided by Code Section 11.0460 of the Ordinance Code of the City of Burlingame, permission is hereby granted to perform the above work. All work shall be performed in the manner specified by the Superintendent of Parks. All tree removals shall be made at least 19"below the adjacent curb elevation. The City shall not be made liable for the acts of private persons or their contractors upon city streets or public places by virtue of this permit. Superintendent of Parks I hereby agree to the provisions and requirements of this permit. Permittee Not valid unless Countersigned by Permittee Compiled June 5,2007 -24 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Attahinent'"C" PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION PARES&RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 BURLINGAMEAVENUE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: ADDRESS: (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s): SPECIES CIRCUWERENCE LOCATION ON PROPERTY WORK TO BE PERFORMED REASON WORK IS NECESSARY (Please use back ofform for additional comments.) NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) OWNER(Print)_ MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A x'50.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDRESS Attach any supporting documentation you may have (example:Report from an Independent Arborist). PHONE PERMIT This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s)in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance(Municipal CodeChapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER CITY ARBORIST PARKS &RECREATION DIRECTOR CONDITIONS: 24-inch box size landscape tree(s) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06.080,payment of$400 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at(650) 558- 7330 when removal(s) completed DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed Compiled June 5,2007 -25 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Attachment Street Tree Inventory Re ort Tree Frequency by Species Clickfor Ibcations Cotint ' Platanus acerifolia(SYCAMORE/LONDON PLAN) 1758 12.96 Liqu,danibar T GI3T56 ' S 5 Magnolia gandiflora(SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA) 961 7.08 Vacant lantin steVCANT PLNTII3G SITES J "7.{�4 Eucalyptus globulus (BLUE GUM) 668 4.92 C�ratae�us�p��'HAWTHQRN SPBCIESl 3'�3 ',' 2:8 Pyrus kawakamii (EVERGREEN PEAR) 373 2.75 Prunus l�Iirciana ; LQRIlG PI;TM 'T1�m 2.29, Ginkgo biloba(MAIDENHAIR TREE) 306 2.26 Pyrus ca�ler�na"AnstocrMt QARIST�QCRAT RSA 2S2: x.93 Prunus cerasifera(CHERRY PLUM) 257 1.89 ..:.... . .. _... .._.... .' '. . ..::...°. F....:" . ....,_.._.... ..mac.v'. .......':.,.:...,. ..->. ... ..,':.... Magnolia 'Samuel Sommer' (MAGNOLIA 227 1.67 'SAMUEL SOM) - 47 Casuanna sip {BEEFW,-0 67 Prunus serrulata(JAPANESE FLOWERING C) 218 1.61 F Eucaltus^v�mu�ralis (IvLANNA GIS 4: 'x - .,,,_, _L IM Pistacia chinensis (CHINESE PISTACHE) 199 1.47 e ,a�a ;r r` y � K r FrnuS sip fAS3 SPECIES +x 5 Ulmus americana(AMERICAN ELM) 166 1.22 Robuuaseudeacacia(BLAG I€7CUST) ._ a PMs Calleryana/Chanticleer(CHANTICLEER 161 1.19 PEAR) 777 Sanium Sebiferum(CHIlTESE TALLOW TREE `'H16Q Eucalyptus spn. (EUCALYPTUS SPECIES) 155 1.14 Cinnamomum carnphora(CANTHOR TREE) 151 111 Other(OTHER) 150 1.11 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 26 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT e�iera parvilol�a(AUSTRALIAN WILD 140 Acer spp. (MAPLE SPECIES) 140 1.03 Quercus rubra CREI3 OAI� '136 1.O�i a Photinia spp. (PHOTINIA) 130 96 I3eakula vendula TDP _. EL EANWTTE IRG1Il125; Pittosporum spp. (PITTOSPORUM SPECIES) 120 .88 Porus calTery�aa t�3RADF�RD PEAR)" 11.8 87 a Palm spp. or cord line s p (PALM SPECIES OR DRAG) 116 .85 ,., ,e'wflis .vrt.; w77,1777777- 7 _ s- lzq '--'^^ „ .^ L�raerstroetnra'1nclea{CRRER "L A Pinus radiata(MONTEREY PINE) 102 .75 Iyopor[ laelurn ' 600 x MAGNOLIA 'LITTLE GEM' (MAGNOLIA 'LITTLE GEM) 98 •72 } CItis smensisfC�ESE HACKSY) & 72 Acer saccharinum (SILVER MAPLE) 88 .65 IT 'I"i spp fLTRE 132 61 ' Liriodendron tuli ifera(TULIP TREE) 80 .59 ClercxleI ICLL Y QUA ) ;7253 Acacia melanonlon(BLACK ACACIA) 72 .53 Ctapa Speciosa(STERN CA "ALP ) '71 52 Eucalyptus polyanthemos (SILVER DOLLAR GUM) 70 .52 Secrtta�a sempernireii (COASTREDWUOD� 51 . Ligustrum spp. (PRIVET SPECIES) 68 .50 Pr nits v doensis `ak bono''IAKEBONG O ERRYl Juglans regia(ENGLISH WALNUT) 59 .43 Ulin paiifQliaCASE ELIl�1) 54 .40 Eucalyptus lehmannii BUSHY YATE)_. 5 _... _.<. - .38 Eucalyptus bancroftii 4T`MA FTS 52 :38 EUCAL'S�PTUS)_. .._ Magnolia 'St. Marv' (MAGNOLIA 'ST. MARY) 52 .38 Eucalyptus icifolia( tED=FLUW>✓ T Gtr 52 .38 Compiled June 5, 2007 -27 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Quercus aanfolia(COAST LIVE OAK) 47 .35 Aesculus carnes(REi3 HORSE CHMTNLTT} x Acer Rubrum (RED MAPLE) 44 .32 `'I�.oelreuterr� biptnhata�CI�NI✓S�FI;AI+�E"`1��� � �3 : � � � � Robinia ambigua(IDAHO LOCUST) 35 .26 eras Oaacien � ( AT1�ED13 } 3 .26 Quercus s . (OAK SPECIES) 35 .26 Primus snp f STQNE F C1IT SPECI S 32 .24 .. _._. _._ ....._... . . Axa ! < Ulmus spp.(ELM SPECIES) 32 .24 Eucalyptus sideroxylc3n D T1t -B—ARK1 INN � � � .23 Eucalyptus nicholii (NICHOL'S WILLOW-LEAF) 30 .22 chins. le CAL € R�IIA PEPPERbg�:TR) 29 .21 Pinus spp. (PINE SPECIES) 26.. .19 Ceratonia siliqua(CAROB) 24 .18 �t .r� CUPANIOPSIS anacardioides (CARROT WOOD) 20 .15 Ulmus procera (ENGLISH ELM) 19 .14 MetrosrderaS C.X elsuSs.(NEW SAL ND Pinus halepensis (ALEPPO PINE) 18 .13 7 X7 AM E.rft�YQt T QC# I,a ax fl r z #� � Celtis australis (EUROPEAN HACKBERRY) 17 .13 Cailistemon spp. (BOTTLEBRUSH) 14 .10 cressu nracrocarpa(NIONTEREY'CYPRESS), Celtis spp. (HACKBERRY SPECIES) 14 .10 JU arra nr LACI WAL ) Acer negundo (BOX-ELDER) 12 .09 Scl in terebinthifialius MAAZILIAN PEPPER) 11 :88 Stump(STUMP) 11 .08 Compiled June 5, 2007 -28 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Crataegus Phaenop gum(WASHINGTON THO 7 RN) 1Q .0 Gleditsia triancanthos (HONEY LOCUST) 10 .07 Quercus dib, ea(SCARLET Brachvchlton populneum (BOTTLE TREE) 10 .07 Laurcis nobiis g Cedrus deodara(DEODAR CEDAR) 8 .06 Zelkova serrata t �11© ) 4, k z a Prunus amygdalus (ALMOND) 8 06 Fieu�rrurocarpa nitida PIAN LAUREL RIG) u ` x t u_ . .. y Prunus Yedoensis 'Yoshino' (YOSHINO CHERRY) 8 06 s Cerp Orc�dentahs( STEIN REDBI7I7 ' _. .N mix Calocedrus decurrens (INCENSE CEDAR) 7 .05 Mamplia cI esttc Beauty a GNOLIA d 'MAJESTIC$ 7 f W Magnolia gr. 'Victoria' (MAGNOLIA 'VICTORIA') 7 .05 ;s c.,. C-��,. Magnolia stellata(STAR MAGNOLIA) 5 .04N' �� MAP," G� r, M- � M € , '{ .} s xy; %" i o 5 N { Cupressus spp. (CYPRESS SPECIES) 04 4 5 .04 Morus alba(WHITE MULBERRY) 4 .03 :Tacarat da mr�osr.f t (7ACARANDA) .03 Unknown Species (UNKNOWN SPECIES) 4 .03 Ulmus`Accolade (Accolade Elm) 4 .03 Ailanthus altissima(TREE OF HEAVEN) 4 .03 Populus n,Qra italica 1OMBARDY POPLAR) 4 i.03 Pittosporum spp. (PITTOSPORUM SPECIES) 3 ,02. Thuia plicata(WESTERN RED CEDAR) 3 .02 Thuia occidentalis (AMERICAN ARBORVITAE) 3 .92 UnknoNNm{Unknown) 3 .02 Umbellularia californica(CALIFORNIA LAUREL) 3 ,02 Prunus+persica TEACH) 2 .01 Compiled June 5, 2007 -29 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Salix babvlonica (WEEPING WILLOW) 2 .01 PodQearpus acilior fAFRICAI EKN PINE) 2 .Ol NOT CITY TREE (NOT CITY TREE) 2 .01 Neriurn oleander.(OLEANDER) 2 .01 Melaleuca leucadendra(CAJEPUT TREE) ? .Ol Melaleuca quincluinervia(CAJ-PPUT) 2 .01 Pinus pinea(ITALIAN STONE PINES 1 .01 Lvonthamnus floribunda(CATALINA IRONWOOD) 1 .01 Popuius spp. (COTTONWOOD SPECIES) I .Ol Leptospermum laevigatum(AUSTRALIAN TEA TREE) R 1 .01 r r Prunus anneniaca(APRICOT) 1 .01 Dodonaa.viscosaHC)PSEEI?BUSK}, 1 .Ol Quercus chrysolepsis (MAUL OAK) 1 .01 Y � m N 'fir a` x.auraceae (E �bCC3 it 9! Y 4 (tcF t 8ex r k e i r w rr z xsf r NN Juniperus spp. (JUMPER) 1 .01 Grevil-1ea AlTabusta CSII� � ` ; 13,569 Species Found 132 distinct species s Burlingame, CA TreeKeeper 7.6 Compiled June 5, 2007 -30 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Attachment"E:" Criteria for Citi- Street Tree Removal VvIen There is On-Going Sidewalk Damage Adopted Cope (updated June 2006) 5 points 15 points 45 points 100 points Health and Structure - e.Xisrinue' ected after remedy F7 lt4inirml Significant Potential Dangerous for hazard Cost to Hoimeonner - Present&Future to1EE] Si dewall—curb. outer. pipes,draimge, etc twinimal Significant Nigh Present cost cost &Future oast Species Inappropriate for planting area Slightly Significantly inappropriate inappropriate Impact on neishborhood if removed Extrerrie4, Somewhat No Significant Negative Negative Impact Does not allow for ADA Width/Slope Sorne Accowdation Accomodation Accorrodation D;fficutt or Not Possibie NecesswyExpenses Total points Total of 100 points would require removal Compiled June S, 2007 - 31 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ;AttaCh3neIIt"717' City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 �Q, g °°, BURLINGAMphone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650) 696-7216 recreation(?Burlingame.ori w �� 6 �tl �"aa to LNC^ TREE EVALUATION FORM: MATHENY-CLARK Date: Site: Evaluated by: Owner : City Private Unknown Free Health Foliage color: Normal chlorotic dead Foliage density: normal sparse Annual shoot growth: excellent average poor Twig Dieback: Y N Woundwood development: excellent average poor none Vigor: excellent average fair poor Major pests/diseases: Site Site character: Residence commercial park easement ]Landscape type: mulch pavement lawn parking strip shrub border Irrigation: none automated excessive inadequate Recent site disturbance? Y N construction soil disturbance grade change sidewalk replacement Pavement lifted Y N %dripline paved 0% 10-25% 50-75% 75-100% Soil compacted poor drainage clay sandy/loam fill good Obstructions: overhead lines underground utilities adjacent veg. Signs/poles Exposure to wind: single tree part of a grove recently exposed Prevailing wind direction Targets Compiled June 5, 2007 - 32 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Use under tree house building parking traffic pedestrian recreation landscape hardscape utility lines Occupancy: occasional use intermittent use frequent use constant use Tree defects: Root defects Suspect root rot: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID Exposed roots severe moderate low Root pruned distance from trunk Root area affected % Buttress wounded: Y N When Restricted root area severe moderate low Potential for root failure sever moderate low Lean deg. from vertical natural unnatural self corrected severe moderate low Soil uplifting/cracking Y N Roots: girdled kinked circling broken Crown defects: Defect Root Crown Trunk Scaffolds Branches Poor taper Bow, sweep condominants Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Conks/Mushrooms Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Bores/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure Compiled June 5, 2007 _ 33 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Hazard Rating Tree part most likely to fail: Inspection period: annual biannual other Failure Potential+ Size of Part+ Target Rating=Hazard Rating Failure Potential: 1—low; 2—medium; 3—high; 4—severe Size of part: 1-<6";2—6-18";3—18-30";4->30" Target rating: 1-occasional use;2-intermittent use;3-frequent use;4-constant Hazard Abatement Prune: remove defective part reduce end weight _crown clean thin raise canopy crown reduce restructure _shape Inspect further: _root crown decay _aerial _monitor Remove tree: Y N Replace?: Y N Move target: Y N Other Comments: Compiled June 5, 2007 - 34 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT A—o'chment A City Street Tree Removal Process I. Reguest far Removal II. parks A�ininistradon IFI Decision Dr,cess IV StaffAcdou V Removal Steos Request via phone. eons emaE. fax, letter;) may r----------'i r----------1 r----------I come front property I II A.C'allforclanricationI r---------� I< , Letter.a prop ,( �'-. Rema.gal owner.public. staff.. tree I aaaor eXplaiu reieVaut( I M.L Senate request for I 1 owner of Intent ro I L----------I companv.business m-vier. I ordinance;policy,( I removal. ifwarranted.I I remove; repiacementl r�`.B. — are other I pracdceorcon>r.�itmentl I Emergency removals) I zeal tincluded i I around— I to urban forest I 1 are attended to I L---------- I monthly by contract,I L----------i I immediately with no I r_---------1 1 while contract is M II.�.B. Beautification) I effect I r-----------t I process for appeals. I C';mmission noticed L---------� 1113.Semice Request fort L---------- I i I Invection for possible I r--------- when<isnificant tree;I r----------i IiI_B Deny removal 1 are removed.includin?1 I V.C. P.ep[acemeut I I -removal I I I , L---------J request (site or phone I emergeuct��remavals � times per -January 1 contact withrequester)1 L----------j I Aprii.October:i I L----------� r--- -----1 L---------J i AT. Historical Society I r -----, I MEC. A 1 uaucedw•lrentreestobel -Alternate Action) ( I (prune.fertilize.etc) - removed are historically I I I I I remspecdonaSeraction f L--sig.tifificantcant —� r----------1 M. Appeal processs I l MD. Appeal Processs i I Beauriricatlonl I Beau: ::cation) 1 Commission heariuz,I I 'Commission hearin_—I 1 &Cmnl--May befiailift- I decision--Maybe furdierI 1 appealed to Council 1 I appealed to Council I L——————---- tipdned•1;'23,'0'7-RS Compiled June 5, 2007 - 35 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT CITY OF BURLINGAMB Attachment PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (Across from Rose Garden 10-18' 15' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;early Spring flowers Western Redbud in Washington Park.) sweet pea shaped and leaves are heart shaped;Fall color. GEIJERA PARVIFLORA Wells Fargo Bank 25-30' 30' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;graceful branches;fine Australian Willow (Broadway) textured leaves;pest free. KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA (209 Victoria) 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth;clusters of yellow Chinese Flame Tree (137 Chaining Rd.) flowers;leaves yellow in Fall,drop late. KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA (1528 Howard) 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth;yellow flowers; Golden Rain Tree (1 152 Balboa Ave.) leaves reddish in Spring, dull-green in Summer. LAGERSTROMIA INDICA (Village Park11535Calif.Dr. 20-30' 25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; Spring foliage light green tinged Crape Myrtle Outside fetace on Calif. Dr.) bronze red;red flowers July-September;yellow Fall color. MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth;white flowers; simila St.Ma►y', 'Samuel Sommer' (Broadway Shopping Area) to Southern Magnolia, but smaller. (*Requires 6'wide&over planter strip.) Compiled June 5, 2007 - 36 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Paye 2 TREES TO BE USED UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 1101 Oxford Road 20' 10' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;upright branches;dark Little Gem' (California Dr. side) green foliage has a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early spring and again late in summer. MAYTENUS BOARIA (1115, 1301, &1462 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth;pendulous graceful Ma)ten 7ree Burlingame Ave.) branches. MELALEUCA LINARIIFOLIA (City Hall/Employee Panning 15-25' 20' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; fluffy white flowers May Flaxleaf Paperbark lot exit approach on the right) and June;thick white bark. PHOTINIA FRAZERI (516 Bayswater& 15' 15' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; new growth is bronzy red Frazer's Photrma 525 California Dr.) in Spring; leaves large glossy green. * PISTACIA CMNENSIS 30-40' 40' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth; large, dark green leaves Chinese Pistache (39 Bancroft Rd) turn bright orange and red in Fall. * PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM 30-40' 40' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; fragrant white flowers Victorian Box (1201 &1230 Burlingame Ave.) glossy leaves;round headed. ; PRUNUS CERASIFERA 20' 15' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth; coppery leaves;light pinkPurple LeafPlum (1400 LincolnAv .) * PYRUS CALLERYANA (920LindenAve. & 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;upright formmasses white Flowering Pear 1429 Burlingame Ave.) flowers in Spring, red leaves in Fall. ; * SAPIUM SEBIFERUM (1245 Paloma Ave.--F#1) 35' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth;dense, round Chinese 7allow 7ree (990 Burlingame Ave./Parking crown; outstanding Fall color Lot median island-Lions Club parking lot) *Requires planter strip 3 feet wide and aver 9/2005 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 37 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT Attachin�ierit"H��:" CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL ,STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS Y WIDE AND UNDER AND IN ALL PLANTING SPACES IN PAVED AREAS BOTANICAL NAME Site height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description CRAETAEGUS LAEVIGATA 20-25' 25' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;clusters of double rose to English Hawthorne (1251 Capuchin Dr.) red flowers; leaves toothed;few berries. GEIJERA PARVIFLORA Wells Fargo Bank 25-30' 30' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;graceful branches;fine Australian Willom (Broad)vay) textured leaves;pest free. KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA (209 Victoria& 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth; clusters of yellow Chinese Flame Tree 137 Clramring Rd) flowers;leaves yellow in Fall,drop late. LAGERSTROMIA INDICA (Village ParhI1535Calif. Dr. 20-30' 25' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth; Spring foliage light green Crape Myrtle Outside fence on Calif. Dr.) tinged bronze red,red flowers July-September;yellow Fall color. MAYTENUS BOARIA (1115, 1301, &1462 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth;pendulous graceful Mayten Dve Burlingame Ave. & branches. 1553 Eastmoor) MELALEUCA LINARIIFOLIA (City Hall/Employee Parking 15-25' 20' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;fluffy white flowers May Flaxleaf Paperbark lot exit approach on the right) and June-,thick white bark. Compiled June 5, 2007 - 38 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT TREES T'0 BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS Y WIDE AND UNDER AND IN ALL PLANTING SPACES IN PAVED AREAS Page 2 PHOTINIA FRAZERI (516 Bayswater chi 15' 15' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; new growth is bronzy red Frazer's Photinia 525 Califotaria Dr.) in Spring; leaves large glossy green. PRUNUS CERASIFERA 20' 15' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth;coppery leaves;light pink to Purple LeafPlum (1400 Lincohr Ave.) white flowers. PRUNUS YEDOENSIS 40' 30' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth;curving,graceful, open branching Yoshino Flowering Cherry (No Site Location) pattern; light pink to nearly white fragrant flowers in early Spring. P. YEDOENSIS (Wash. Park1850 Burlingame-- 25' 20' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth. Variety is smaller than species Akebono' Westside children'splaygr-ound) and flowers are pinker than P. yedoensis. 9/2005 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 39 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT CITY OFBURLINGAME Attachment PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRWS OVER X AND UNDER 6'WIDE BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description AESCULUS CARNEA (1421 Palm DrZide tree 40' 30' DECIDUOUS:Fast early growth;round headed;dark Red Horsechestnut #2&# 4) green leaves; plumes of crimson flowers in Spring. CELTIS AUSTRALIS (Island west of Washington Park 40-50' 40' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;gray-green, elm-like European Hackberry Tennis Courts--ea. end of island) leaves;upright, round headed form. CELTIS SINENSIS (501 Primrose Rd--W. entrance 30-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth;glossy, dark green,elm- Chinese Hackberry to City Hall parking lot ea side) like leaves;broad,upright form. CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM 20-25' 25' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth;red berries in Washington Thorn (12 75 California Dr.) Winter;good fall color;thorns. EUCALYPTUS FICIFOLIA (1150 Oxford Rd. on Highway 20-40' 30' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; spectacular Red Flowering Gum Rd. side.) pink to red flowers in Summer;round headed form. EUCALYPTUS MICROTHECA 35-40' 35' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth;blue green, Microtheca ( ) ribbonlike leaves; smooth bark;bushy,round headed tree. EUCALYPTUS NICOLII 30-40' 25' EVERGREEN:Fast growth;graceful,weeping form; Willow-Leafed Peppermint (18 Bloon field Rd.) textured, light green leaves; slight odor of peppermint EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOS 30-60' 30' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; slender Silver Dollar Gum (1131 Capuchino Ave.) form;grey-green, oval to round leaves;mottled bark. FRAXINUS OXYCARPA (1535 Calif.Dr.--Village Park 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;compact,round headed; Raywood Ash by play area&853 Paloma Ave) dark green leaves turn claret red in Fall. Compiled June 5, 2007 -40 - URBAN r,OREST MANAGEMENT TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER Y AND UNDER G' WIDE Page 2 GINGKO BILOBA 30-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth; fan shaped leaves turn Maidenhair tree (700&800 NIL Bayswater Ave) yellow in Fall; spreading, almost umbrella form. MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20' 10' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;upright branches; Zittle Gem' (1101 Oxford Road) dark green foliage has a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early spring and again late in summer. MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA (1111 Trousdale--around 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;yellowish-white Cajeput Tree Police Dept. on Calif. Dr. flowers; spongy white bark &Trousdale sides) PISTACIA CHINENSIS 30-40' 40' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;large, dark green Chinese Pistache (39 Bancroft Rd.) leaves turn brilliant red and orange in Fall. PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM 30-40' 40' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; fragrant white Victorian BOX (1201 & 1230 Burlingame Ave) flowers;dark,glossy leaves; round headed. PYRUS CALLERYANA (920 Linden Ave. & 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth;upright form; masses Flowering Pear, 1429 Burlingame Ave) white flowers in Spring;red leaves in Fall. SAPIUM SEBIFERUM (1245 Paloma Ave & 35' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth;dense,round Chinese Tallow Tree 990 Burlingcane Ane) crown;outstanding Fall color. Lions club parking lot 9/2005 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 41 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT CITY OFBURLINGAML Attahuieitt"$. ." PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 6'WIDE AND OVER BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description ACER RUBRUM ( ) 40-50' 35' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth;lobed, shiny Red Maple green leaves; showy flowers;brilliant Fall color. CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 40-50' 45' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth; Camphor (300-400 blk.Burlingame Ave.) yellow green aromatic leaves;tiny yellow flowers in May. EUCALYPTUS MICROTHECA 35-40' 40' EVERGREEN: Fast growth- ribbon-like, ( ) 8in. long leaves;bushy,round-headed, strong looking tree. LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA(City H611/501 Primrose Rd. 40-60' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; American Siveet Gum along Bellevue side) very colorful Fall foliage, stays on into Winter. MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; 'Samuel Sommers' (Broadway Shopping Area) white flowers, similar to Southern Magnolia, but smaller. MYOPORUM LAETUM 20-30' 25' EVERGREEN: Fast growth- dense,glossy, (856 Edgehill Dr.,F#I &F#2) light green Myoporum foliage. PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA (Lines Lexington and 40-60' 45' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth- large, lobed, London Plane (Sycamore) Francisco Drives) maplelike leaves; sheds old bark;new bark smooth, cream colored Compiled June 5, 2007 - 42 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 6' WIDE AND OVER Page 2 QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA 40-70' 45' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; Coast Live Oak (2818 Easton Dr.) dense foliage;rounded holly-like leaves; round-headed, spreading crown. QUERCUS COCCINEA 40-70' 45' DECIDUOUS:Moderate to fast growth; Scarlet Oak (1200 block Oak Grove Ave.) high,open branches. Large,bright green leaves turn scarlet in cold Fall. QUERCUS ILEX 70' 45' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;toothed Holly Oak (1769 Escalante) green leaves,with silver underside;dense, oval crown. QUERCUS RUBRA 40-70' 45' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;spreading Red Oak (326 Clarendon Rd.) branches with round crown. ROBINIA AMBIGUA 30-40' 30' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; Idaho Locust (909 Linden Ave./2 trees) Spring clusters of bright magenta flowers; long leaves divided into oval leaflets. TRISTANI CONFERTA (810 Stanton Rd.) 30-60' 45' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth; Brisbane Box reddish-brown bark;green oval leathery leaves;resembles some Eucalyptus. 9/2005 Compiled Tune 5, 2007 -43 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME Attachment H.S." ,. PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED ON EASTON DRIVE BOTANICAL NAME Ileight at Minimum (Common Name) Maturity Spacing Description TAZMANIAN BLUE GUM up to 160 feet Large trunks are smooth and grayish-white;its bark sheds in (primary existing tree on Easton) long reddish-brown ribbons. The green,glossy leaves are 6 to14 inches long on rounded stems and are sickle shaped. The yellow flowers produced in the fall, lack petals and assume a feathery starburst pattern with the multitude of stamens arising from calyx. The tree can grow in a variety of soil types. CLADOCALYX SUGAR GUM over 80 feet Tolerant to a wide variety of soil types, has shiny, reddish 3-5 (to be used as the main replacement tree) inch leaves, oval or variable shaped. Its attractive bark sheds yearly to reveal white,gray or yellow patches. Trunks are straight,tall, and stately. EUCALYPTUS NICHOLII up to 50 feet Well-behaved, graceful,weeping tree with narrow,willow- WILLOW-LEAFED PEPPERMINT like, decidedly blue leaves. Short,narrow leaves,which have (to be used as an accent tree on the corners of blocks) a distinctive peppermint aroma when crushed, disappear into the ground cover. It has a compact crown and is resistant to frost. The matted bark is rough, does not shed, and ranges in color from yellow/brown to gray/brown.Shade tree,tolerates heat, any soil and is drought resistant. FICIFOLIA RED FLOWERING GUM up to 40 feet A tidy, round headed tree has a striking appearance with its (to be used in front of the Easton Branch Library) bright red flowers, in the spring and the fall, cast against the dark brown-green leaves and the rough gray bark. Not detrimental to gardens, as it has a very deep root system allowing plants and lawn to be grown right up to it. It is a drought-tolerant species. Compiled June 5, 2007 - 44 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT BURLINGANX BEAUTIFICATION COMNUSSION Attachment"P' COlVINIISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE L GENERAL PROVISIONS A. These rules of procedure shall be known as the "Rules of Procedure of the Beautification Commission, City of Burlingame." A Copy of these rules, and amendments thereto, shall be filed in the office of the Park Department and the City Clerk for examination by the public. B. These rules, and any amendments thereto, shall be effective on the date of the adoption hereof and shall govern the meetings and conduct of hearings by the Commission. II. OFFICERS A. Election and Term of Office The Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and Secretary are elected by the majority of the Commission for a one-year term and hold office until their successors are elected or until their terms as members of the Commission expire. The officers are elected at the first meeting of the Commission in October of each year. Elections, whether regular or to fill vacancies, shall be held only if five commission members are present. B. Vacancies In case of any vacancy in the office of Chairperson, Vice Chairperson or Secretary, the vacancy shall be filled by an election held at the first regular meeting after the occurrence of such vacancy. Persons so elected shall serve the balance of the term. C. Duties of Officers The Chairperson performs the following duties: 1. Presides at all meetings of the Commission. 2. Appoints committees and chairperson of committees. 3. Approves the agenda prior to distribution. 4. Signs correspondence on behalf of the Commission. 5. Represents the Commission before the City Council. 6. Performs other duties necessary or customary to the office. In the event of the absence of the Chairperson or his/her inability to act, the Vice Chairperson presides in place of the Chairperson. In the event of the absence of or the inability to act of both the Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson, the remaining members shall elect one of their members to act as temporary chairperson. D. Committees The Commission of the Chairperson, upon direction of the Commission, may appoint several of its members, but fewer than a quorum, to serve as a committee. On certain occasions, such as when a particular kind of expertise or public representation is desirable, the Commission may appoint a non-member to the committee. Committees make recommendations directly to the Commission. A committee may not represent the Commission before the Council or other bodies unless it has first received the authorization of the Commission to do so. Compiled June 5, 2007 - 45 - URBANFOREST MANAGEMENT III. MEETINGS A. Regular meetings shall be held on the_first Thursdav of each month at 5:30 p.m. in the Burlingame City Hall. B. Items for public hearing will normally be considered at the beginning of each meeting. C. Special meetings may be called by the Chairperson or a majority of the members of the Commission. . D. A majority of the voting members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting business. IV. VOTING A. No official action shall be transacted by less than the affirmative vote of a majority of the quorum present. B. A motion may refer to items by agenda number. A motion may not be withdrawn by the mover without the consent of the member seconding it. Motions on items or matters not involving a hearing may be adopted by voice vote unless any member requests a roll call vote. C. Tie votes result in defeat of a motion, and unless a subsequent motion is passed regarding an item, results in its denial. Abstentions shall not be counted as either for or against a motion under any circumstances. V. AGENDA The Agenda of each meeting will normally include the following items: 1. Roll call 2. Minutes 3. Public hearings 4. Other items for action 5. Communications 6. Staff reports 7. Adjournment VI. APPLICATIONS, PETITIONS AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS No application, petition or other item for consideration shall be placed on the agenda unless it is filed in the office of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department, 850 Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame before 5:00 p.m on the seventh day preceding the meeting of the Commission. The application of this rule may be waived, for good cause, by the Chairperson of the Commission. Compiled June 5, 2007 -46 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT VII. HEARING PROCEDURES A. The appropriate staff member shall first present the staff report and all documents and exhibits. When possible, all such material shall have been provided to the applicant or petitioner in advance of the meeting. Commission members shall state any known conflicts of interest. The applicant or petitioner and other members of the public may thereafter testify and present evidence for and against the item. B. The Commission shall retain copies of all documents or exhibit presented. C. All those wishing to give testimony shall identify themselves by name and address. D. The Chairperson may limit the time for the presentation of testimony by each person and shall announce said limitation prior to any presentations. Persons may speak more than once only after obtaining permission from the Chairperson. Notwithstanding the above, the Chairperson may terminate the speaking period of any person when the time taken by the person becomes excessive or when his testimony becomes repetitious. E. A member of the Commission, staff or public may ask the speaker questions with the consent of the Chairperson. All responses and answers shall be made to the Commission. F. A member of the Commission may not consider a fact not presented as part of the record unless he discloses said fact prior to the closing of the public hearing. G. No evidence shall be taken after the closing of the public hearing. The public hearing may be reopened for the taking of further evidence at the discretion of the Chairperson. VIII. DELIBERATIONS AND DECISIONS A. The Commission shall not deliberate nor make a decision on the application until the close of the public hearing. B. Deliberations and decisions shall be based on the staff report, documents and exhibits, evidence presented at the hearing and stated open and notorious facts. Adopted By: Beautification Commission January 4, 1979 Compiled June 5, 2007 - 47 - Agenda Item # 9a Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: June 18, 2007 SUBMITTED BY Z%m d=o" APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: June 6, 2007 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE MARSTEN STORM DRAIN OUTFALL PIPELINE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURE PROJECT, PHASE 3 - CITY PROJECT NO. 80520 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution approving a professional engineering services agreement with Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers in the amount of $ 179,029.00. BACKGROUND: On April 10, 2007, a Request for Proposal was issued to qualified engineering firms and two proposals were received. Staff evaluated and interviewed the engineering firms and selected Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineer, based on their experience in similar projects, understanding and familiarity with the project, and discussion with previous clients. The services include design, cost estimating, plan preparation, contract document preparation, geotechnical investigation, surveying, easement acquisition, agency coordination, permitting, and CEQA process assistance. Staff recommends approval of an agreement with Winzler and Kelly Consulting Engineers for a fee of $179,029, which is approximately 18% of the total estimated construction cost of $1,000,000. The industry standard for this type of project is approximately 20%. PROJECT: The project includes the installation of a new pipeline in the city's right of way along Easton Creek to a discharge structure near the bayfront. Previous phases of work involved tunneling pipe under the Freeway 101 and under Bayshore Highway. It is estimated that the design phase will be completed by February 2008. Staff will return to Council, in the Spring of 2008, for the award of a construction contract as well as an agreement for construction phase professional services. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80520 Approving Agreement Prof Svcs.doc EXHIBITS: Resolution; Agreement BUDGET IMPACT: There are adequate funds available in Account No. 320-80520 to fund this expenditure. Doug Bel E, Senior Civil Engineer c: S Murtuza, City Engineer E Hirschhorn, Winzler & Kelly Consulting Engineers City Clerk, Finance Dept. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80520 Approving Agreement Prof Svcs.doc RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH WINZLER AND KELLY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR THE MARSTEN STORM �.. DRAIN OUTFALL PIPELINE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURE PROJECT, PHASE 3 CITY PROJECT NO. 80520 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk �� SAA Public Works Directory\Author,By NameVoanne Louie\REOLUTIONAGREEMENT.WPD City Agreement Exhibit A, Page 1 of 9 EXHIBIT A Scope of Work City of Burlingame Marsten Pump Station Outfall Pipeline and Discharge Structure — Phase 3 The following is a summary of our proposed tasks for Phase 3 Marsten Pump Station Outfall Pipeline and Discharge Structure. We will provide five (5) copies of each deliverable to the City, unless noted otherwise. The schedule is attached as Exhibit B and the proposed fee for these tasks is attached as Exhibit C. SCOPE OF WORK Task 1 Predesign Evaluation This predesign phase was added at the request of the City to provide a preliminary evaluation of alternatives and develop recommendations for City review and approval prior to proceeding with the design. Winzler & Kelly will meet with the City in three separate meetings to collaboratively evaluate the preliminary design alternatives and develop design criteria for the design of the outfall pipeline and outfall structure. Consideration for the pipeline design to include the following: o method of construction (open cut versus tunneling) o pipe materials (HDPE, fiberglass, concrete, other) o pipe profile (install deep, constant slope, or install shallow) o constructability (consider neighboring office building, sheet piling, pile driving, etc.) o construction costs Consideration for the Outfall structure design to include the following: o Configuration (box, open side, pipe outlets, etc.) o Foundation type and parameters (by geotechnical subconsultant, DCM Engineers) o Easton Creek armoring design options o Construction costs This task' s meetings are proposed as two 6-hour workshop sessions and one 4-hour workshop which may be held at either the City or Winzler & Kelly's San Francisco offices. We will also include the structural engineer and the geotechnical engineer at two of the meetings with the City. The meetings will be used to review and confirm the concepts for the outfall structure configuration and location, preliminary alignment and design of the pipeline, the outfall structure including civil, hydraulic and structural engineering, and Easton Creek armoring design. There will be some effort required in between meetings for the team to gather additional input, review components of the design, discuss options for equipment with vendors, etc. The meetings are anticipated to cover the following: City Agreement Exhibit A, Page 2 of 9 Meeting 1 — Discuss and determine design criteria for design of outfall pipeline (method of construction, tunneling versus open cut, pipe materials, profile of pipeline, armoring parameters, etc.) Meeting 2 - Evaluate preliminary concepts for design of outfall structure (open side, pipe configuration, weir, etc.) and design of pipeline. Consider constructability of pipeline and outfall structure (existing bldg, sheet piling, piles) and estimates of probable construction cost of alternatives in discussions. Meeting 3 - Determine and agree to alternatives and parameters to be used in next phase of design. Review additional input gathered by team outside of meetings and make decisions on the basis of design for the pipeline, outfall structure, and armoring design. Winzler & Kelly will prepare a letter summarizing the decisions made in the meetings. This letter will document the decisions and establish the design criteria as the basis for the subsequent design. This task does not include the evaluation of pump station options as this will be performed as a separate project. If there is additional analysis needed to be performed during the predesign phase, additional scope and fee will be needed. The scope of work for the next phase of work is based on having all decisions for design made through the meeting process described in this Predesign Evaluation task. Should additional evaluations become necessary during design, additional scope and fee will be needed. Deliverables: • Attendance at 3 Meetings with City • Letter summarizing results of Predesign Meetings and documenting decisions made • CD copy of all the data for the hydraulic analysis and program(s) documentation such that, in the future, City can purchase said program(s) and City staff can produce computer runs as needed. Task 2 Prepare Construction Documents for Phase 3 — Outfall Structure and Pipeline Extension Based on the concepts agreed upon in Task 1, Winzler & Kelly will complete the design of the pipeline extension, outfall structure, and Easton Creek armoring design. It is anticipated that the outfall structure will be located at the end of the pipeline where it will discharge into Easton Creek (approximately 200 feet from the San Francisco Bay on the south side of Easton Creek). The location of end of the pipeline will be confirmed in consultation with the environmental planners and permitting agencies. For purposes of this proposal, we have assumed the design to be for Alternative 3 in the alternatives presented in Technical Memorandum 2 prepared previously. If the location changes significantly, for example, to be at Alternative 4 location at the San Francisco Bay, we will redefine our scope and fee for this task. With the Alternative 3 City Agreement Exhibit A, Page 3 of 9 location, the outfall structure is intended to provide energy dissipation as well as creek armoring design to minimize impacts to the existing creek banks and to limit negative hydraulic impacts upstream in the creek. This task will include informal meetings with the City to review the progress for the outfall structure configuration and location, preliminary and final design of the pipeline, the outfall structure including civil, hydraulic and structural engineering, and Easton Creek armoring design. Winzler & Kelly will prepare a 90% progress submittal and a final design of the pipeline and outfall structure. Each submittal will be accompanied by an estimate of the probable construction cost. The design team will work with the City to develop the design, including informal "over-the-shoulder" reviews at Winzler & Kelly's offices if the City prefers. We have budgeted for one formal review meeting with the City to be held after the 90% submittal. Technical specifications as required to describe the pipeline and outfall structure will be prepared in CSI format. Deliverables: 90% Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) 90% Submittal Review Meeting - Attendance,Agenda, Meeting Minutes Final PS&E (Bid Documents) Task 3 Environmental CEOA Documents (Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration) This task will include efforts to coordinate the Phase 3 project with the previously prepared environmental documentation for CEQA compliance. Our preliminary evaluation of the Phase 3 outfall pipeline and discharge structure indicates that the proposed project description changes would not cause new significant impacts or an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, and therefore, the environmental review could be completed by means of an addendum to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. Winzler & Kelly will prepare a CEQA Addendum to support the Phase 3 project, and attend up to two (2) meetings to review and discuss the CEQA documentation and permitting needs. Alternatives Analysis A CEQA Senior Planner will work with the Design Team to analyze and evaluate four alternative locations for the Marsten Pump Station outfall structure. This effort will include making initial contacts with permitting agencies which could potential have jurisdiction over the project, depending on which alternative is selected. It is proposed that the City of Burlingame staff will assist in the coordination with permitting agencies. Conference calls and meetings to discuss the matter are also included in this task. Addendum to the Project's Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) The project's initial MND was completed in November, 2003. Although the outfall structure is currently referred to as the third phase of the project, it was analyzed in the 2003 MND as part of the project's second phase. Our preliminary evaluation of the Phase 3 outfall structure indicates that the proposed project descriptions changes (i.e., the four outfall alternatives) would not cause new significant impacts, an increase in severity of previously identified impacts, or the need for new mitigation measures. Winzler& Kelly will prepare an addendum to the MND. Deliverables: Competed CEQA Addendum for Phase 3 construction City Agreement Exhibit A, Page 4 of 9 Task 4 Permitting Agencies Coordination and Permit Applications Required Permits Beyond the environmental analysis required by CEQA, this project will also require certain permits prior to construction. This is mostly based on the project's location relative to Easton Creek and San Francisco Bay. Based on preliminary consultations with the major resource agencies, we anticipate the following permits will be needed for Phase 3: • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—Section 404/Section 10 Nationwide Permit • San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board— Section 401 Water Quality Certification • California Department of Fish and Game—Section 1602 Alteration Agreement • San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission — Administrative Permit The scope is based on compiling information and filing each permit application, one site visit with each agency, and eight hours of further coordination with each agency. As part of the Section 404 permitting effort, we will investigate the need for Section 7 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is proposed that the City of Burlingame staff will help with coordination of meetings and assist with the permitting process. Should additional coordination by Winzler & Kelly with any agency be necessary, this scope and fee estimate will be revised accordingly. Deliverables: Completed CEQA Addendum for Phase 3 construction, one site-visit to evaluate potential environmental impacts; attendance at up to two meetings to review environmental permitting, and a permitting TM. Task 5 Geotechnical Analysis The geotechnical investigation for Phase 3 will build upon the knowledge developed during Phases 1 and 2. Because the soils are variable surrounding the San Francisco Bay, and because there is a possibility that the proposed structures may need to be pile-supported, it is necessary to evaluate the soils to determine the characteristics and to provide appropriate supporting data for the design of the structures and creek protection for this project. In lieu of traditional borings, DCM Engineering will perform field investigation including one cone penetration test (CPT) to a depth of 80-feet at the proposed outfall structure location within the paved parking lot and one hand test probe to a maximum of 2-foot deep within Easton Creek at the planned outfall location. DCM will obtain a drilling permit from the San Mateo County Department of Health Services (SMHS) and field mark and call in the proposed CPT location to Underground Service Alert (USA) for clearance of utility subscribers. The proposed budget assumes that the City will provide the right of entry and permission to advance the CPT from owners of the private property where the CPT will be performed, as well as provide assistance to barricade the projected CPT work area to ensure clear access to the CPT test site at the scheduled test time. The CPT will be backfilled with cement slurry and capped with cold patch asphalt to match the thickness of the existing parking lot asphalt. DCM will take samples from the CPT and hand test probe, and perform laboratory analyses. DCM will prepare a geotechnical engineering analysis and investigation report to support the Phase 3 design. City Agreement Exhibit A, Page 5 of 9 Outfall Structure. It is anticipated that geotechnical information provided for the outfall structure will include pile foundation, recommendations for pile type, pile driving criteria, pile driving requirements (through fill), individual pile vertical load capacity as a function of length, pile capacity analysis, total and differential pile settlement, pile uplift capacity, anticipated differential pipeline settlement at structure connections; static lateral earth pressures; dynamic lateral earth pressure; permanent structure design groundwater level; 1997 UBC seismic design parameters, and related earthquake design considerations (e.g., liquefaction, fault rupture, and ground shaking); and soil corrosivity to uncoated steel and reinforced concrete. Force Main Extension. DCM will provide recommendations for force main construction methods,(i.e., tunneling versus open-cut trenching) as a function of subsurface conditions, invert depth, and proximity to existing structures; anticipated ground behavior; shoring guidelines including preliminary shoring pressures and surcharge pressure diagrams; construction design groundwater level and construction dewatering criteria; pipe bedding and trench backfill materials and compaction specifications (including lightweight backfill recommendations); rigid pipeline external loading; portal and tunnel face stability (for tunneling construction); ground pre-treatment for support of force main, outfall structure, and/or tunneling machine including at tunnel portals and tunnel face; anticipated differential force main and trench backfill settlement; and soil corrosivity to uncoated steel and reinforced concrete. Easton Creek Armoring. DCM will provide the Easton Creek channel bottom sediment grain size distribution (D-sizes) at the outfall location for use in armoring design (design included under Task 2. Deliverables: Draft Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report Final Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report Task 6 Survey and Mapping Site mapping will be premised on topography available from the City of Burlingame's GIS mapping. Site-specific field enhancement will be required for the outfall structure and creek bank protection design. The survey scope will include field enhancements to capture all surface features on the south side of Easton Creek between the existing temporary manhole at the end of the 66-inch diameter pipeline and the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. Additional detail on the creek bottom will also be gathered in several cross-sectional shots of top of bank, side slopes, and bottom of creek bed elevations. The survey will be translated into mapping at a scale of 1"=40' for use as the base map for the preparation of construction documents. Monuments, benchmarks and the basis of survey will be shown. Deliverables: Detailed Base Mapping at 1"=40' for project site area Task 7 Proiect Management Winzler & Kelly will perform Project Management throughout the project, including monthly progress statements and invoices, management of the design team, contracting and management of the subconsultants, and general project management activities that include monitoring of schedule and budget compliance. City Agreement Exhibit A, Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT B Project Schedule Winzler& Kelly is prepared to begin this Phase 3 work immediately upon your authorization. It is anticipated that it will take approximately six months to prepare complete Construction Documents for the pipeline extension and outfall structure. The timing for the permitting is less predictable, but is estimated to take approximate 3 months for the preparation of an acceptable permit application. The geotechnical task will take approximately 6 weeks to the draft report, from the point that all permissions for drilling are secured. Survey and mapping will take approximately one week for field work and one to two weeks for the mapping to be completed. For purposes of this proposal to show expected durations, we have assumed a Notice to Proceed (NTP) for Phase 3 on June 25, 2007. The final documents are projected to be complete by March 2008, in time for bidding and construction in Spring 2008. The attached conceptual schedule is prepared to correspond to the scope items presented in this proposed Scope of Work. BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM NO: 9b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: JUNE 18,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: June 8, 2007 APPROVED s BY: FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EIP/PBS&J TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME SPECIFIC PLAN RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with EIP/PBS&J for environmental review services related to the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan, at a maximum cost of$77,905.00. BACKGROUND: On April 16, 2007, the City Council awarded a contract to Kevin Gardiner & Associates for preparation of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. Work is about to commence on the project, with stakeholder interviews to occur during the summer months. On June 4, 2007, the City Council authorized execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Spangle Associates to provide supplemental staffing to the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Karen Kristiansson, the professional planner assigned to work with the Community Development Department, will serve as the department's project manager for the Downtown Specific Plan project. At this time, the Community Development Director seeks approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement with EIP/PBS&J as the environmental review consultant that will be tasked with conducting the environmental review for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). EIP/PBS&J's Scope of Work for the services to be provided is attached to this report as Exhibit 2. The total cost for the services is estimated at $77,905.00. The Department's original estimate for these services was anticipated to be $75,000.00. Though somewhat higher than anticipated, the cost estimate provided by EIP/PBS&J appears reasonable and remains within the overall funding limit for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan project. DISCUSSION: It is the Community Development Director's opinion that having the environmental review consultant on board as part of the consultant team for the Specific Plan project at the outset will permit the process to move forward more efficiently, since the consultant can provide input regarding potential project impacts as the Plan is prepared, rather than waiting for the conclusion of the planning process to begin the Professional Services Agreement—EIP/PBS&J Page 2 Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan—Environmental Review Services Meeting Date: June 18,2007 environmental review. EIP/PBS&J (formerly known at EIP Associates) is included among the consultants pre-approved for the City to use for environmental review purposes. FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for preparation of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan is provided through a$400,000.00 allocation from the City's Parking Enterprise Fund. This funding is intended to cover the costs of Plan preparation (Kevin Gardiner&Associates-$250,000.00), supplemental staffing (Spangle Associates- $50,820.00), and environmental review services (EIP/PBS&J - $77,905.00). A portion of the funding ($10,000.00)was previously expended for consultant services related to the development of the scope of work for the Specific Plan program. The funding does not include costs associated with implementation of the Specific Plan once adopted. Exhibits: Exhibit 1: Proposed Resolution Exhibit 2: Scope of Work—EIP/PBS&J EXHIBIT 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, GRANTING APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE EIP/PBS&J TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City Council previously authorized the preparation of a Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review of the Specific Plan must occur prior to consideration of the Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, EIP/PBS&J has submitted a proposal to conduct the required environmental review related to the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, the Scope of Services prepared by PBS&J has been found adequate to provide the level of environmental review required for the Specific Plan project, and the costs associated with the services to be provided by EIP/PBS&J are within the adopted budget for all activities related to the preparation of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with EIP/PBS&J for environmental review services related to the preparation of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, and for a maximum cost of$77,905.00, as stated in the Scope of Work. 2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Terry Nagel, MAYOR Resolution No. 1 of 2 I , DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 18th day of June, 2007, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doris Mortensen, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2of2 EXHIBIT 2 • effective communication and manage- Downtown Burlingame ment strategies. Specific Plan Environ— Following a description of these fundamental ele- mental Documentation ments is a detailed scope of work for preparing a comprehensive MND for the Downtown Burlin- game Specific Plan. Scope of Work This proposal is submitted in response to a re- Advantages of an Integrated quest from the City of Burlingame for a California Planning and Environmental Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance Review Process document for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. Provided that the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the City's General Plan, incorpo- EIP/PBS&J will work collaboratively to ensure Burlin- rates a community standards chapter that serves to that the development of the Downtown Burlin- avoid potentially significant impacts, does not re- game Specific Plan responds to the environmental suit in impacts that would be significant and issues, opportunities, and constraints. Rather, unavoidable, and does not engender public con- than preparing the planning document and then troversy that would warrant the more rigorous subsequently preparing the CEQA document, we analysis required of an EIR, it is possible to envision working jointly with Kevin Gardiner & achieve CEQA compliance with a Mitigated Nega- Associates, their team, and City staff in the formu- tive Declaration (NIND). lation of the plan and ensuring that the development program and policies/programs are Based on our understanding of the City and its vetted for their potential environmental impacts existing central commercial district, future devel- early on in the process. opment and redevelopment of the Downtown Area will be geared to enhance the already strong In keeping with this approach, we anticipate col- commercial, civic, and cultural core of the City. letting background environmental data With its quaint streets, high-quality streetscapes, concurrently with the collection of land use, zon- and coherent building facades, it would appear mg, market, and traffic conditions. that the Specific Plan would seek to reinforce Environmental baseline data that could be useful these attributes by further strengthening design in helping to inform the specific plan alternatives include materials on sensitive natural resources guidelines, promoting sustainable development, and enhancing a circulation system that promotes (water quality, biological resources, etc.) and envi- a pedestrian friendly environment and strategic ronmentally hazardous areas (areas of geotechnical parking location and pricing mechanisms. Asa instabilities, flood hazards, environmental con- result, it is expected that the Specific Plan would tamination, excessive noise levels, etc.), although fine tune what has been working and further pro- man already urbanized and long developed area,it is not anticipated that these issues would be par- mote the City's retail base. Accordingly, on the ticularly significant. Nevertheless, the early surface, it appears that a Mitigated Negative Dec- delineation of these "sensitive" areas can help laration would be appropriate. P shape the alternatives. Much of this information E I P/PBS&J is readily available in the maps that have been pre- Approach pared for the City's General Plan. To the extent that more refined or localized data are available, The following discussion identifies the corner- we would seek to introduce this material to the stones of our work approach: planning team. • the Integration of the Planning and Envi- ronmental Review Processes • the development of a Self Mitigating Plan Policies and Implementation Strategies Approach and Scope of Work direction in the plan's policies, guidelines, stan- Similarly, during the evaluation and refinement of dards, and implementation strategies to mitigate plan alternatives, an early screening of the alterna- the potentially significant impacts that might oth- tives for potential environmental impacts can erwise occur. In other words, the plan will offer further direction on the geographic alloca- mitigate any impacts that it might trigger. Again, tion and intensity of various land uses. During the it is anticipated that much of the emphasis of the formulation of the plan, there will be opportuni- Specific Plan will be to develop more specific ties to suggest environmental performance guidelines and standards for maintaining and/or standards that can support the avoidance of im- enhancing the character of Downtown Burlin- pacts or the environmental sustainability of future game. Accordingly, this scope of work assumes development. that following preparation of the Initial Study, the City will be able to prepare and adopt an MND The CEQA Process for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. The critical ingredients for fostering an efficient The sequence of tasks for the MND follows: CEQA process start with a clear understanding of • Prepare and develop setting information, the project issues and definition of the project. concurrently with the data collection of We expect that the topics requiring in-depth other team members analysis will be: • Review project alternatives and identify • Transportation (congestion levels, mode, any "fatal environmental flaws" (or po- safety,adequacy) tentially significant unavoidable impacts) • Alternative Transit Service (shuttles, • Prepare the project description that suffi- shoppers services, commuters services, ciently describes the development bicycle facilities, pedestrian access, car- program, and the policies for develop- pooling, employer services, connections ment, conservation, and management of to Caltrain) resources in the Downtown Area. • Access (pedestrian, bicycle, car, transit, • Prepare Administrative Draft Initial Study park-and-ride) on the plan, and identify any policies, • Visual Quality (scale, open space, com- guidelines, standards, or programs that could help mitigate an identified signifi- cant character) cant impact (with the intent that these • Noise and Air Quality (transportation re- recommendations could be incorporated lated effects) into the plan). • Cultural Resources (direct loss of historic • Submit Administrative Draft Initial Study properties or indirect effects that result in for staff review and meet to discuss the the alterations to the historic setting) "self mitigating"recommendations. • Hazardous Materials (past or current soil • Revise Administrative Draft Initial Study or groundwater contamination). (recognizing any changes to project de- scription that may have been revised to We expect that these topics will be paramount incorporate self-mitigating recommenda- because they relate to the increased intensity of tions) and submit a Screencheck uses and activities that would be expected in the Administrative Draft Initial Study for re- Downtown area. view. The impact analysis will consider growth antici- • Assuming that the City is comfortable pated by the plan as well as the policies that are with the analysis and that there are no being recommended. Because of the close inte- significant unavoidable impacts, publish gration of the planning and environmental review and distribute for public review and processes, it is hoped that there will be sufficient comment, a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND,an MND,and the Initial Study. EIP/PBS&j Proposal for the Downtown Burlin 5090game Specific Plan MND,6/9/2007 2 n Approach and Scope of Work • Following the close of the review, organ- Scope of Work ize and prepare responses for inclusion in the staff report or as part of a final MND. Task 1. Project Initiation • Attend and support Planning Commis- sion or City Council hearings on MND Purpose. Initiate the CEQA effort and discuss key adoption. issues, data collection efforts, and the schedule for completion of individual tasks. Effective Project Management Discussion. EIP will meet with Kevin Gardiner & Project success begins with quickly and accurately Associates and City staff to: discovering issues and conditions that must be • Discuss data needs for the environmental addressed by a project. This knowledge lays the analysis groundwork for the analysis and understanding that must follow. This working environment can • Identify sources of data and development be only achieved with good project management of a base map for team members to use and clear communication. (we anticipate using the same base map that Kevin Gardiner & Associates de- In addition to receipt of all relevant background velop as part of their Task 1) information from the City and Kevin Gardiner& • Establish procedures for contacting City Associates, EIP/PBS&J will rely on close coordi- staff and other agencies, organizations, nation and frequent communication with the and individuals,and consultant team and the city project manager, Karen Kristiansson. To facilitate this, Rod Jeung • Review and agree on schedules and dead- and Rachel Schuett will serve as EIP/PBS&J's lines for interim products and key team points of contact. Rachel will actively manage the and public meetings. work on a day-to-day basis to ensure the timeli- ness and quality of the environmental analyses and The project initiation will also review whether the will participate in all project meetings. City has updated the CEQA checklist since the last documents that EIP prepared for the City, As part of overall project management, all written and to ensure that the significance thresholds cor- materials will be reviewed and edited for technical respond, at a minimum, to those in Appendix G accuracy, adequacy, style, grammar, tone, and of the State CEQA Guidelines. presentation. At the outset of the project, EIP/PBS&J will prepare a project guide with At the Initiation Meeting, EIP will provide a Data schedules, budgets, files, and responsibilities Request identifying the information required to clearly defined. All team members and the city prepare the Initial Study. The items needed are project manager will receive the project guide. summarized below. We will establish, during project initiation • Background data available from other (Task 1), regular contacts among the EIP project relevant studies and plans, such as the manager, Kevin Gardiner & Associates, and the ERA market study and the Wilbur Smith City project manager to review work progress, to parking study identify data needed from the City and the team, • Geotechnical/seismic evaluation, cultural and to address foreseeable issues. The resource/archaeological studies, or envi- EIP/PBS&J project manager will record any deci- ronmental site assessments in the vicinity sions and actions items and distribute meeting of the opportunity sites (areas that Kevin notes to the City and other key team members. Gardiner & Associates and the City con- This documentation would supplement monthly sider to be underutilized and likely to be progress and budget reports. the focus of new development or rede- velopment) EIP/PBS&&Proposal for the Downtown Burlingame S 50963 pecific Plan MND,6/9/2007 3 Approach and Scope of Work • Data on utilities, school and recreation fa- • Air quality, including recent information cilities, transit facilities, transit plans, from the nearest air monitoring station bicycle routes and plans (data collection . Biology, including the most recent search for this information will be coordinatedg with Sandis, ERA, and Wilbur Smith of of the California Natural Diversity Data- the Kevin Gardiner&Associates team) base, and the California Native Plant Society's lists • Previous traffic studies and city/transit operator improvement plans • Geology and soils, including current in- formation from ABAG and the California • Previous studies/inventories of historic Geological Survey structures in the Downtown Area (data • Hazards and hazardous materials, includ- collection for this information will be co- ordinated with Carey & Company of the ing database searches on the state Kevin Gardiner&Associates team) Department of Toxic Substances Control website, and consultations with the City • Available Geographic Information System fire department and the County Envi- files ronmental Health Department • Recent EIRs applicable to projects in the • Hydrology and Water Quality, including Downtown Area review of 100-year flood maps, dam in- undation areas, and local stormwater • An inventory of cumulative projects and pollution prevention efforts applicable forecasts by the City and the Association of Bay Area Governments • Noise, including selected noise monitor- ing of locations determined in Deliverables. (1)Data request. consultation with Kevin Gardiner & As- sociates and City staff Task 2. Data Collection and Synthesis This information will be reviewed and organized into Opportunities and Constraints to identify opportunities and constraints to future development and redevelopment of the Down- Purpose: Collect, distill, and synthesize background town Burlingame Plan Area and serve as input to data that will be used to describe the existing con- Kevin Gardiner & Associates' existing conditions ditions and to identify opportunities and analysis (Task 2 in their scope of work). constraints for the plan development. Assuming Kevin Gardiner & Associates and the Discussion: Based on a clear delineation of roles City would be interested in having environmental and responsibilities, established during Task 1, resource and hazard maps available for public EIP/PBS&J will collect baseline information. It is meetings and internal team discussions, we can as expected that Kevin Gardiner&Associates will be an optional task prepare up to three large-scale compiling information on existing land uses,visual (size E) Geographic Information System (GIS) resources, and applicable plans and policies. It is maps. The data layers that will be constructed or also expected that Wilbur Smith Associates, the compiled from other sources will be georefer- traffic consultant, will assemble baseline informa- enced so that they can be readily used by Kevin tion on traffic, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian Gardiner&Associates and the City. facilities and operations. Furthermore, Carey & Company will build upon the City's historic re- Deliverables. (1) memorandum identifying key envi- sources inventory, and Sandis and/or ERA will ronmental issues and opportunities and have baseline information on existing and planned constraints, and (2) up to three large-scale Geo- utilities and public services in the downtown vicin- graphic Information System maps displaying ity and desired service levels. various environmental resources or hazards. As a result,EIP/PBS&J will focus its efforts on: EIP1 PBS&J Proporal for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan MND,61912007 4 50963 Approach and Scope of Work Task 3. Plan Alternatives Evaluation • Descriptions of the key goals, policies, and Refinement and development strategies serving as an underpinning to the Downtown Specific Purpose: To participate in the formulation of alter- Plan. natives and the selection of a preferred alternative, • A projection of the number of additional by identifying potential environmental impacts housing units and square feet of commer- and solutions. cial space (retail, office, and services), Discussion: based on buildout of the proposed land As part of the alternatives formulation, use intensities (i.e., units/acre and/or evaluation, and refinement process, EIP/PBS&J floor area ratios). will provide input to the City and Kevin Gardiner & Associates on the environmental implications • An acreage estimate of various land uses, and tradeoffs of the different alternatives (Task 4 including streets,parking,and open space. in their scope of work). It may be that one of the alternatives will focus on reducing environmental • Key housing, circulation/parking, and impacts and emphasizing environmental sustain- open space policies and programs. ability. EIP/PBS&J will comment on the . Design character and amenities (lighting, different alternatives from an environmental per- signage, and public art) that will enhance spective and suggest ways that they could be the ambience and livelihood sought for improved to achieve a greater degree of environ- the Downtown area. mental sensitivity. In addition, EIP/PBS&J will suggest approaches or strategies that would be • Plan implementation measures, such as equally applicable to all alternatives that would zoning incentives, housing affordability enhance their environmental sustainability. Ex- requirements, or other economic devel- amples of such strategies could be "low impact opment techniques. design" for stormwater detention and drainage, landscaping and planting materials, building mate- • Required review and approvals process rials etc. for the plans. Deliverables. Memorandum identifying environ- Deliverables: Draft Project Description. mental tradeoffs of the plan alternatives. Task 5. Complete Administrative Task 4. Project Description Draft Environmental Checklist Purpose. Prepare a project description that identi- Purpose. Complete the Environmental Checklist fies the plan's key features,including development from Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, program, opportunity sites, circulation and park- or alternative version used by the City. ing programs and standards, public service and utility levels of service standards or improvements, Discussion:EIP/PBS&J will use the information collected and synthesized as part of Task 2 for the urban design amenities and guidelines, and open space programs. environmental setting. As noted previously,in- formation for the following topics will come from Discussion.A clear and accurate project description other team members: land use (Kevin Gardiner& Associates),is essential to conducting the impact assessment. Assoc ),aesthetics (Kevin Gardiner&Associ- Based on materials developed by Kevin Gardiner ates), traffic and transportation (Wilbur Smith &Associates and the City,EIP will prepare a draft Associates),utilities (Sandis),community services description of the project. (ERA),and cultural resources (Carey&Co.). The contents of the draft project description, As noted in our general approach to the Down- which is assumed to be available from the materi- town Burlingame Specific Plan CEQA als developed by Kevin Gardiner & Associates documentation, environmental topics anticipated and the City,will include: to require detailed evaluation in the Initial Study because of potentially significant impacts include: EIPI PBS&j Proposal for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan MND,61912007 S 50963 Approach and Scope of Work • Land Use—because of intensification of Task 5.1 Land Use. Based on site visits and mixed use development, and potential background information from Kevin Gardiner & aesthetic and community character im- Associates and the City, EIP will summarize in pacts text,graphics,and photographs: • Urban Design/Visual Quality — because • Existing land uses and building intensities, of potential incompatibilities in scale, ori- and entation, and bulk of buildings compared • Applicable plans and regulations from the to surrounding development City's General Plan (particularly those • Traffic/Parking — because of effects to relevant to the downtown area). access routes, local intersections, parking supply,and site access for vehicles,pedes- The impact analysis will focus on: trians,bicyclists,and transit users • The proposals for identified opportunity • Cultural Resources – because of revitali- sites or intensification areas and their rela- zation efforts that can result in direct or tionship to the surrounding areas indirect effects on historic properties, • Changes in building intensity and lot cov- structures,or districts erage as compared to existing conditions • Noise — from increased vehicular traffic • Consistency with other City planning and construction activities policies and goals • Air Quality— from increased traffic con- gestion, which triggers localized carbon • The potential for land use conflicts as de- monoxide impacts fined by changes in the character of the surrounding blocks and neighborhoods. • Public Services — because of increased demand associated with possible intensifi- Task 5.2 Housing/Population. The impact cation of housing in the Downtown analysis will review the effect of the project on the jobs/housing balance in the City. This continues • Hazardous Materials –because of historic to be a chronic regional problem, and it is not en- land uses in the Downtown Area that may visioned that the Downtown Burlingame Specific have resulted in soil or groundwater con- Plan would substantially alter the City's projected tamination or older buildings that may ratio of jobs/residents. Data from the Associa- have building components containing tion of Bay Area Governments (ABAG hazardous materials. Projections 2007) and the California Department EIP/PBS&J will respond to all checklist ques- of Finance (City/County Population and HousingEstimates) will be used to examine the tions, using Appendix G from the State CEQA jobs/housing ratio in the City, and to explain the Guidelines or a format previously approved by the relationship and how the Downtown Specific Plan City. The responses to each checklist item will may affect the ratio. In addition to considerations provide substantial evidence to support the vari- of jobs/housing balance, EIP/PBS&J will identify ous conclusions (namely, potentially significant, the extent directly or indirectly that existing hous- significant unless mitigation measures are incorpo- ing/population might be displaced by plan rated,less than significant, and no effect). We will proposals. The plan's consistency with the poli- also identify mitigation measures, if necessary, for cies and housing targets of the City's Housing those project-related changes considered to be Element will also be described. significant effects. As it is currently envisioned, the Initial Study will not identify any potentially Task 5.3 Urban Design/Visual Quality. Urban significant impacts that cannot be mitigated. design and visual quality are key issues in the Downtown Area. Features that will be summa- The approach to analyzing key issues of the pro- rized from Kevin Gardiner&Associates to depict pro- ject is provided below: baseline conditions include: EIP/PBS&j Proposal for the Donwomn Burlin 50963 game Specific Plan 1bIND,6/9/2007 6 Approach and Scope of Work • Existing views of the opportunity sites developed, there may be subsurface historic and from various vantage points prehistoric resources. EIP/PBS&J will contact the local and county historical groups, the North- the character areas, the opportunity sites, • Architectural style and design elements of west Information Center, and others regarding archaeological resources; historic resources are and the surrounding residential neighbor- hoods that provide a visual context for expected to be documented by Carey & Co. If any resources are identified as potentially signifi- the proposed project cant, based on local (City inventories), state (State • Massing, heights, and facades of buildings CEQA Guidelines, Appendix K�, then along the Downtown streets EIP/PBS&J would assess the potential to disturb the significant resources. • Landscaping and streetscape features Typically, much of the ambience and uniqueness The impact analysis will review the plan guidelines of downtowns is attributable to its historic charac- and assess whether new development can relate ter and buildings. Burlingame is no different with positively to the Downtown's pedestrian friendly its historic fabric. EIP/PBS&J will use available character, the Downtown's entryways, the street information to describe the history and historic network, open spaces, and the height, mass, and setting of the Downtown and identify significant scale of the built environment, particularly in de- buildings and properties. Develop- veloped areas on the periphery of the Downtown. ment/redevelopment of downtown areas can pose direct and indirect effects on these historic re- In addition to the above "macro"visual elements, sources. EIP/PBS&J will review the Specific other aesthetics aspects that are more fine grained Plan's proposals and treatment of these cultural and on a "micro" level will be examined. Thus, resources. If preservation and/or adaptive reuse EIP/PBS&J will consider the plan's effect on site are not part of the plan's directions, these meas- planning, reviewing the building locations and ures or other similar type guidelines will be scale, circulation patterns, parking areas, relation- suggested as mitigation measures. ships to adjoining districts, and potential for pedestrian-oriented activities, open space, or other Task 5.6 Public Services, Schools, Recreation amenities. The analysis will determine whether and Utilities. Development of proposed oppor- the plan proposals would detract from good de- tunity sites or just general growth in the sign, the small-town feel and character, and highly Downtown may affect local public services and valued existing visual resources. utility providers, including schools, recreation, water supplies, and storm drains. The analysis will Task 5.4 Transportation. EIP/PBS&J will ob- consider the growth in demand associated with tain the materials to complete the traffic and the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan, based transportation portion of the environmental on interviews with service and utility providers checklist from Wilbur Smith Associates. As noted and school districts and information from the earlier, transportation issues related to access,local planning consultant team. Information about per circulation, and parking will be critical to explore capita generation factors, along with plans to in- in the Initial Study. It is expected that Wilbur crease or enhance service or capacity, is expected Smith Associates will review the plan proposals to to have been gathered by the planning consultant determine future congestion levels and to recom- team. Additional information on how these im- mend strategies to maintain intersection rovements are to be funded e. general fund, operations at acceptable levels or to developnew P ( g' user fees,impact fees, etc.) will likely be described standards that will apply. Similarly, it is expected in the Specific Plan. It is important to understand that the plan proposals will maintain the Down- that the CEQA checklist questions are not con- town's pedestrian friendliness and accessibility to cerned about an increased need for staffing or transit and improve parking supply/accessibility resources. Rather, the inquiry of interest is for local retail and commercial businesses. whether the need for additional staffing or re- sources triggers a modification of expansion of Task 5.5 Cultural and Architectural Re- public facilities or utilities that could then,in turn, sources. Although the Downtown Area is pose environmental effects. EIP/PBS&j Proposal for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan MND,6/9/2007 5/90 7 Approach and Scope of Work Task 5.7 Noise. The noise environment in the • An analysis of new emissions caused dur- vicinity of the Downtown is dominated by traffic ing occupation and use of the housing on local streets and business activities, traffic on and commercial uses on the opportunity El Camino Real (State Route 82), rail activity on sites; the Joint Powers Board line, and on aircraft fly- overs. The noise analysis will evaluate noise • A discussion of potential sources and ef- caused by construction and operation of the pro- fects of toxic air contaminants;and jects envisioned. The influence of the existing • An analysis of local ambient CO impacts noise environment on proposed housing and (if heavily congested traffic would occur). mixed use opportunity sites will be assessed as well. In all cases, the method of analysis and selection of significance thresholds will rely on methodolo- Noise from routine operation of the anticipated gies that are documented in the BAAQMD uses in the Downtown would come from new CEQA Guidelines,revised in 1999. project traffic and nuisance noise sources such as garbage trucks, backing trucks, recycling pick-up, Estimates of the new motor vehicle emissions and or activities in the parking areas. If significant associated with project trips will be prepared using impacts are identified as defined using the criteria the Air Resources Board's URBEMIS7G model. in the City's noise element, mitigation measures This model will provide a quantitative assessment will be presented. of project emissions from all motor vehicle trips generated by the plan. The results will be com- EIP will evaluate noise levels from project and pared to the BAAQMD's quantitative thresholds future traffic in the vicinity of the most severely for a significant impact. affected noise-sensitive receptors and the most heavily traveled roadways. In addition, the impact The BAAQMD does not have a methodology or of Caltrain and aircraft noise will be reflected in significance thresholds to address greenhouse gas the analysis. The US Department of Transporta- emissions. Nevertheless a qualitative discussion is tion's FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction appropriate given the attention focused on these Model, initialized with CALVENO vehicular emissions, global warming, and the recent passage noise emission rates and site-specific traffic data, of AB 32 by Governor Schwarzenegger. Oppor- will be used to estimate noise at affected sensitive tunities to enhance transit orientation, energy receptors,including existing and potential residen- conservation, and mixed use development would tial uses, outdoor dining areas, and public open be supportive of the State's evolving policy direc- space areas. tion towards reduction of greenhouse gas Task 5.8 Air Quality. The air quality setting will emissions. describe regional and local meteorological condi- Toxic air contaminants exposure is increasingly an tions, ambient measurements from the nearest air issue for sensitive uses, such as housing, that are monitoring station, and the policy and regulatory proposed near heavily trafficked roadways. The framework. California Air Resources Board has produced a Plans and programs in place to manage regional handbook that offers guidelines for siting sensitive uses near sources of toxic air contaminants. Spe- air quality will be described. Measures in regional cifically, it recommends certain buffer distances air quality plans that focus on providing pedestrian from high-volume roads (like State Route 82) to and transit accessibility will be identified. The reduce exposure to diesel particulates. topography, wind patterns, and climate around EIP/PBS&J will describe the potential concerns Burlingame will also be documented. raised by introducing housing near freeways and The impact analysis will include four basic cow- suggest measures to reduce potential health haz- ards. ponents: • A review of effects caused during con- The potential of the project-related motor vehicle struction phases; trips to cause localized carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" will be evaluated at the most severely EIP1 PBS&J Proposal for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan MND,61912007 8 50963 Approach and Scope of Work impacted intersections if they reach the threshold the Uniform Building Code and California Ad- levels of congestion that warrant CO modeling. ministrative Code, Tide 24 would reduce risks EIP/PBS&J will make this determination in coor- related to structural failure of the new construc- dination with Wilbur Smith Associates and the tion projects. City. If warranted, EIP/PBS&J scientists will use the Air Resource Board's CALINE4 dispersion Task 5.11 Hydrology and Water Quality. As model to model the effects of project-level carbon the Downtown Area is essentially a developed monoxide. The modeled ambient air quality con- urban condition,most hydrology and water quality ditions will be compared to the state and federal impacts will be limited. The analysis in the Initial air quality standards. Study will assess the potential to increase storm- water runoff and the quality of the stormwater Where appropriate, strategies for mitigating the runoff that would be introduced into storm drains effects of increased regional emissions, toxic air and receiving water bodies, including the under- contaminants, or carbon monoxide will be identi- ground creeks in the area. The following fied. Mitigation measures would need to be strategies can be recommended if not already in- feasible and effective. Most likely the same mid- cluded as part of an existing program: gations for traffic will be used for air quality and will depend upon fewer auto trips per household. • Contain stormwater on-site to reduce flood hazards or drainage problems and Task 5.9 Health and Safety. Data regarding to maintain existing water quality within existing use, handling, storage, and disposal of local surface waters. hazardous materials and the subsequent genera- • Prevent increases in off-site flood haz- tion of hazardous waste will be reported, although ards. Downtown commercial and residential uses do not typically produce wastes that are considered • Eliminate hazards caused by local flood- hazardous in significant volumes. More impor- ing through expansion and improved tandy is the potential redevelopment of management of the site drainage infra- opportunity or other sites that are contaminated structure. from past activities or land uses. While future • Describe National Pollution Discharge major, redevelopment activities will likely involve Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments, since Elimination System (NPDES) permits. financial institutions require their preparation in Task 5.12 Biology. The proposed project is lo- order to ensure that the properties are not finan- cated in an urbanized setting; therefore, significant tial liabilities, it will be valuable now to be aware impacts to biological resources are not anticipated. of sites or locations that are known to be con- The primary resource of concern is likely to be taminated, as this knowledge can influence redevelopment potential. Accordingly, native trees and trees large enough to receive pro- EIP/PBS&J will obtain a records search for the tection under the City's Tree Protection existence of hazardous materials on the opportu- Ordinance policy, especially trees that could qual- nity sites identified in the Downtown Area. ify as protected trees. Trees in the vicinity may provide habitat for birds typically found in urban Task 5.10 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. The settings, these species are not considered rare, Downtown is on relatively level terrain and thus threatened, or endanger warranting mitigation not susceptible to landslides or other forms of measures. However, because most nesting birds slope failure. However, the active San Andreas are protected by California Fish and Game Code fault zone is near the Dowtown and could result (Section 3503), mitigation may be required for in severe groundshaking during a design earth- potential impacts to nesting species resulting from quake. In addition, portions of the Downtown tree removal during nesting periods. may be susceptible to liquefaction or other geo- Task 5.13 Production of Administrative Draft logic hazards. _additional information from previous studies and from ABAG will be summa- and Incorporation of Selected Mitigation rized to characterize the geoseismic hazards in the Measures into the Specific Plan. EIP/PBS&J project area. It is expected that compliance with will produce the Administrative Draft Initial Study using the agreed upon checklist format. The mid- EIPI PBSdsJ Proposal for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan MND,61912007 9 509/3 Approach and Scope of Work gation measures will be discussed with Kevin Task 7: Public Review and Final Miti- Gardiner&Associates and City staff to determine gated Negative Declaration if any should be incorporated into the Draft Spe- cific Plan. The intent of this discussion is to Purpose: Provide an opportunity for the public to modify the Administrative Draft Specific Plan to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declara- include any environmental recommendations as tion/Initial Study. part of the "community standards" portion of the plan. To the extent that these mitigation measures Discussion: The Mitigated Negative Declara- are integrated into the plan, the Initial Study will tion/Initial Study will be distributed by the City to be revised to acknowledge that these components responsible agencies and interested members of of the plan would reduce impacts to less than sig- the public. A minimum 30-day public review and nificant and additional mitigation measures are not comment period will be provided to afford the necessary. public agencies and the community with an op- portunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Deliverable: 1 electronic and five hard copies of the Declaration/Initial Study. City staff will compile Administrative Draft Initial Study. written comments and forward them to EIP/PBS&J for a response. EIP/PBS&J has as- Task 6. Screencheck Draft Initial and sumed that up to 35 discrete, non-repeating Study and Draft Mitigated Negative comments may need a response. Public hearings Declaration (MND) to adopt the MND will be held before the City Planning Commission and City Council. Purpose: Prepare a Draft MND to accompany the EIP/PBS&J will attend up to two public hearings Initial Study. on the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. At the hearings, EIP/PBS&J will present Discussion: Based on staff's review of the Initial the conclusions of the document and responses to Study, EIP/PBS&J will revise the document and comments, if requested by City staff. Requests to submit it for final review prior to publication. address additional comments or attend additional Provided that project impacts can be reduced to meetings would necessitate an adjustment to the less than significant, EIP/PBS&J will also draft an costs and possibly the schedule. MND for City review and use. The MND will present a summary of the proposed project and a Task 8: Mitigation Monitoring and listing of recommended mitigation measures, as Reporting Program (optional task) required by the CEQA Guidelines. Following staffs review of the draft MND, EIP/PBS&J will Purpose: Prepare a Mitigation Monitoring and Re- finalize it and submit a pdf version and 50 hard porting Program to ensure that mitigation copies of the MND and Initial Study to the City measures identified in the MND are implemented. for distribution. EIP will also attach a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Discussion: As required by CEQA Guidelines Sec- The cost estimate assumes that there may be a tion 15097, project approval requires the adoption submittal to the State because of potential effects of a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. on State Route 82. This scope assumes that the The City is required to prepare plans to determine City will be responsible for requisite noticing and whether mitigation measures, adopted in an EIR, distribution. are being implemented and how effectively they are reducing the impacts they are intended to Deliverable: (1) Screencheck Draft Initial Study, minimize. To be effective, such plans need to and (2) 1 pdf and 50 hard copies of the Initial specifically define: Study,MND, and Notice of Intent. • The activities required to implement the mitigation measure, • Identify when they need to be performed (a trigger mechanism), EIPIPBS&j Proposal for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan MND,61912007 10 50963 Approacb and Scope of Work • Indicate who is responsible for imple- Task 10. Project Management mentation and how the project is to be funded, Purpose. To effectively manage the project, ensur- • Establish criteria by which their effective- ung frequent communications, adherence to the ness can be judged and an on-gong schedule and budget,and quality products. monitoring program for determining Discussion. Throughout the project, EIP/PBS&J's whether the mitigation is working. project manager will actively work to ensure that Kevin Gardiner & Associates and the City staff Key components of the Mitigation Monitoring are informed of the progress of the project, that and Reporting Program for the project will Iden- key data needs and direction are regularly solicited, tify in a table: that issues are discussed early on, and that sur- • The mitigation measures to be imple- prises are avoided. Towards these ends, mented by development phase (e.g., EIP/PBS&J's project manager will routinely and during final design, during construction, regularly check-in with Kevin Gardiner & Associ- and long-term during occupancy) ates and the City. In addition, monthly progress reports will be prepared to accompany invoices • The entity responsible for implementing a and report on work completed, schedule and particular measure budget status,and issues requiring attention. • The entity responsible for verifying that a particular measure has been completed Along with the vital function of maintaining strong internal and external communications, the • A monitoring milestone(s) or action(s) to project manager will QA/QC the technical analy- mark implementation/ completion of the ses by the consultant team, to ensure the adequacy mitigation measure of the analysis, the rationale for the environmental conclusions, the readability of the assessment, and • Recommendations for reporting monitor- reasonableness and feasibility of recommended ing actions or for noting mitigation measures. implementation/completion of a meas- ure. Deliverable. (1) Five copies of the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (2)1 pdf and ten hard copies of the final Mitigation Moni- toring and Reporting Program. Task 9. Presentations/Meetings Purpose. To attend meetings to accomplish the above tasks. Discussion: EIP/PBS&J will attend and participate in meetings on an as needed basis. This scope of work assumes up to two face-to-face meetings with Kevin Gardiner&Associates and/or the City and up to three public meetings to present envi- ronmental analyses and adopt the MND. Appropriate public meetings for EIP/PBS&J to attend will be discussed with City staff, and may include a scoping session (although one is not re- quired for an MND/Initial Study), the hearing on the Draft MND/Initial Study, and/or the hearing to approve the MND/Initial Study. EIPI PBS&J Proposal(or the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan MND,61912007 1 50963 City of Burlingame Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan IS/MND Tasks Project Project Senior Assoc Word Director Manager Scientist III Scientist t[ Manager Processing Graphics GIS Technical Assoc Senior Sr Word Word Sr Scientist &7Gbg Title Scientist II Planner II Hours Per Cost Per Director Manager Scientist III Processor Processor I Task Subtask Cost Per Task 1 Project Initiation 6 8 1 _ 1 1 1 18 $ 2,490 $ 2,490 2 Data Collection/Opportunities and Constraints 2 32 6 16 36 92 $ 10,060 $ 10,060 3 Plan Alternatives Evaluation and Refinement 2 12 2 4 20 $ 2,320 $ 2,320 -4 Project Description 2 24 4 6 _ 36 $ 3,900 $ 3,900 5 Complete Administrative Draft Enviro Checklist _ $ 33,130 5.1 Land Use 12 12 $ 1,200 5.2 Housing/Population 16 16 $ 1,600 5.3 Urban Des /Visual Quality 12 - 12 $ 1,200 5.4 Trans oration 8 8 $ 840 5.5 Cultural and Architectural Resources 12 _ _ _ 12 $ 1,200 5.6 Public Services,Schools,Recreation,and Utilities 12 12 $ 1,200 5.7 Noise 4 20 _ 24 $ 2,680 5.8 Air Quality 24 _ _ 24 $ 2,520 59 Health and Safety 24 24 $ 2,400 5.10 Geology,Soils,and Seismicity 4 16 20 $ 2,260 5.11 Hydicilogy Hydrologyand Water Quality 2 16 18 $ 1,970 5.12 Biolo 8 _-�- 8 $ 800 5.13 Admin Draft and Incorporation of Selected MMs in Specific Plan 16 56 8 24 12 116 $ 13,260 6 Screencheck IS/Draft MND 2 8 2 8 16 8 4 _ 48 $ 5,060 $ 5,060 7 Public Review and Final MND - 2 16 12 12 2 _ _ 44 $ 4,790 $ 4,790 8 MMRP(Optional) 0 $ $ 9 Presentations/Meetings __ 10 16 26 $ 3,710 $ 3,710 10 Project Management 12 48 8 68 $ 8,420 $ 8,420 Total Hours 54 220 19 123 181 39 22 0 658 Hourly Rate $ 195 $ 110 $ 145 $ 105 $ 100 $ 90 $ 85 $ 110 F y,,,Total EIP Labor $ 10,530 $ 24,200 $ 2,755 $ 12,915 $ 18,100 $ 3,510 $ 1,870 $ $ 73,880 $ 73,880 erases Printing/Materials/Other Direct Costs(ODC) $ 3,500 $ 3,500 dOD $ 525 Budget $ 77,905 Assumptions: _ 1. Three team meetings,including kick-off/orientation session. The cost for additional meetings would be derived based on a time and material basis. 2. Three public meetin ,including perhaps public scoping,receipt of comments on the Draft MND,and approval of the MND.'171e cost for additional meetings would be derived based on a time and material basis. 3. Input from planning consultant team provides the necessary information for the project description;backpound setting on land use,visual,transportation,community services, utilities,and historic resources. In addition,the planning team will provide input sufficient to characterize transportation impacts,community service and utility demand,and loss of historic resources. 4. Deliverables include 5 copies of Administrative Draft Initial Study,50 copies of the Draft Initial Stud/MND,5 co ies of Administrative Draft MMRP,and 10 c ies of Final MMRP. Initial Stud/MND is expected to be no more than 125 pages,black and white copies,8-1/2 x 11 sized paper. 5. Restionses to comments will be prepared in a memorandum format,suitable for inclusion in City staffs report. Up to 35 discrete,non-repeating comments will be addressed. Comments addressing topics largely ared by planningteam e. . traffic will be responded to by the appropriate lannin team member. PBSRJ Confidential 6/8/2007 Page 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,GRANTING APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE EIP/PBS&J TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME SPECIFIC PLAN RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City Council previously authorized the preparation of a Specific Plan for Downtown Burlingame;and WHEREAS,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),an environmental review of the Specific Plan must occur prior to consideration of the Plan by the Planning Commission and City Council;and WHEREAS,EIP/PBS&J has submitted a proposal to conduct the required environmental review related to the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan;and WHEREAS,the Scope of Services prepared by PBS&J has been found adequate to provide the level of environmental review required for the Specific Plan project,and the costs associated with the services to be provided by EIP/PBS&J are within the adopted budget for all activities related to the preparation of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with EIP/PBS&J for environmental review services related to the preparation of the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan,consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution,and for a maximum cost of$77,905.00,as stated in the Scope of Work. 2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Terry Nagel,MAYOR Resolution No. 1 of 2 I , DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 18th day of June, 2007, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doris Mortensen, CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2 of 2 �A+ CITY oz STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9c MTG. aA.r� o, BATE 6/18/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB'MUTED -----_ By DATE: June 4, 2007 APPROVED FROM: Randy Schwartz,Director of Parks & Recreation By 558-7307 suBjEm ADOPTION OF POLICY FOR USE OF PRIVATE BARBEQUES IN CITY PARKS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Policy for Use of Private Barbeques in City Parks as proposed by the Parks &Recreation Commission under Municipal Code Section 10.55.030,Rules and Regulations by: A. Adopt proposed ordinance and direct the City Clerk to publish the policy within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: The Parks &Recreation Commission and City Staff have been working on the Policy for Use of Private Barbeques in City Park. The Commission has discussed the issues of safety and reasonable limitations to be included in the policy. The Policy is a proactive measure to lessen the City's liability and to provide safety of all park users. The guidelines include grill sizes allowed in each park, listed parks that prohibit the use of private barbeques, proper disposal of coals/wood and listing of recommended fire suppression methods. After several meetings,the Commission has defined the policy as attached. ATTACHMENTS: y, p /� A. Policy`y'for Biiiir,111 Bar il%Nju%, ir'ity City Par�ii$—drafted.,i�iie 3, �liv? BUDGET IMPACT: NONE Attachment"A" City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 recreationkburlin ame.org ``gYan to Lnu Policy for Bringing Barbeques into City Parks Drafted June 8, 2007 Purpose The City of Burlingame has established picnic areas with barbeques in Washington Park for the purpose of community use. These areas may be reserved by contacting the Parks &Recreation Department. For y �p p p r~y, th C ty h 1 d*�� '�^•�;�g *r;^t' son use ofp ^^^^' t� e safety o� ersons and roe e as a so �oxrme Lice 1V11OvVin restri ion ersOna� barbeques in City Parks. Definitions • For purposed of this policy, "Barbeque" means a fabricated metal container and grill designed for the cooking of food. • "Grill" is defined as the cooking surface. Personal Barbeques are permitted to be used in City Parks under the following conditions: • Barbeques must be placed on paved surfaces. Barbecues are not permitted on grass or areas covered with bark chips. • Barbeques with grills up to 14" in maximum diameter are allowed on city provided tables • Barbeques with grills up to 23" in maximum diameter are allowed on level areas in the park where at least 4' of paved area • Barbeques with grills in excess of 23" in maximum diameter are only allowed with special permit must be supervised at all times. • Barbeques must have a cover that can be used to suppress flames. • Unattended Barbeques may be confiscated by City of Burlingame Parks &Recreation employees or Police officers. • Propane tanks must be taken off premises. Empty tanks may not be discarded in City garbage cans or recycle containers. • Persons using barbeques burning charcoal or wood must have covered disposal containers on site and all coals must be extinguished and taken out of the parks in the covered containers. • Barbeques may not be set up within 20' of children's play equipment. • Combustible fluids used to help start fire are not allowed at any time. • Private barbeques are not permitted on City sidewalks at any time or at the following parks: ■ Upper Bayside ■ Murray Field ■ Burlingame Golf Center ■ Mills Canyon ■ Shorebird Sanctuary Randy Schwartz Director of Parks&Recreation A CITY o� STAFF REPORT 11 BURUNGAMM AGENDA ITEM# 9d a�oA 9,m MTG. �AATED JVNld DATE June 18.2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBt� BY 777, .� DATE: June 5,2007 AP FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER MEDIATION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2007-08 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a funding agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center(PCRC) for fiscal year 2007-08 in the amount of$16,182 and authorize the City Manager to execute documents. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame contracts with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to provide mediation and conciliation services to residents, landlords, tenants, businesses and other persons needing these services. The services include: • Information and referral services. • One-party assistance in conflict situations. • Conciliation services as a neutral third party. • Mediation services to resolve conflicts between two parties. • Recruitment and training of community volunteers. A complete listing of all services is included in the attached funding agreement document. The FY 07-08 budget contains funds for this purpose. The request from the agency is $17,000. A four- percent increase (4%) in the FY06-07 contract amount of$15,559 makes the FY07-08 award $16,182. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Authorizing The City Manager to Execute Agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to Provide Conciliation and Mediation Service in FY 2007-2008 Agreement for the Provision of Community Mediation Services -FY2007-08 S:\Funding Agreements with Agencies\Peninsula Conflict and Resolution Center\FY 07-08 Agreement.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER TO PROVIDE CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES IN 2007- 2008 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City wishes to continue to provide a ready means by which its citizens can obtain ready, low cost, effective mediation and conciliation services to resolve conflicts that may arise between neighbors, landlords and tenants, consumers and business, and other persons; and WHEREAS, this service provides cost savings to the City in resolving disputes without the need for extensive City involvement while enhancing the community with better relations between citizens; and WHEREAS, the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center has provided this service to the community on a professional and able basis, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the agreement for and on behalf of the City. 3 . The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Pe-VliVISLAIa COPItIIGf R2SOI(AtiOV1 Ce-VtfeN Gmpowerinq people. Building relotionskips. RedLicing violence. Agreement for the Provision of Community Mediation Services The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC),a 501(c)(3) public benefit corporation,wishes to provide conflict resolution services for the City of Burlingame (City). The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center is an independent contractor,organized in accordance with the laws of California and is capable of performing the conflict resolution services described in this agreement. PCRC and Burlingame agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. The PCRC shall provide the services described in Exhibit A,attached to and made a part of this agreement. 2. FUNDING. Funding by the City shall be in advance and shall not exceed$16,182. PCRC shall provide documentation to specify how the funds requested shall be spent, including such details as the City deems appropriate. Additional documentation may be requested by the City. 3. CONTRACT TERM. This contract shall commence on July 1,2007 and shall terminate on June 30,2008 unless terminated before that time,as described in Paragraph 6 of this agreement. 4. PROGRAM REPORTS. A performance report shall be submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. This report shall include a description of all program activity related to this contract for the particular quarter. 5. BREACH OF CONTRACT. The City reserves the right to waive any and all breaches of this contract, any such waiver shall not be deemed a waiver of all previous or subsequent breaches. In the event the City chooses to waive a particular breach of this contract,it may condition said waiver on payment by PCRC of actual damages occasioned by such breach of contract. PCRC shall make every effort to resolve the breach quickly and amicably. 6. TERMINATION. In the event the PCRC is unable to fulfill its responsibilities under this contract for any reason whatsoever,including circumstances beyond its control,the City may terminate this contract. Either party to this agreement may terminate this contract without cause by giving 10 days written notice to the other party. 7. INTEREST OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS. No members,officer or employee or agents of the City,no member of the City Council,and no other public official exercising any function or responsibility with respect to this program during his/her tenure, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or a related subcontract or the proceeds thereof. 8. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. It is expressly understood that PCRC is an independent contractor and that no agency,employee or other relationship is intended to be or is established by this contract. 9. INSPECTION OF PROGRAM. It is understood that periodic review of PCRC's program may be necessary and the right to do so is reserved by the City. 10. ASSIGNABILITY. PCRC shall not assign in this agreement and shall not transfer any interest in the same,without the prior written consent of the City. 11. HOLD HARMLESS AND INSURANCE. PCRC agrees (1) to hold harmless and indemnify the City and its officers and employees from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage and expense arising from performance of this contract,including claims, loss,liability, damage and expense caused or claimed to be caused by passive negligence of the City or its officers or employees. (2) to defend (City),its officers or employees there-against;provided however that this provision does not apply to claims, loss,liability, damage or expense arising from(a) the sole negligence or willful misconduct of(City) or (b) the active negligence of(City). General liability and automobile liability insurance shall provide the following minimum benefits: (1) general liability,including comprehensive form,personal injury, broad form property damage,contractual and premises/operation in limits of $1,000,000. aggregate,bodily injury and property damage combined; (2) automobile liability in limits of$1,000,000,bodily injury and property damage combined. Additionally,workers compensation insurance in at least the minimum statutory amounts shall be maintained. All liability insurance policies shall specify (City),its elective and appointed boards,commissions, officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. A certificate of insurance shall be provided to (City) prior to performance pursuant to this contract. It shall include policy endorsement verifying City's additional insured status. Further, any changes in insurance,required herein must be approved in writing by the City Attorney's Office. 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. General: No person shall, on the basis of race,color,national origin,religious affiliation or non affiliation,marital status,medical condition, sex, age,handicap,sexual orientation or political affiliation be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits or be subjected to discrimination,under this agreement. Employment: PCRC shall ensure equal employment opportunity based on objective standards of recruitment, selection,promotion,classification,compensation, performance evaluation and management relations,for all employees under this agreement. PCRC's personnel policies shall be made available to the City upon request. 2 13. PROJECT REPRESENTATION. PCRC and the City hereby designate the following agents to act as project representatives and receive all notices in the matters dealing with the performance of work,under this agreement. PCRC: Jennifer Bullock, Associate Director CITY: James Nantell,City Manager 14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event that differences relating to this contract,or to the relationship between the contracting parties,should arise during the term of this agreement,both parties will pursue resolution using an interest-based,non-adversarial approach and utilizing the services of a neutral third party mediator if direct negotiations are not successful. 15. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. Additional provisions,if any,are contained in Exhibit A,attached to this document. In witness thereof, this agreement has been duly executed by the parties named above. PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER 1660 South Amphlett Blvd,Ste. 219 San Mateo,CA 94402 (650)513-0330 By Date Jennifer Bullock,Associate Director CITY OF Burlingame James Nantell,City Manager 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 By Date 3 EXHIBIT "A" I. What PCRC will provide Services to be provided to the City of Burlingame through this contract are described below. A. Information Services All of the services in this category are unlimited and free of charge. 1) Information and Referral: A resource person is available by telephone,to assist residents who have specific questions relating to a conflict. Through this conversation the resident may clarify issues of concern,be given specific information about common practices related to landlord-tenant and community issues and receive a referral to an appropriate agency/resource. 2) Information and Assistance: A resource person assists the concerned caller to de- escalate feelings,clarify issues and underlying needs, develop possible solution options,and begin to design an approach to dispute resolution. 3) Promotion of Use of Conflict Resolution Services: PCRC staff and volunteers will make presentations and develop press releases and media coverage. PCRC will provide brochures and other printed materials to be kept in public areas where community members are likely to seek resource information. During the 07-08 fiscal year, PCRC plans to launch an aggressive community outreach and public relations plan including presentations to city staff and community and business groups. B. Mediation Services for Individuals 1) One Party Assistance:A resource person assists a caller to think through a conflict situation, including clarifying issues and interests of involved parties,exploring approaches to dealing with the situation and solution options and assisting with the selection of an approach to resolution. 2) Conciliation: Conciliation is the resolution of a conflict through the intervention of a neutral third party,without the disputing parties coming together in a face-to-face mediation. A mediator works with an individual,clarifying issues of concern, explaining approaches to seeking resolution, and gaining agreement by the party to pursue mediation and case intake. A case development process,involving contacts with both/all involved parties,is initiated and during that process,a resolution of concerns is achieved,to the satisfaction of the involved parties. 3) Mediation: Mediation through PCRC involves a face-to-face meeting between disputing parties who contact PCRC directly or who are referred by city staff or 4 community agencies. With the assistance of a panel of trained volunteer mediators, parties work through a non-adversarial problem solving process and attempt to develop a mutually acceptable resolution to the issues of concern. There is a two- fold focus: development of a satisfying and durable agreement and the preservation of an effective relationship in situations where the parties will continue to be in contact with each other. Through this contract,the City is subsidizing the provision of private mediation services to those who reside or work in the City. These services assist with conflict situations between individuals. The types of conflicts may include: landlord/tenant disputes,issues between two neighbors (either owners or renters),consumer disputes,roommate problems,conflicts between friends,plus some domestic or family issues. PCRC also provides mediation services in more complex situations that involve multiple parties and/or multiple issues. For example:workplace disputes;intra-or extra- organizational conflicts,multi-neighbor disputes or public controversies.See C. Additional Conflict Resolution Services. C. Additional Conflict Resolution Services If the City, residents or local organizations use the services described below,this contract provides a 10% discount off of PCRC's standard fee schedule (available upon request). 1) Training: PCRC offers orientations to city staff about the mediation program and its services as part of the basic contract. In addition,PCRC can train groups in theory and practice of interest-based conflict management,negotiation,communication, and facilitation skills. Training session are tailored to the particular needs of the group and have proven useful to city departments heads,front-line staff, commission members,workplace teams,community service providers as well as other groups. 2) Conflict Assessment/Consultation: PCRC can assist cities,as well as local community organizations and other groups to assess specific conflict situations, analyze concerns of stakeholders and develop strategies for pro-active and interest based conflict resolution.The conflict assessment process usually involves PCRC contacting stakeholders to gather input and provide information about conflict resolution options. An assessment report can be prepared and provided to the client. 3) Mediation Services for Complex Situations: PCRC's staff and volunteers provide the same high quality of mediation services in multi-party,multi-issue,complex disputes as we do for individual disputes. This may follow a conflict assessment/consultation as above in C.2. and requires a more advanced level of mediation training and experience. Examples of complex mediation situations include:workplace conflict between supervisor and supervisee;workplace issues affecting a whole team;a neighborhood 5 issue involving multiple households;a public controversy in which the City or other institution is involved. 4) Conflict Resolution System Design: PCRC assists organizations in building internal conflict resolution capacity,i.e. the development of policies and procedures for interest-based dispute prevention and early resolution. This service is tailored to the unique needs of the individual group,but is based on recognized and proven design principles. 5) Design and facilitation of Community Forums,Public Conversations,Dialogues: Through its Community Engagement Program, PCRC has developed expertise in managing public discussions. Working with local representatives, PCRC assists with the design and facilitation for a wide variety of group sessions in which members of the public are encouraged to participate in dialogue about issues that affect the health and well-being of the community. 6) Facilitation of planning sessions for Committees,Departments, Councils: PCRC will assist with the design and facilitation of planning sessions for elected,appointed and civic groups who are coming together to plan for the future. D. Administration of a Community Mediation Program: In collaboration with the contracting city,PCRC will administer a mediation program responsive to the needs of the community. PCRC may solicit input from city staff about unique areas of concern to a city and appropriate approaches to program implementation,improvement and promotion. E. Recruitment and training of community volunteers: PCRC will develop and maintain a pool of trained volunteer mediators,case developers and facilitators to serve the conflict resolution needs of the community. These residents of local communities will become skillful in the interest-based approach to conflict resolution. PCRC volunteers complete a minimum of 25 hours of training, according to regulations that govern programs receiving support from the California Dispute Resolution Trust Fund. PCRC also offers on-going skill development opportunities to volunteers to improve and enhance their conflict resolution skills. These volunteer will also serve as ambassadors in the community,promoting the ideas of interest-based conflict resolution. II. What the City of Burlingame will provide: A. Funding in the amount of$16,182 for Fiscal Year 2007-08. This fee is full payment for the services defined above. Payments will be made upon receipt of invoice. B. Support for the program from city officers and staff members, demonstrated through public statements,publicity, and referrals through city departments. 6 C. At least one article or ad placed in a city run publication to promote the use of PCRC services among residents and businesses in the city. A PCRC staff person is available to work with a city contact person to develop this material. D. Assistance in scheduling appointments for PCRC representatives to make outreach presentations to groups of city staff,civic organizations and other relevant groups. This assistance should result in a minimum of 2 presentations in the city per year. E. No cost use of city-controlled public meeting space, as needed and as available,for training sessions,meetings and mediations. This use will be subject to the existing rules and regulations that govern the use of these spaces. III. Agreement by both parties,in concept. Both PCRC and the City recognize that this is an ongoing program. If the Community Mediation Program meets the terms of this agreement to the City's satisfaction,and in the absence of unexpected financial constraints,it is expected that the City will consider funding the Community Mediation Program,on an annual basis, as negotiated between the two parties. 7 Pce V1iPAStA1a COVA f di& Re_S011,Ati0VX GePAteN Empowering people. BLJcling relationskips. Reducing violence. Promoting positive collaboration and active engagement through... Community Enaement Training Facil' tion Z, 4ediation PCRC works with public PCRC provides skill- PCRC assists groups with PCRC provides neutral and private partners to building experiences for collaborative planning and assistance to promote active and schools and the broader problem solving efforts by individuals/groups, in a productive involvement by community in the areas of providing facilitation and wide array of conflict members of the community communication, conflict meeting management situations, to help them in public issues that impact resolution and establishing services. communicate effectively and their quality of life. environments that are find mutually acceptable respectful for all. resolutions to their concerns. HOW PCRC WORKS WITH CITIES • Coordinating joint city • Communication skills • Public meetings for input A place to refer: and community efforts • Meeting management / to city staff, council or • Neighbor disputes over for neighborhood safety facilitation commissions. property lines, noise, and quality of life • Conflict resolution • Departmental meetings parking, quality of life. improvement. • Community building for planning / problem- • Landlords /tenants • Consultation on processes. solving. disputes about rent strategies to engage • Skills for Difficult • Neighborhood meetings security deposits and community members Conversations • Consultation/coaching maintenance with city processes. • Appropriate for staff, on meeting process • Customer/business • Support for partnerships elected and appointed design, agendas, disputes. between community officials, and community facilitation skills. • Family disputes groups and city groups. • Workplace issues about representatives. I I teamwork. 1660 S.Amphlett Blvd., Ste.219 San Mateo CA 94402 *650-513-0330 *Fax:650-513-0335 www.percweb.org A CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BU ONGAME AGENDA 9e ITEM# MTG. tio4�AATmJUNEb 9p0 DATE June]8,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT t BY �- DATE: June 5,2007 APP OVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROMOTIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 07-08 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the promotional services contract with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce for FY2007-08 and authorize the City Manager to execute documents. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame contracts with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to provide promotional and information services to businesses, visitors and residents. The services include: • Distribution of materials and information to businesses and residents about Burlingame programs, events and activities. • Referral services to businesses and residents about Burlingame City government. • Sponsor and coordinate community events involving merchants, businesses and the public. • Promotion of business, community and economic development activities. This year the City is adding the following to the funding agreement: "Chamber will assist the City of Burlingame in promoting commercial recycling activities and programs among Chamber membership." A complete listing of all services is included in the attached funding agreement document. The city budget contains $30,179 for this purpose. This amount is four percent (4%) more than the FY06-07 contract amount of$29,300. Monthly payments to the Chamber will be $2,514.92. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreement with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to Provide Information and Promotion Services in 2007-2008. Funding Agreement for Promotional Activities—Chamber of Commerce S:\Chamber of Commerce\Council Agenda Report FY07-08.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND PROMOTION SERVICES IN 2007-2008 RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City needs an ongoing public information service that can respond to inquiries from business,visitors, and residents about the public and private services available in the community; and WHEREAS,the City also needs a ready source of information and coordination of community events; and WHEREAS,there is also a need for local promotion of community events; and WHEREAS,Government Code sections 40100 and following allow the City to appropriate money to publicize and advertise the City; and WHEREAS,the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce has provided these services to the community on a timely, professional basis; and WHEREAS,the Chamber has agreed to assist in promoting commercial recycling activities and programs so that the City can continue to increase its recycling rate, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the agreement for and on behalf of the City. 3. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL,MBMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK AGREEMENT PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES—CHAMBER OF COMMERCE This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 1" day of July, 2007, by and between the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "Chamber"), with reference to the following Recitals: RECITALS: WHEREAS, City desires to promote its advantages as a business, educational, cultural, recreational and residential center, and to disseminate information relative thereto, and to properly respond to inquiries made from time to time relating to the various activities of City; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT: 1. Duties of Chamber. In exchange for the consideration specified in paragraph 3 below, Chamber shall perform the following promotional activities on behalf of City: a. Distribute materials and information to residents and businesses about Burlingame relating to the activities described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. b. Answer public inquiries about community facilities, events, organizations,businesses, and other community informational needs, through availability on a"walk-in"basis, as well as through mailings, telephone and e-mail. C. Provide referral services to citizens and businesses to appropriate City or government offices, including without limitation, the City Business License Bureau (located in the Water Department), Burlingame Recreation Department, Planning Department, Public Works Department, Police Department and Fire Department. d. Coordinate community events involving merchants and businesses requiring City services as needed and help promotion by City. e. Sponsor/coordinate/advertise special events and activities involving businesses and the public, including the following: (1) Produce Burlingame Art & Jazz Festival SXhamber of CommerceTunding Agreement FY 07-08.doc I (2) Assist with the December Merchant Holiday Open House and Tree Lighting Ceremony (3) Assist the Recreation Department with advertising the Burlingame Millbrae Golf Tournament (4) Conduct seasonal Farmers Market (5) Sponsor Broadway Holiday Cheer event f. Produce/distribute materials about Burlingame, as follows: (1) Burlingame/Hillsborough Street Map, including providing 1000 copies to the City of Burlingame g. Promote business, community and economic development through the activities described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. h. Assist City with the continuation of the currently operating commuter shuttle service between the Broadway Caltrain station and the business area East of the Bayshore Freeway. i. Promote the retention and relocation of businesses to City by participating (in conjunction with City) in the activities of San Mateo County Economic Development Association. j. Maintain and operate an office open to the general public for discharging the obligations of Chamber under the terms of this Agreement (including, without limitation,promoting the residential and business attributes of City to the public). k. Employ competent personnel to carry on the promotional activities enumerated herein. 1. Work to develop a partnership with the City of Burlingame's business improvement districts that include the exploration of: (1) Creating a"Buy Burlingame"campaign (2) Use of a joint website to promote Burlingame businesses 2. Certain Political Activities Prohibited. The Chamber shall not support, endorse or oppose any candidate for municipal, county or school elections in San Mateo County. The Chamber may conduct candidate debate forums or similar events of a public information nature. S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 07-08.doc 2 3. Consideration. a. General Promotional Activities. City shall pay Chamber, in the manner specified below, the sum of Thirty Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Nine Dollars ($30,179) for general promotional services performed by Chamber hereunder for the period commencing July 1, 2007, and ending June 30, 2008. The foregoing sum shall be paid in twelve equal consecutive monthly installments commencing July 1, 2007. Chamber shall send to City on the first (I") day of each month a written invoice describing in a summary manner the services for which Chamber is to be paid. Invoices dated the first day of each month shall be paid no later than the fifteenth day of each month. 4. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by Chamber without the written consent of City. 5. Notices. All written notices and demands which either party may serve on the other may, as an alternative to personal service,be served by registered or certified mail. Any such notice or demand so served shall be deposited in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the party at the address specified below: City: City Manager City Hall 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Chamber: Chair, Burlingame Chamber of Commerce 290 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Either party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 6. Relationship of parties. It is agreed the Chamber is an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the direction of Chamber or its agents, servants and employees are not agents or employees of City. 7. Termination. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2007 and shall terminate on June 30, 2008, unless extended by the parties in writing. 8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. SAChamber of CommerceTunding Agreement FY 07-08.doc 3 9. Entire Agreement. The terms of this Agreement are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior or contemporaneous agreement. This Agreement constitutes the exclusive statement of its terms and no extrinsic evidence whatsoever may be introduced in any judicial proceedings involving this Agreement. 10. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the unsuccessful party to such litigation shall pay to the successful party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the successful party, all of which may be included as part of the judgment rendered in such litigation. 11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement should be invalid or unenforceable the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby, and every provision hereof shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 12. Headings. The title and headings of the various sections hereof are included for purposes of reference only and are not intended to place any construction on the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF BURLINGAME: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: By By Jim Nantell, City Manager Georgette Naylor, President Attested: By By S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 07-08.doc 4 EXHIBIT A DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME 1. Burlingame Demographics 2. Essential information for new Burlingame residents, including, without limitation, information materials for Burlingame Newcomers Club for all new Burlingame residents contacted by the club. 3. Community Event Information including: a. Art In The Park b. Broadway Festival (when applicable) c. Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival d. Concert In The Park Series e. Concerts at Kohl Mansion f. Public Elementary School, Public and Private High School Events g. Burlingame Night—S.F. Giants h. Burlingame Millbrae Golf Tournament i. Burlingame Avenue Area&Broadway BID'S. j. Merchant Sidewalk Sales (April &August) k. December—Merchant Holiday Open House and Tree Lighting 4. Public Transportation Information (Samtrans, Caltrain, BART and Burlingame Trolley) 5. Historical Information—Burlingame 6. Churches, parks and schools in Burlingame 7. Wedding/Meeting Sites Information 8. Clubs and Organizations Information 9. Hotel and Restaurant Information S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 07-08.doc 5 10. Realtor Information 11. Burlingame Business relocation assistance 12. Burlingame Business Economic Profile 13. Publication handouts include: a. Burlingame/Hillsborough Street Map - including providing 1000 copies to the City of Burlingame b. San Mateo County Convention& Visitors Bureau County Image c. Burlingame Golf Center d. Burlingame Recreation Department Brochures (3 per year) e. Social Service Resources 14. Provide direction or resource information to meet unique or uncommon requests S:\Chamber of CommerceTunding Agreement FY 07-08.doc EXHIBIT B ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES PROMOTING BUSINESS, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1. Promotion of special community meetings, seminars and special events 2. Promotion of community events and services 3. Information to Burlingame Elementary Schools about Burlingame 4. Chamber Membership Advertising and Promotional Budget promotes Burlingame in coordination with the Business Associations and Business Improvement Districts 5. Prepare publicity releases for Community Events 6. On-going business economic development programs: a. Hotels b. Office Buildings c. Providing SCORE counselor in Chamber office for business counseling 7. Chamber Representation at San Mateo County PROGRESS SEMINAR to study regional issues 8. Response to City of Burlingame requests regarding all business issues 9. Chamber/Business Annual Report—Independent Special Edition Insert 10. Promote the annual county business trade show 11. Burlingame Trolley 12. Assist the City of Burlingame in promoting commercial recycling activities and programs among Chamber membership. S:\Chamber of Commerce\Funding Agreement FY 07-08.doc 7 A/ CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 9f ITEM# 900 MTG. '°AATEOJYNEO DATE June I8.2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT i BY DATE: June 6,2007 APP OVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY SUBJECT: Group Funding Awards—FY 2007-08 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council finalize the community group funding awards for fiscal year 2007-08. BACKGROUND: The City received funding applications totaling $64,800 from 16 agencies. The FY07-08 Adopted Budget contains $54,000 for community group funding allocations. Attachment A. lists the funding awards for the last two fiscal years. In addition, it summarizes the agency requests for FY07-08 and the award recommendations by Councilmember. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING Community Group FY 05-06 FY 06-07 FY 07-08 FY 07-08 4% Mayor Nagel Vice-Mayor CM CM Baylock CM Cohen Average Final Award Final Award Requests Increase O'Mahony Keighran Award CALL Primrose Center $ 4,589 $ 4,801 $ 7,500 $ 4,993 4,993 5,000 5,043 5,000 4,993 $ 5,006 Center for Independence of Disabled $ 1,251 $ 1,341 $ 1,500 $ 1,395 -;'= 1,395 1,395 1,395 1,400 1,395 $ 1,396 Community Gatepath $ 4,172 $ 4,317 $ 5,000 $ 4,490 4,490 4,490 4,540 4,500 4,490 $ 4,502 Friends For Youth $ _ $ _ $ _ $ _ _ _ $ Human Investment Project $ 1,669 $ 1,789 $ 5,000 $ 1,861 " 1,861 1,861 1,861 1,870 1,861 $ 1,863 t Mission Hospice $ 1,669 $ 1,789 $ 2,000 $ 1,861 _= 1,861 1,861 1,861 1,870 1,861 $ 1,863 PARCA $ 1,669 $ 1,848 $ 3,000 $ 1,922 K 1,922 1,922 2,022 1,930 1,922 $ 1,944 Samaritan House $ 6,674 $ 7,038 $ 7,500 $ 7,320 7,320 7,766 7,358 7,320 7,320 $ 7,417 Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County $ 2,086 $ 2,136 $ 2,250 $ 2,221 ', 2,221 2,221 2,221 2,230 2,221 $ 2,223 YFA Crisis Intervention Center $ 2,086 $ 2,146 $ 2,250 $ 2,232 2,232 2,000 2,232 2,240 2,232 $ 2,187 Shelter Network $ 4,172 $ 4,655 $ 5,000 $ 4,841 4,841 4,841 4,841 4,850 4,841 $ 4,843 Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse $ 2,920 $ 3,099 $ 5,000 $ 3,223 3,223 3,000 3,223 3,230 3,223 $ 3,180 Burlingame Community Theatre $ 2,920 $ - $ - $ - - - - - - $ - Sustainable San Mateo County $ 1,251 $ 1,551 $ 3,000 $ 1,613 1,613 1,613 1,613 1,620 1,613 $ 1,614 YMCA Youth Service Bureau(FOCYS) $ 3,337 $ 3,416 $ 3,800 $ 3,553 ."' 3,553 3,553 3,553 3,560 3,553 $ 3,554 Broadway By The Bay(Civic Light Opera) $ $ � Safe Harbor(Winter Shelter) $ 6,674 $ 7,207 $ 7,500 $ 7,495 7,495 7,495 7,495 7,500 7,495 $ 7,496 Burlingame Historical Society $ 3,000 $ 3,113 $ 3,000 $ 3,238 3,238 3,238 3,000 3,000 3,238 $ 3,143 Ombudsman Program of San Mateo $ 1,000 $ 1,012 $ 1,500 $ 1,052 .: 1,052 1,052 1,052 1,060 1,052 $ 1,054 Peninsula Girls Chorus $ - $ 200 $ - $ - - - - - - $ Totals: $ 51,138 j $ 51,458 j $ 64,800 j $ 53,308 :53,308 j 53,308 j 53,310 j 53,180 j 53,308 53,283 Proposed Requests Table.xls 6/12/20073:07 PM 4 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 9g ITEM# MTG. 0 DAATED JUNE DATE June 18.2007 D TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI BY DATE: June 5,2007 AP OVED Y FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Finance Director's travel to East Elmhurst, NY to attend the Summer Meeting of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC), July 12-14, 2007. There is no impact on the City's budget. GASAC will cover the costs associated with the travel. BACKGROUND: The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) appointed Jesus to the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council. GASAC members serve four-year terms subject to annual reappointment by the ICMA Board of Directors. The GASAC holds three meetings per year(spring, summer and fall). i $2,246,288.37 Ck. No. 25666 - 26190 Excludes Library Checks .' 25666-25704 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT '.101 1t11AWXo"7 Payroll for May 2007 $2,312,238.37 Ck. No. 168527 - 168725 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS & ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION CD d CD f�D 3 S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS p CITY OF BURLINGAME 06-07-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 69,540.43 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 4,314.71 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 4,215.72 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320..,!. 5,225.43 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 259,791.89 WATER FUND 526.x ` 12,302.53 SEWER FUND 527 1,202.28 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,166.84 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 309.29 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 29,384.69 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 17,535.01 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 5,779.22 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1,245.03 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 293.50 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1,196.59 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $413,503.16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 9 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 26102 THROUGH 26190 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $413,503.16, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ..............:'..................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT - COUNCIL DATE - CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 06/07/07 - NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL. ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26184 SAN MATEO UNION HSD 27482 800.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 800.00 101 68010 120 1286 26185 EDWARD B WARD CO 27533 89.93 MISC. SUPPLIES 89.93 619 64460 120 5170 26186 ICC PENINSULA CHAPTER 27553 30.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 30.00 101 65300 260 26187 JAY GARCIA 27554 1,670.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 920.00 101 36630 26188 SU21 HENNELLY 27555 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 26189 TABLE TOP PRODUCTIONS 27556 3,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,500.00 101 68010 220 1950 26190 OSCAR REYNOLDS 27557 11000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00 101 68010 220 1950 TOTAL $413,503.16 Ii CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 06/07/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26169 LARISA YAGLONITSER 25517 720.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 720.00 101 68010 220 1349 26170 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, .LLC 25852 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 26171 KEVIN REYES 25970 210.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 101 68010 220 1789 26172 GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 26096 2,313.29 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,313.29 620 66700 800 26173 LAUREL TANG 26121 360.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 101 68010 220 1349 26174 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH 1 26345 1,066.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,066.00 101 64400 120 26175 TONY LEUNG 26486 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 26176 SFPUC WATER DEPARTMENT 26633 492.40 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 492.40 526 69020 290 26177 DANIEL BOYLE 26737 660.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 660.00 201 65200 260 26178 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 358.49 OFFICE EXPENSE 280.92 101 64400 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 77.57 526 69020 120 26179 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26896 106.84 COMMUNICATIONS 106.84 201 65200 160 26180 MCNAMARA AND SMALLMAN CONSTRUCTI 26911 220,198.39 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 220,198.39 327 81500 220 26181 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27019 1,196.59 UTILITY EXPENSE 1,196.59 896 20281 26182 MONICA MARANGON 27374 360.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 101 68010.220 1349 26183 PATRICIA KENNELLY 27429 2,480.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,480.00 101 68010 220 1349 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 06/07/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT. AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 26158 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 18,286.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 784.92 101 68010 120 1111 MISC. SUPPLIES 236.10 101 68010 120 1114 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,140.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 619 64460 220 5121 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,246.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 902.00 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 79.59 619 64460 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES -102.84 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,873.00 619 64460 220 5120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,892.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,101.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 989.0D 619 64460 220 5210 26159 THE BERKELEY CHESS SCHOOL 24287 3,040.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,040.00 101 68010 220 1349 26160 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 1,200.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,200.00 101 66210 260 26161 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 24466 258.23 SMALL TOOLS 126.77 101 66210 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 131.46 619 64460 120 26162 DHS OCP 24639 240.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 240.00 526 69020 260 26163 DIAMOND SECURITY SOLUTIONS 24659 495.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 120.00 619 64460 210 5120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 375.00 619 64460 210 5130 26164 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 4,314.71 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,314.71 130 20014 26165 ADVANCED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 25198 1,922.52 RADIO MAINT. 1,922.52 201 65200 205 26166 JOE CYR 25213 116.91 MISC'. SUPPLIES 116.91 101 65300 120 26167 BAY CITIES DRIVING SCHOOL 25220 994.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 994.50 101 68010 220 1422 26168 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 348.13 OFFICE EXPENSE 348.13 201 65200 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 06/07/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Nand Written Checks 26147 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT 22529 111.15 MISC. SUPPLIES 111.15 101 68010 120 1114 26148 MILLER DEVELOPMENT 22629 1,020.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 270.00 101 36630 26149 LYON VENTURES, INC 22754 7,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 7,500.00 101 22546 26150 MDL PLASTIC BAGS COMPANY 22807 309.29 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 309.29 530 65400 200 26151 ROBERTA RESTANI 22828 450.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00 101 68010 220 1349 26152 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC 23066 1,680.00 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 1,680.00 526 69020 230 26153 OFFICE MAX 23306 351.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 351.08 101 68010 110 1101 26154 DATASAFE 23410 1,091.84 OFFICE EXPENSE 138.31 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 388.76 101 66100 110 ' OFFICE EXPENSE 121.37 101 64200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 1.81 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 115.60 101 64350 120 _ MISC. SUPPLIES 46.96 101 64400 120 BANKING SERVICE FEES 279.03 101 64250 120 26155 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 39,593.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 16,933.98 327 81800 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 22,659.52 327 81500 210 26156 AT&T 23661 29.89 COMMUNICATIONS 29.89 621 64450 160 26157 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 619.38 MISC. SUPPLIES 619.38 619 64460 120 5190 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 06/07/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26132 GARY PARTEE 19249 4,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,500.00 101 22546 26133 AMERICA PRINTING 19430 1,116.92 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,116.92 101 64250 110 26134 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 10,312.34 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,166.84 528 66600 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,145.50 619 64460 210 5230 26135 NIAGARA CONSERVATION 19979 3,913.09 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,913.09 526 690ZO 120 26136 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 3,509.19 COMMUNICATIONS 3,509.19 621 64450 160 26137 CLAUDE ARRIOLA 20435 450.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00 101 68010 220 1789 26138 LORI MOITIE 20768 1,900.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,900.00 101 68010 220 1950 26139 AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & 20798 62.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 62.50 101 64420 210 26140 MELANIE MARANI 21132 720.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 720.00 101 68010 220 1331 26141 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 1,700.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 800.00 101 64420 210 TRAINING EXPENSE 900.00 101 68020 260 2100 26142 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 617.69 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 617.69 101 68020 190 2200 26143 MARTHA KOKES 21781 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,080.00 101 22546 26144 VB GOLF LLC.: 21948 427.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 427.50 101 68010 220 1784 26145 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 684.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 684.14 527 66520 120 26146 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 400.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 400.00 620 66700 210 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R - PAGE 3 06/07/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26119 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 1,540.97 OFFICE EXPENSE 47.36 201 65200 110 SUPPLIES 14.20 201 65200 112 MISC. SUPPLIES 240.46 201 65200 120 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT- -171.36 201 65200 190 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 129.95 201 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 60.00 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 857.62 201 65200 260 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 69.24 620 66700 800 MISCELLANEOUS 293.50 731 22554 26120 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 287.57 MISC. SUPPLIES - 287.57 527 66520 120 26121 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 351.81 MISC. SUPPLIES 351.81 619 64460 120 5130 26122 PENINSULA ASA 15701 598.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 598.00 101 68010 220 1787 26123 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 14,138.40 SUPPLIES 14,138.40 620 15000 - 26124 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 152.61 SMALL TOOLS 152.61 620 66700 130 26125 LINDA HOECK 16390 3,600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,600.00 101 68010 220 1349 26126 COLORPRINT 17497 359.95 OFFICE EXPENSE 97.97 101 64400 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 261.98 101 64400 120 26127 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 209.43 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 209.43 320 81740 220 26128 ACCURATE MAILINGS, INC 17623 2,624.44 MISCELLANEOUS 2,624.44 526 69020 233 26129 DEESIGNS 18388 2,477.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,477.70 526 69020 120 26130 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 1,727-68 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,727.68 621 64450 200 26131 BAY ALARM 18854 378.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 333.00 619 64460 210 5140 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 45.00 619 64460 210 5230 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 06/07/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 26113 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 4,376.17 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1212 MISC. SUPPLIES 55.49 101 68010 120 1520 _ MISC. SUPPLIES 90.76 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 237.07 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 400.70 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 570.29 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 113.65 101 68010 120 1104 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.00 101 68010 120 1423 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 362.33 101 68020 140 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16.45 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 169.00 101 68010 220 1645 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 321.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 108.00 101 68010 220 1784 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 444.00 101 68010 220 1349 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 90.00 101 68020 240 2300 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 100.00 101 68020 240 2200 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 95.00 101 68020 250 2300 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 15.00 101 68010 250 1100 MISC. SUPPLIES 314.47 730 69547 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 372.90 730 69533 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 75.00 730 69593 120 6030 MISC. SUPPLIES 315.06 730 69583 120 26114 JEAN BUCKS 09019 521.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 521.25 101 68010 220 1644 26115 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 877.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 877.50 101 68010 220 1891 26116 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC 09790 8,234.33 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 7,776.43 101 66210 222 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 227.33 526 69020 200 SMALL TOOLS 230.57 527 66520 130 26117 LEONA MORIARTY 09979 3,780.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,780.00 101 68010 220 1644 26118 BARKER BLUE REPROGRAPHICS 09990 403.16 MISC. SUPPLIES 235.56 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 167.60 730 69593 120 6030 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 06/07/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26102 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 8.63 MISC. SUPPLIES 8.63 619 64460 120 26103 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,441.66 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,441.66 101 64560 220 26104 ANASTASIA COLE 01945 1,179.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,179.75 101 68010 220 1644 26105 DEMCO, INC. 02043 103.25 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 103.25 101 66210 222 26106 KW LIGHTING DISCOUNTERS 02645 382.67 MISC. SUPPLIES 382.67 619 64460 120 26107 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 461.47 SUPPLIES 461.47 620 15000 26108 PERSONAL AWARDS, INC. 03145 133.85 MISC. SUPPLIES 133.85 101 68010 120 1781 26109 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 281.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 281.00 619 64460 210 5170 26110 DOROTHY RADYK 03235 635.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 635.25 101 68010 220 1644 26111 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL 03380 570.00 MISCELLANEOUS 570.00 526 69020 233 26112 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 5,016.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,016.00 320 76350 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME " 06-01-2007 WARRANT R E G I ST ER PAGE 12 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 161,497.86 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 20,268.94 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 7,455.04 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 8,931.00 WATER FUND 526 256,482.49 SEWER FUND 527 220,639.86 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,960.00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 2,730.19 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 1,344.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 22,231.52 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,376.14 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 21,023.36 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 26.27 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 12,485.02 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 8,891.22 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $748,342.91 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 25959 THROUGH 26101 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $748,342.91, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCI Lf DATE C CITY OF BURLINGAME W ARRAN T REG I ST E R PAGE 11 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Nand Written Checks 26098 BETTY IRAN 27549 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 26099 MARY MORTON-JONES 27550 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 26100 JENNIFER VITRO 27551 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 26101 CINDY SUN 27552 583.00 MISCELLANEOUS 113.00 101 36330 000 1644 MISCELLANEOUS 10.00 101 36330 000 1890 MISCELLANEOUS 460.00 101 36330 000 1423 TOTAL $748,342.91 CITY OF BURLINGAME WAR RANT REG I S TER PAGE 10 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *. Denotes Hand Written Checks 26084 AMY KING 27523 172.00 MISCELLANEOUS 172.00 101 36330 000 1349 26085 EDWARD B WARD CO 27533 64.55 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.60 619 64460 120 5170 MISC. SUPPLIES 46.95 619 64460 120 26086 SAN MATEO COUNTY CRITICAL INCIDE 27534 200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 65150 220 26087 PLANET UNDERGROUND 27535 613.70 MISCELLANEOUS -50.63 527 23611 TRAINING EXPENSE 664.33 527 66520 260 26088 SCOTT WILLIAMS 27538 4,188.54 MISCELLANEOUS 4,188.54 101 65100 010 26089 CHARLES CAMMARATA 27539 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 26090 JUDY LOPEZ 27540 1,335.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,200.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 135.00 101 36342 26091 JEAN MARIE BUCKLEY 27541 30.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.00 101 68010 220 1422 26092 JOE MCVEIGH 27542 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 26093 GLICKMAN TRUST 27543 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 26094 RICARDO OLIVARES 27545 194.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 94.00 101 36330 000 1213 26095 MARISOL MOREIRA 27546 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 26096 MOLYN ZHAO 27547 72.00 MISCELLANEOUS 72.00 101 36330 000 1646 26097 ANGELIC TAUBE 27548 75..00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26070 PRINTING INNOVATIONS 26591 75.78 OFFICE EXPENSE 75.78 101 68010 110 1101 26071 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 486.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 206.47 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 13.15 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 27.25 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 46.76 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 193.36 101 65300 120 26072 DENISE PAYNE 26845 - 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 26073 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26897 794.48 COMMUNICATIONS 794.48 201 65200 160 26074 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26898 33.30 COMMUNICATIONS 33.30 101 64100 160 26075 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26899 66.89 COMMUNICATIONS 66.89 101 64150 160 26076 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26901 138.45 COMMUNICATIONS 138.45 101 65300 160 26077 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26910 268.63 COMMUNICATIONS 268.63 101 66100 160 26078 SAN FRANCISCO FENCERS CLUB 27032 164.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 164.80 101 68010 220 1762 26079 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 275.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 145.00 101 64420 262 TRAINING EXPENSE 130.00 201 65200 260 26080 JOSEPH BUNNELL 27243 1650.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 650.00 201 65200 260 26081 SAVIANO CO. INC 27446 5,600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,600.00 320 78490 220 26082 MORRIS GREENBERG 27481 2,937.25 MISCELLANEOUS 2,937.25 101 65100 010 26083 VERTRANS 27521 19,837.80 MISCELLANEOUS 19,837.80 619 64460 804 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26055 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 540.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 540.00 101 68010 220 1644 26056 GINA BALDRIDGE 25092 590.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 590.00 730 69583 220 26057 MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT 25098 12,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,000.00 526 69020 210 26058 MERCY MARTIN 25270 800.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00 101 68010 220 1661 26059 ROBERT GILSON 25616 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 26060 JENNIFER BESWICK 25932 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 26061 BAYMARK BUSINESS PARTNERS 25977 291.25 OFFICE EXPENSE 291.25 101 64250 110 26062 IMPACT SCIENCES 26099 4,170.47 DEPOSIT REFUND 4,170.47 101 22590 - 26063 HULBERG & ASSOCIATES INC. 26141 5,500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,500.00 101 64350 210 26064 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26161 42.89 COMMUNICATIONS 42.89 530 65400 160 26065 MR GOODROW 26259 - 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 26066 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 1,271.15 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,271.15 621 64450 220 26067 DANCE FORCE 26351 6,316.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,316.00 101 68010 220 1646 26068 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26519 156.74 COMMUNICATIONS 156.74 201 65200 160 26069 GSWAW 26520 1,685.36 MISCELLANEOUS 1,685.36 526 69020 233 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 26040 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024 26041 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 600.00 MISCELLANEOUS 600.00 130 20024 26042 C.L.E.A. 24523 585.00 MISCELLANEOUS 585.00 130 20026 26043 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 490.00 UNION DUES 490.00 130 21091 26044 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092 26045 WATER SOLUTIONS 24532 88.56 TRAINING EXPENSE 88.56 526 69020 260 26046 PRESERVATION PAINTING 24552 1,040.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,040.00 101 22515 26047 KEITH RUZICKA 24559 3,210.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,210.00 101 22546 26048 BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC 24574 6,300.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,300.00 101 64560 210 26049 AETNA 24760 3,802.51 MISCELLANEOUS 396.00 130 20028 - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,406.51 130 20022 26050 THE .HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 5,357.83 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,162.88 130 20021 MISCELLANEOUS 1,194.95 130 20025 26051 EXCEL FITNESS SOLUTIONS 24854 - 325.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 325.00 201 65200 200 26052 CAPORICCI & LARSON 24920 33,052.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 33,052.50 101 64560 210 26053 NEOPOST 24987 184.96 OFFICE EXPENSE 184.96 101 64250 110 26054 JAMES MURPHY 25080 1,506.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,506.00 101 68010 220 1661 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26026 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 10,108.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,108.00 101 68010 220 1331 26027 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 1,960.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,960.00 528 66600 210 26028 AT&T/MCI 23728 9,173.07 COMMUNICATIONS 244.89 101 64250 160 COMMUNICATIONS 36.96 101 68020 160 2200 UTILITY EXPENSE 8,891.22 896 20281 26029 KEITH MARTIN 23788 179.49 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 39.14 101 66210 222 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 4.00 101 66210 250 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.89 527 66520 120 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 29.00 620 66700 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 43.46 620 66700 260 26030 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 407.86 MISC. SUPPLIES 407.86 619 64460 120 5190 26031 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 128.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 128.00 101 64420 210 26032 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 196.81 MISC. SUPPLIES 196.81 101 68010 120 1114 26033 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 1,755.96 SUPPLIES 1,755.96 620 15000 26034 QUILL 24090 350.01 OFFICE EXPENSE 350.01 621 64450 110 26035 JESUS NAVA 24204 127.19 TRAINING EXPENSE 127.19 101 64250 260 26036 SUSAN MCKEE 24442 688.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 688.50 101 68010 220 1661 26037 GRETCHEN LOTT 24452 1,046.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,046.25 101 68010 220 1661 26038 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 8,855.00 MISCELLANEOUS 8,855.00 130 20016 26039 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 78.00 UNION DUES 78.00 130 21080 C \ \ CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26011 MANDEGO, INC. 21855 1,483.82 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,483.82 101 68010 120 1787 26012 DELTA BLUEGRASS 22029 14,519.36 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 14,519.36 101 68020 190 2100 26013 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 121.29 SUPPLIES 121.29 620 15000 26014 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 6,573.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 6,573.04 526 69020 120 26015 NORTH AMERICAN SPORTS MANAGEMENT 22382 1,200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 101 68010 220 1785 26016 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 2,545.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,140.00 201 35221 000 7100 MISCELLANEOUS 1,425.00 201 35220 000 7100 26017 TENNANT 22621 211.20 SUPPLIES 211.20 620 15000 26018 MCMILLAN ELECTRIC 23066 1,410.50 MISCELLANEOUS 1,410.50 621 64450 400 26019 BONDLOGISTIX 23088 500.00 OTHER DEBT EXPENSES 250.00 526 69020 764 OTHER DEBT EXPENSES 250.00 527 66520 764 26020 OFFICE MAX 23306 1.50.47 OFFICE EXPENSE 150.47 101 68010 110 1101 26021 PACIFIC PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. 23462 933.65 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 933.65 530 65400 200 26022 LEGALINK LOS ANGELES 23480 1,344.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,344.00 618 64520 210 26023 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 186.94 MISC. SUPPLIES 159.69 619 64460 120 5170 MISC. SUPPLIES 27.25 619 64460 120 26024 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 292.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 149.25 619 64460 120 5110 SMALL TOOLS 143.62 619 64460 130 26025 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 456.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 456.00 527 66520 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25997 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 843.89 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 817.62 201 65200 203 - FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 26.27 625 65213 203 25998 AMERICA PRINTING 19430 735.02 OFFICE EXPENSE 735.02 101 64250 110 25999 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 8,605.91 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 8,605.91 730 69593 210 6050 26000 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL 19879 2,850.00 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 2,850.00 527 66520 270 26001 CHI HUA HUNG 19912 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 26002 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,066.00. RENTS & LEASES 4,066.00 526 69020 180 26003 SPRINT PCS 20724 707.56 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 707.56 101 65100 220 26004 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 900,00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 101 68010 220 1331 26005 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 703.62 MISC. SUPPLIES 351.81 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 351.81 527 66520 120 26006 CEB 21210 219.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 219.50 101 64350 120 26007 CIR 21211 21705.58 TRAINING EXPENSE 330.00 101 66210 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,375.58 527 66520 120 26008 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 111.48 OFFICE EXPENSE 111.48 101 64250 110 26009 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE, INC. 21505 1,872.01 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,872.01 101 68010 190 1100 26010 EILEEN P. GOLDENBERG 21846 11575.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,575.00 101 68010 220 1644 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT �•� Denotes Hand Written Checks 25983 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 553.44 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 553.44 526 69020 230 25984 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,627.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,627.00 101 65100 220 25985 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 2,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 68010 220 1787 25986 LINDA HOECK 16390 4,770.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,770.00 101 68010 220 1349 25987 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 182.17 SMALL TOOLS 182.17 527 66520 930 25988 HILTON, FARNKOPF & HOBSON 16656 11,645.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,822.50 526 69020 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,822.50 527 66520 210 25989 CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS 17141 5,115.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,115.00 101 68020 220 25990 SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 17224 133.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 133.58 619 64460 120 5110 25991 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 17,991.70 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 758.11 621 64450 200 MISCELLANEOUS 1,104.15 621 64450 400 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 16,129.44 621 64450 800 25992 COLORPRINT 17497 91.50 OFFICE EXPENSE 91.50 101 64400 110 25993 DEESIGNS 18388 2,477.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,477.70 526 69020 120 25994 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 644.80 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 644.80 101 64420 210 25995 AND NEWSPAPERS 19083 196.87 P,OBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 196.87 101 64200 150 25996 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 102.15 OFFICE EXPENSE 58.92 101 64250 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.23 620 66700 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25973 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 749.00 PRISONER EXPENSE 749.00 101 65100 291 25974 MARGARET KRAMER 09612 1,620.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,620.00 101 68010 220 1661 25975 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 1,611.41 MISC. SUPPLIES 116.29 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 320.37 101 66210 120 SMALL TOOLS 374.32 101 68020 130 2200 SMALL TOOLS 21.63 101 66210 130 SMALL TOOLS -26.05 101 68020 130 2200 MISCELLANEOUS 18.39 101 68020 192 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 50.47 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 103.92 526 69020 120 SMALL TOOLS 225.74 526 69020 130 TRAINING EXPENSE 12.47 526 69020 260 OFFICE EXPENSE 35.01 527 66520 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 45.55 527 66520 120 SMALL TOOLS 250.65 527 66520 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.41 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 47.88 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.36 619 64460 120 5240 25976 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 135.00 RADIO MAINT. 135.00 201 65200 205 25977 'PIP PRINTING 10620 5.95.38 OFFICE EXPENSE 595.38 526 69020 110 25978 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 1,650.98 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,650.98 201 65200 203 25979 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 618.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 16.87 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 246.09 101 65100 120 COMMUNICATIONS 120.00 101 65100 160 TRAINING EXPENSE 235.12 101 65100 260 25980 FORTE PRESS CORP. 13759 1,753.65 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,753.65 530 65400 120 25981 SUZETTE ODELL 14294 2,250.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,250.00 730 69593 210 6020 25982 HDL COREN&CONE 14750 1,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 30400 C \ \ CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 06/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25959 BRIDGES TIRE & WHEEL SERVICE 01403 72.00 SUPPLIES 72.00 620 15000 25960 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 400.48 MISCELLANEOUS 400.48 101 22515 25961 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 97.43 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT - 97.43 201 65200 140 25962 D & M TOWING, INC. 02029 100.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 100.00 620 66700 200 25963 VEOLIA WATER 02110 207,343.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 207,343.00 527 66530 220 25964 FEDEX 02160 70.32 OFFICE EXPENSE 24.85 101 64420 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 18.10 101 64400 120 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 27.37 101 65100 200 - 25965 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 355.55 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 265.56 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 89.99 101 66210 226 25966 KW LIGHTING DISCOUNTERS 02645 1,320.39 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 276.06 526 69020 230 MISC. SUPPLIES 732.80 619 64460 120 5250 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 311.53 619 64460 210 5120 25967 P. G. & E. 03054 20,096.34 GAS & ELECTRIC 20,096.34 101 66100 170 25968 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT 03271 1,039.11 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,039.11 730 69561 220 25969 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT-. 03353 221,752.32 WATER PURCHASES 221,752.32 526 69020 171 25970 SNAP ON TOOLS 03587 132.79 SMALL TOOLS 132.79 201 65200 130 25971 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 3,331.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,331.00 320 76350 220 25972 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 200.94 MISC. SUPPLIES 35.65 619 64460 120 5250 MISC. SUPPLIES 165.29 619 64460 120 5170 CITY OF BURLINGAME 05-24-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 91,977.25 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 4,922.55 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 48,901.76 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 21,878.81 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 52,185.67 WATER FUND 526 33,636.92 SEWER FUND 527 12,986.02 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 7,182.90 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1,381.91 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 49,747.83 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 9,669.74 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 25,076.03 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 340.94 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 96.77 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1,801.11 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 130,390.94 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 24,594.52 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 146.30 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 43,152.48 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $560,070.45 i I�f.31 Vu ID '264-a'l '(I bz.1-I> Vv I a 4 00 00 VO I D HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: 11,•(� 1/V IJ) .�SgjO 55'f,��f I •�-� THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 25838 THROUGH 25958 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $560,070.45, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... ///COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME NAR RANT REG I S TER PAGE 11 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 25951 KATHERINE H. COTTER 27524 35.00 MISCELLANEOUS 35.00 101 36330 000 1890 25952 MR.MRS HO 27525 - 60.00 MISCELLANEOUS 60.00 101 36330 000 1890 25953 DARREN GRIMM 27526 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 25954 MONICA ESPINOZA 27527 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 22593 25955 IRINA E1LEN 27528 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 25956 KAREN BERTOLDI 27529 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 25957 WENDY & STEVE MORO 27530 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 25958 CAPPIE ALVERSON-FAY 27531 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 TOTAL 8560,070.45 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks - 25937 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 639.99 OFFICE EXPENSE -51.71 101 65300 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 39.19 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 10.46 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE -12.18 101 65300 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 55.08 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 331.26 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 267.89 526 69020 120 25938 SYLVIA YEH-KATAOKA 26851 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 25939 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 26977 138.99 UTILITY EXPENSE 138.99 896 20281 25940 OFFICE RELIEF 27065 911.47 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 911.47 101 65150 220 25941 SAN MATEO COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY C 27112 1,890.55 COMMUNICATIONS 1,890.55 201 65200 160 25942 MADERA CARPORTS INC 27188 11,266.31 MISC. SUPPLIES 11,266.31 326 81820 120 25943 DAVID GONZALEZ 27372 468.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 234.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 234.00 101 68010 220 1646 25944 MARK MCDANIEL 27391 150.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 101 68010 220 1785 25945 SINGLE SOURCE CONSULTING 27514 500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 500.00 618 64520 210 25946 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITY MANAGERS 27515 54.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 54.00 101 64150 250 25947 D&T CRANE CERTIFIERS INC 27518 350.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 350.00 620 66700 210 25948 AIR PERMITTING SPECIALISTS 27519 1,339.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,339.00 618 64520 210 25949 ALLYSON DAY 27520 7,500.00 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 7,500.00 618 64520 601 25950 MR/MRS GRAHAM 27523 172.00 MISCELLANEOUS 172.00 101 36330 000 1349 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25922 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 89.55 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 89.55 201 65200 220 25923 JOE CYR 25213 403.90 MISCELLANEOUS 313.90 101 22515 TRAINING EXPENSE 90.00 101 65300 260 25924 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 245.36 OFFICE EXPENSE 245.36 201 65200 110 25925 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 6.48 OFFICE EXPENSE 6.48 101 65100 110 25926 CITY OF FOSTER CITY 25377 1,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500.00 201 65200 220 25927 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153.22 RENTS & LEASES 153.22 526 69020 180 25928 MAYA TOGASHI 25940 27.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 27.00 101 68010 220 1644 25929 EVERGREEN OIL INC 26145 3,396.50 MISCELLANEOUS 3,396.50 618 64520 604 25930 LANCE BAYER 26156 687.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 687.50 101 64350 210 25931 GARY O'GRADY 26225 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 25932 JEFF BASHAW 26465 2,625.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,625.00 101 22546 25933 PAUL J. STEFANI 26498 - 27.00 MISCELLANEOUS 27.00 101 36330 000 1372 25934 PRINTING INNOVATIONS 26591 1,177.35 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,177.35 618 64520 210 25935 ALL CHEMICAL DISPOSAL INC 26806 200.00 SUPPLIES 200.00 201 65200 112 25936 MCNABB CONSTRUCTION 26807 46,340.78 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 46,340.78 320 81090 220 .SC. SUPPLIES 145.98 526 69020 OFFICE EXPENSE 51 .94 527 66520 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 123.91 530 65400 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 239.00 530 65400 140 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1 ,019.00 530 65400 210 OFFICE EXPENSE 35.55 619 64460 110 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 184.85 619 64460 250 MISC. SUPPLIES 350.92 730 69533 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 142.21 730 69583 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,307.98 730 69544 120 MISCELLANEOUS 480.00 731 22542 MISC. SUPPLIES 146.30 738 64580 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 25921 I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 26,112.91 OFFICE EXPENSE 273.93 101 67500 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 24.00 101 68010 110 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,159.36 101 66100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 115.65 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,395.14 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 86.26 10168010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 25.49 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES - 1,755.09 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 699.51 101 68010 120 1891 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.25 101 68010 120 1787 MISCl SJJPPLIES 354.65 101 68010 120 1890 MISC. SUPPLIES .=;K. 179..02 101 0010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.17 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 69.99 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 29.25 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.30 101 64100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 4,452.51 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.57 101 65100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 123.92 101 65150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 123.92 101 65100 120 BANKING SERVICE FEES 139.99 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 221.66 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 51.92 101 68010 120 1423 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 16.24 101 64420 121 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 435.84 101 67500 125 POLICE--SUPPLIES 380.65 101 65100 126 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 162.10 101 67500 129 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 238.00 101 65150 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 238.00 101 65100 140 BLDG. &GROUNDS h1AINT. 357.79 101 68020 190 2200 BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 57.13 101 68010 190 1101 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 610.64 101 68010 220 1423 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 236.70 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 742.70 101 68010 220 1423 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 270.20 101 68010 220 1370 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 92.00 101 66210 250 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 395.00 101 68010 250 1101 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 999.42 101 64150 250 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 77.57 101 68010 250 1101 TRAVEL&MEETINGS -249.40 101 68010 250 1100 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 163.00 101 65150 250 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 544.65 101 64100 250 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 25.00 101 67500 251 STAFF&MEETINGS 255.00 101 67500 252 TRAINING EXPENSE 856.00 101 65150 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,161.60 101 65100 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 149.00 101 64250 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 163.00 101 65100 260 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 702.62 101 65100 292 TRAINING EXPENSE 60.01 201 65500 260 OFFICE EXPENSE 121.24 526 69020 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25919 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER, INC. 24637 3,494.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,494.40 101 68010 220 1372 25920 DHS OCP 24639 50.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 50.00 526 69020 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hard Written Checks 25906 MCMAS TER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 95.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 95.13 619 64460 120 25907 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 183.34 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 183.34 619 64460 210 5170 25908 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 430.00 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 70.00 619 64460 210 5120 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 70.00 619 64460 210 5110 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5150 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5170 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5160 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 70.00 619 64460 210 5180 25909 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 25910 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 666.84 MISC. SUPPLIES 83.09 101 68010 120 1111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 583.75 619 64460 220 5110 25911 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 34.66 COMMUNICATIONS 34.66 101 65300 160. 25912 STRINGER BUSINESS SYSTEMS 23973 582.97 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 582.97 101 64150 210 25913 WINZLER&KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 2,560.98 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 2,560.98 320 80520 210 25914 BRET BOTTARINI 24049 3,725.51 MISCELLANEOUS 3,725.51 526 36730 25915 QUILL 24090 282.83 OFFICE EXPENSE 282.83 621 64450 110 25916 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 648.00 MISCELLANEOUS 648.00 526 69020 233 25917 PRESERVATION PAINTING 24552 7,150.00 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 5,200.00 619 64460 210 5180 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,040.00 619 64460 210 5110 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 910.00 619 64460 210 5170 25918 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENTS ASSO 24605 60.00 DUES&SUBSCRIPTIONS 60.00 101 66210 240 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 05/24/07 - - NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25891 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 2,448.32 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,448.32 526 69020 120 25892 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 22,841.88 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,164.02 736 64571 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,677.86 736 64572 220 25893 SAN MATED REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 735.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 731 22554 UTILITY EXPENSE 435.00 896 20281 25894 BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL 22773 - 109.98 MISC. SUPPLIES 109.98 101 65100 120 25895 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 675.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 675.00 101 66100 120 25896 ROBERTA RESTANI 22828 307.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 307.50 101 68010 220 1645 25897 ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 22851 10,476.00 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 10,476.00 618 64520 225 25898 SAN MATEO COUNTY PROBATION DEPAR 22943 6,770.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,770.00 101 65100 220 25899 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00 MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031 25900 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 10,612.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 10,612.50 326 79400 210 25901 MICHAEL GAUL 23276 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 25902 OFFICE MAX 23306 - - 369.66 OFFICE EXPENSE 55.10 101 65300 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 279.60 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 34.96 101 68010 110 1101 25903 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 36.03 MISC. SUPPLIES 36.03 619 64460 120 5130 25904 RECALL- TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT 23411 108.23 MISCELLANEOUS 108.23 101 22518 25905 ICE CENTER OF SAN MATEO 23512 374.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 374.40 101 68010 220 1762 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 25878 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,752.64 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,752.64 736 64570 220 25879 CONTROL MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 20421 49,785.67 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 49,785.67 327 81360 210 25880 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 2,400.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,400.00 327 75170 210 25881 CWEA - CALIFORNIA WATER 20631 512.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 512.00 527 66520 240 25882 LARRY ANDERSON 20716 165.00 MISCELLANEOUS 165.00 101 64350 031 25883 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 584.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 351.81 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 232.58 101 66210 219 25884 CEB 21210 142.65 MISC. SUPPLIES 142.65 101 64350 120 25885 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 2,375.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 791.67 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 791.66 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 791.67 527 66520 260 25886 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 7,967.67 MISCELLANEOUS 7,967.67 101 37010 25887 MANDEGO, INC. 21855 3,825.82 MISC. SUPPLIES 253.58 101 68010 120 1785 MISC. SUPPLIES 254.93 101 68010 120 1789 MISC. SUPPLIES 372.70 101 68010 120 1788 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,944.61 101 68010 220. 1781 25888 IEDA 21981 2,688.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,688.25 101 64420 210 25889 JORGENSON, SIEGEL, MCCLURE S. FLE 22144 159.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 159.00 618 64520 210 25890 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 116.05 SUPPLIES 116.05 620 15000 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 25866 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 16148 2,631.62 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,631.62 618 64520 210 25867 OTTO MILLER 17129 1,300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,300.00 101 22520 25868 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 182.17 SMALL TOOLS 182.17 527 66520 130 25869 JOSEPH FEENEY 18252 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 25870 KLEINFELDER, INC 18684 4,321.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,321.50 $28 66600 210 25871 BAY AREA PAVING CO 18790 35,175.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25,000.00 526 69020 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,175.00 527 66520 220 25872 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 255.20 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 255.20 101 64420 121 25873 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 1,435.48 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 269.22 101 66210 140 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 263.97 201 65200 220 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 285.10 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 269.19 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 132.00 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 216.00 620 66700 140 25874 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 357.89 OFFICE EXPENSE 7.34 101 64200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.34 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.33 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.34 101 64350 120 MISC, SUPPLIES 270.43 201 65200 111 OFFICE EXPENSE 58.11 621 64450 110 25875 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 8.45 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. -88.32 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 96.77 625 65213 203 25876 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 1,750.26 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,750.26 528 66600 210 25877 DON DORNELL 19617 560.00 MISCELLANEOUS 560.00 101 65200 031 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25852 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 22,509.36 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,987.40 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 9,521.96 618 64520 601 25853 BERNARD EDWARDS 09548 1,800.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,800.00 101 68010 220 1762 25854 GARY M. OLSON, PH.D. 09902 300.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 300.00 101 64420 121 25855 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 491.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 491.00 201 65200 220 25856 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN 10567 7,403.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4.00 101 68010 010 1780 MISCELLANEOUS 1,697.00 101 68010 010 1100 MISCELLANEOUS 5,583.00 101 65100 010 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SVC. 119.00 101 67500 011 25857 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 240.10 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 240.10 101 64350 210 25858 ROMEO PACKING CO 11348 822.70 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 822.70 101 68020 190 2200 25859 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 11749 327.47 OFFICE EXPENSE 266.24 527 66520 110 SMALL TOOLS 12.54 527 66520 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 48.69 619 64460 120 5120 25860 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 922.40 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 922.40 619 64460 210 5240 25861 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 725.27 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 725.27 527 66520 230 25862 ALFRED H. ESCOFFIER 15413 660.00 MISCELLANEOUS 660.00 101 67500 031 25863 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 156.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 156.00 101 66100 120 25864 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 4,350.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,350.00 101 68010 220 1787 25865 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 24,393.98 SUPPLIES 24,393.98 620 15000 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 05/24/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25838 * COUNTY CLERK 27522 1,850.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,850.00 101 64400 120 25839 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 614.41 MISCELLANEOUS 614.41 101 22515 25840 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 446.22 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 446.22 101 68020 190 2200 25841 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 1,427.69 MISCELLANEOUS 1,427.69 896 20282 25842 N.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 398.88 TRAINING EXPENSE 398.88 101 68020 260 2300 25843 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 599.82 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 599.82 101 66210 226 25844 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATION 03002 979.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 979.14 528 66600 120 25845 P. G. & E. 03054 41,150.80 UTILITY EXPENSE 41,150.80 896 20280 25846 AT&T 03080 233.16 COMMUNICATIONS 77.85 101 67500 160 COMMUNICATIONS 77.46 101 65100 160 COMMUNICATIONS 77.85 101 67500 160 25847 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 51750.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,750.00 101 66100 220 25848 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,962.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,962.75 101 65150 220 25849 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 129,610.94 MISCELLANEOUS 129,610.94 731 22587 25850 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 1,109.63 MISC. SUPPLIES 400.21 101 64350 120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 650.42 101 64350 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 59.00 618 64520 210 25851 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 2,257.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,257.00 101 65100 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME 05-18-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 64,369.44 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 3,032.10 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 16,060.69 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 15,384.40 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 42, 152.93 WATER FUND 526 232,405.24 SEWER FUND 527 1 ,687.79 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 2,897.50 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1 ,649.13 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 81 ,640.94 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 23,954.42 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 17,440.76 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 37,203.44 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2, 127.79 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 2, 175.45 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 431 .37 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 206. 16 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $5441819.55 ' 1-� II9 .3a > VOID a5-7(,,, i 5z5 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 25705 THROUGH 25837 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $544,819.55, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . . FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./- - . COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W ARRAN T RE G I ST ER PAGE 10 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 25831 CHRISTOPHER BUCCIERI 27507 50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 730 69533 220 25832 GEOFF HORN 27508 80.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00 101 68010 220 1349 25833 MICHAEL DEMENT 27509 80.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00 101 68010 220 1349 25834 LAURA PONCIA 27510 50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 730 69533 220 25835 REBECCA SIMPSON 27511 717.50 MISCELLANEOUS 717.50 101 36630 _ 25836 NORMAN ROUSSEY 27512 140.00 MISCELLANEOUS 140.00 101 36330 000 1521 25837 CAROL GAUL 27513 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 TOTAL - 8544,819.55 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R - PAGE 9 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25815 SMARTSTUD SYSTEMS 27444 160.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 160.00 101 66210 222 25816 LEHR AUTO ELECTRIC 27445 15,590.72 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 15,590.72 620 66700 800 25817 JP DIGITAL IMAGING 27493 1,572.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,572.87 730 69593 120 6030 25818 CALIFORNIA CITY MANAGEMENT FOUND 27494 375.00 MISCELLANEOUS 375.00 101 64150 031 25819 NICK CACHARELIS 27495 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 25820 JOHN PEROTTI 27496 1,950.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,950.00 101 22546 25821 VINCENT WONG 27497 1,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 22546 25822 FRANKLIN TAKAO 27498 6.87 MISCELLANEOUS 6.87 526 22502 25823 ERIC KOCH 27499 240.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 101 68010 220 1349 25824 HELEN TRAM 27500 480.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 101 68010 220 1789 25825 ROB MCNICHOL 27501 325.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 325.00 201 65200 260 25826 A&M MOTOR SUPPLY 27502 - 641.27 SMALL TOOLS 641.27 620 66700 130 25827 DIGITAL DREAMERS INC 27503 300.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 300.00 101 64560 210 25828 DANIA T. ARMAS 27504 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 25829 ELLEN FELLENZ 27505 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 25830 LOUIS MARAVIGLIA 27506 21.00 MISCELLANEOUS 21.00 101 36330 000 1644 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25799 ED BARTON 25850 200.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 200.00 130 20060 25800 FEDEX KINKO'S 26021 263.05 OFFICE EXPENSE 263.05 101 65300 110 25801 GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 26096 64.95 VEHICLE MAINT. 64.95 201 65200 202 25802 PETER BASSFORD 26116 700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00 101 68010 220 1646 25803 SYSKA HENNESSEY 26142 1,380.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,380.00 619 64460 804 25804 GARY O'GRADY 26225 3,073.50 MISCELLANEOUS 3,073.50 101 22546 25805 TERRAIN INC. 26615 2,460.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,460.00 327 81700 210 25806 CHEESE PLEASE 26635 397.98 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 397.98 101 64420 121 25807 DEIRDRE DOLAN 26734 2,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,500.00 101 64420 031 25808 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 189.84 OFFICE EXPENSE 72.93 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 116.91 526 69020 110 25809 SYLVIA YEH-KATAOKA 26851 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 25810 AVERY ASSOCIATES 27007 1,306.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,306.00 526 69020 210 25811 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27040 33.15 COMMUNICATIONS 33.15 101 65100 160 25812 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 500.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 500.00 101 64420 262 25813 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27305 43.74 COMMUNICATIONS 43.74 101 65100 160 25814 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27432 22.63 COMMUNICATIONS 22.63 527 66520 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT 'W' Denotes Hand Written Checks 25788 I .M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 9,274.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 12.98 201 65200 111 SUPPLIES 2,038.94 201 65200 112 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,023.88 201 65200 120 SMALL TOOLS 143.50 201 65200 130 COMMUNICATIONS 18.39 201 65200 160 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 426.57 201 65200 190 VEHICLE MAINT. 12.65 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 757.10 201 65200 203 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 370.00 201 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 20.66 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,515.34 201 65200 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 50.61 201 65500 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 452.98 730 69586 120 MISCELLANEOUS 431 .37 731 22554 25789 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 2,693.26 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,693.26 526 69020 260 25790 LAURA MARSH 24964 504.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 504.00 101 68010 220 1646 25791 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 144.92 OFFICE EXPENSE 113.42 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 31 .50 201 65200 111 25792 MICHAEL VONADA 25235 300.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 300.00 130 20060 25793 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 224.74 OFFICE EXPENSE 224.74 101 65100 110 25794 SHARON OLDS 25301 573.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 573.00 130 20060 25795 MITCHELL MATTEA 25302 197.50 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 197.50 130 20060 25796 MWH SOFT INC. 25416 1 ,000.00 SMALL TOOLS 1 ,000.00 326 80950 130 25797 DORI LOW 25570 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 25798 RON NOVELL[ 25609 119.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 119.00 130 20060 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25777 DAVE CREAMER 23876 900.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 101 68010 220 1644 25778 DUNBAR ARMORED 23925 1,649.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,649.13 530 65400 120 25779 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 17,364.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 989.00 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 619 64460 220 5121 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,215.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,246.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,892.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,873.00 619 64460 220 5120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 902.00 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,101.00 619 64460 220 5180 25780 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 444.36 COMMUNICATIONS 285.30 101 68020 160 2300 COMMUNICATIONS 159.06 619 64460 160 25781 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 615.54 SUPPLIES 615.54 620 15000 25782 QUILL 24090 174.72 OFFICE EXPENSE 174.72 621 64450 110 25783 MAYBELLE PINSON 24419 360.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 101 68010 220 1644 25784 JACK'S AUTO TOP AND UPHOLSTERY 24505 494.28 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 494.28 625 65213 203 25785 KEITH RUZICKA 24559 1,150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,150.00 101 22520 25786 DHS.00P 24639 65.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 65.00 526 69020 260 25787 DIAMOND SECURITY SOLUTIONS 24659 75.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 75.00 619 64460 210 5121 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25761 IMSA CERTIFICATION 21579 420.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 420.00 619 64460 250 25762 DELTA BLUEGRASS 22029 15,119.22 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 15,119.22 101 68020 190 2100 25763 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 82.35 SUPPLIES 82.35 620 15000 25764 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 1,891.12 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,891.12 526 69020 120 25765 AUTO PRIDE CAR WASH 22278 193.57 VEHICLE MAINT. 193.57 201 65200 202 25766 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 49.74 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 49.74 201 65200 140 25767 MIKE COFFEY 23009 47.60 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 47.60 130 20060 25768 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 14,384.40 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 14,384.40 326 80910 210 25769 OFFICE MAX 23306 464.67 OFFICE EXPENSE 464.67 101 68010 110 1101 25770 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 94.27 MISC. SUPPLIES 94.27 619 64460 120 5230 25771 POWERPLAN 23335 14.55 SUPPLIES 14.55 620 15000 25772 CAROL COTTIER 23434 800.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 800.00 526 69020 260 25773 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 189.88 MISC. SUPPLIES 189.88 619 64460 120 5120 25774 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 39,692.93 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 23,530.99 327 81500 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 16,161.94 327 81800 210 25775 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 2,897.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,897.50 528 66600 210 25776 AT&T/MCI 23728 27.43 COMMUNICATIONS 27.43 621 64450 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25746 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 2,842.04 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,842.04 618 64520 210 25747 BAY ALARM 18854 95.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 95.00 619 64460 210 5180 25748 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 181.35 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 181.35 101 64200 150 25749 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 91.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 91.00 101 64420 260 25750 KATHY KARAS 19812 252.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 252.00 101 68010 220 1644 25751 GE CAPITAL 20216 379.75 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1101 25752 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 1,035.44 COMMUNICATIONS 1,035.44 621 64450 160 25753 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 447.29 SUPPLIES 447.29 620 15000 25754 MONTEREY BAY AQUARIUM 20565 1,995.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,995.00 101 68010 220 1212 25755 BRIDGE WIRELESS 20633 49.04 SUPPLIES 49.04 620 15000 25756 JEFF DOWD 20779 598.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 598.50 101 68010 220 1785 25757 PACIFIC COAST TRANE SERVICE 20818 781.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 781.00 619 64460 210 5120 25758 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 989.16 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 246.45 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 742.71 619 64460 220 5110 25759 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 323.33 MISC. SUPPLIES 87.16 101 65300 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 236.17 621 64450 110 25760 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE, INC. 21505 1,031.64 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,031.64 101 68010 190 1111 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 25732 CAL-STEAM 10557 812.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.35 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.55 526 69020 120 MISCELLANEOUS 560.28 526 69020 233 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.42 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 133.98 619 64460 120 5180 25733 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 1,633.51 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,633.51 625 65213 203 25734 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 6,571.21 MISC. SUPPLIES 5,851.87 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 719.34 527 66520 120 25735 RECHARGE-EM 14523 70.36 OFFICE EXPENSE 70.36 201 65200 110 25736 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 29.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 29.40 619 64460 120 5160 25737 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,627.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,627.00 101 65100 220. 25738 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 - 2,801.15 GAS, OIL&GREASE 2,801.15 201 65200 201 25739 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 872.80 SMALL TOOLS 872.80 527 66520 130 25740 I.C. FIRE 17566 147.45 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 147.45 201 65200 203 25741 LEE&ASSOCIATES 17568 28.32 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 28.32 201 65200 203 25742 CALIFORNIA PNEUMATIC TOOL CO 17741 180.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 180.28 526 69020 120 25743 SOLANO PRESS BOOKS 17761 72.35 MISC. SUPPLIES 72.35 101 64400 120 25744 LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS 18389 - 119.56 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.56 101 64350.120 25745 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 1,727.68 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,727.68 621 64450 200 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25718 SANDRA POBE 03175 2,838.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2, 142.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 696.00 101 68010 220 1646 25719 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 274.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 274.00 619 64460 120 5130 25720 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 224,597.36 WATER PURCHASES 224,597.36 526 69020 171 25721 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 1 ,874.90 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,874.90 101 66100 220 25722 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 350.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 350.00 101 65100 260 25723 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 64250 114 25724 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 755.01 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 601 .40 101 66210 219 MISC. SUPPLIES 153.61 526 69020 120 25725 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 1 ,940.92 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,940.92 101 22515 25726 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 3,152.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 25727 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 09459 162.38 MISC. SUPPLIES 162.38 101 68020 120 2200 25728 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 78,798.90 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 10,050.98 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 68,747.92 618 64520 601 25729 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 14.67 GAS, OIL & GREASE 14.67 201 65200 201 25730 BARKER BLUE REPROGRAPHICS 09990 49.60 MISCELLANEOUS 49.60 730 69593 115 6030 25731 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 331 .25 MISC. SUPPLIES 331 .25 101 66210 120 l � 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 05/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT - AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 25705 ALPINEAWARDS, INC. 01052 62.79 OFFICE EXPENSE 34.10 527 66520 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 28.69 527 66520 120 25706 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 36.93 OFFICE EXPENSE 27.19 101 68020 110 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.74 101 64400 120 25707 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 34,002.00 COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 33,702.00 621 64450 220 25708 L. N. CURTIS&SONS 02027 1,759.06 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 1,759.06 201 65200 140 25709 GENE EVANS 02149 225.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 101 68010 220 1644 25710 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 50.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.57 619 64460 120 5130 25711 INDUSTRIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL 02499 1,300.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,300.00 201 65200 260 25712 IRVINE &JACHENS INC. 02599 617.03 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 617.03 201 65200 140 25713 K&W DISCOUNT LIGHTING&SUPP 02645 1,868.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 243.24 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES _1,049.00 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 576.44 619 64460 120 5120 25714 P. G. &E. 03054 - 1,090.31 GAS&ELECTRIC 926.23 101 680JO 170 1286 GAS&ELECTRIC 153.85 201 65200 170 GAS&ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170 25715 AT&T 03080 206.16 UTILITY EXPENSE 206.16 896 20281 25716 ALFRED J. PALMER 03085 1,595.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,595.00 130 20015. 25717 PERSONAL AWARDS, INC. 03145 - 43.30 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.30 101 68010 120 1780 BURLINGAME N The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, April 12 , 2007 Commissioners Present: Victor James, Chair Dan Conway, Vice Chair Michael Bohnert Mark Noworolski Stephen Warden Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou , Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Dean Williams, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Jennifer Callahan , 1321 Balboa Susie Smyth , 1345 Balboa Avenue Gabrielle LaMond , 1350 Babloa Avenue Bob Lazich , 1341 Balboa Avenue Bonnie Ruebert, 1401 Balboa Avenue Pat Giorni , 1445 Balboa Avenue Michael Fleming, 1472 Balboa Avenue Jim Puccinelli, 1328 Balboa Avenue Karen Delee-Simpson , 1429 Balboa Avenue Cathy Abrams, 1422 Balboa Avenue Gabrielle LaMond , 1350 Balboa Avenue Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive 1 . CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p. m . 2 . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3 . ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES- Motion:To accept the minutes of March 8,2007 with the inclusion of the following under Chair's Prologue: • Chair James suggested an electronic record depository of all business and activities of the commission as a measure of transparency participation. • Chair James explained that he intends to gather input from the commissioners during the discussion portions of the meetings by doing rounds,starting from either the left or right on the dais. • Chair James stated that the role of the Traffic Engineer and Traffic Sergeant is to provide staff input and serve as an advisory role.Their roles are not inferior nor superior but of an equal level to the Commission. M/S/C:Warden,Conway;5/0/0 6. CHAIR'S PROLOGUE Chair James commended Commissioner Bohnert,Commissioner Warden and Mr.Chou for putting together the grant for the Broadway area. Chair James said that the bi-annual report to Council needed to be submitted here as a Commission by the end of April in order to be submitted to Council by June. Chair James suggested that as a proactive measure on the part of the Commission,to propose a series of public seminars to engage the public. He said that as a city in the 2l" century, these seminars would be held to present ideas on managing parking, traffic engineering,and citizen participation. Chair James stated that Quad Reports for the Council would not occur this month.The criteria for these reports were to address issues such as parking, questions, overnight parking,etc.Chair James stated that the concept behind Quad Maps is to take government to the citizens. Chair James reiterated that the role of the Commission was to advise Council as a matter of policy, followed by implementation and to provide oversight. The Commission does not dictate to staff, nor does staff dictate to the Commission — rather it is a 2-way street partnership. 7. CONSENT None. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni expressed her support for agenda item 13.1, the request from Senator Yee's office for support on SB 279. Ms. Giomi suggested the next B/PAC meeting be announced in the Burlingame Newsletter to achieve greater public input. Linda Abbey spoke regarding the traffic study in the vicinity of Our Lady of Angels. She said that it was performed in 2006. Ms. Abbey had thought that there was going to be a sign put up about the study and/or meetings for inform the public of the outcome. Ms. Abbey also expressed her concern for the lack of selective enforcement present at this location. Ms. Abbey stated how dangerous this area can be. She inquired as to how she should proceed so that she and her neighbors could be informed as to the outcome of the study. Chair James suggested to Ms. Abbey that she write a letter so that this item could be on the agenda under Communications for the next TSPC meeting. 9. CURRENT BUSINESS 9.1 Request by Pat Giorni to consider marked crosswalks at the intersection of Hillside Drive and Balboa Avenue Mr. Chou explained that this issue was tabled at the last TSPC meeting on March 8, 2007 so that the Commission could review the additional information submitted by the residents. He said that staff did not support a 4-way stop, especially in light of the high volume of traffic that could potentially backup on Hillside Drive. Mr. Chou added that marked crosswalks would be supported only if high pedestrian foot traffic were present. Mr. Chou concluded that due to the lack of visibility at the intersection, staff recommended the installation of red curbing along the corners approaching the Hillside Drive/Balboa Avenue intersection. Chair James open the floor for public comments on this matter. Pat Giomi provided additional signatures including that of a former TSPC Commissioner. Ms. Giorni once again made a request for stop signs and asked that the right-of-way be considered for pedestrians at this intersection. Ms. Giorni stated the need for red curbing and selective enforcement; and, that this intersection needed a "Cadillac" solution for safety. Gabriel LaMonde stated that she was new to Burlingame and California. She said she realized vehicles would park all the way to the corner - which essentially made Balboa Drive a one lane street.Ms. LaMonde said she supported red curbing and cutouts. Susie Smythe requested restricting parking, cutouts and a trial period of stop signs at this intersection. She said she needed to cross Hillside Drive from Balboa Avenue on a daily basis, and that the visibility was so poor that she must go into the street from a neighbors driveway to gain visibility. She also said that the driveway provided stroller access. Jennifer Callahan said she was a 4-'/z year resident and supported restricted parking, cutouts, and stop signs. Ms. Callahan stated that vehicles accelerate to make the light and also make quick right turns on a red light to avoid the intersection. Ms. Callahan also stated that at this intersection, it was unsafe to cross the streets and that there were large commercial vehicles parked on Hillside blocking visibility. Michael Fleming stated that he was a 2-'/z year resident who supported all the recommendation made by Ms. Giorni with the exception of the stop signs. He stated that this could be overkill at this point. Mr. Fleming stated that there was definitely an issue with line-of-sight and felt that red curbing would be the key issue. Mr. Fleming also supported crosswalk installations and selective enforcement to address the issue of speeding. Bob Lazich said he was a 40 year resident, and expressed his observation that this area currently has a lot more small children present. Mr. Lazich stated that Hillside Drive has always been dangerous, but more so now. Mr. Lazich said he endorsed crosswalk installations, red curbing and cutouts. Cathy Abrams said she was a 17 year resident. She stated that this issue was very "black and white" and wanted to know what it would take to put up a stop sign. She felt this was a human necessity. Ms. Abrams said she felt that this commission would be responsible if stop signs were not installed, and someone got killed or seriously hurt. Ms. Abrams questioned what it took to get the stop sign approved for the Occidental/Howard Avenue intersection, but felt Hillside Drive/Balboa Avenue intersection to be much more dangerous. Larry (last name inaudible) said he was a resident since November and stated that crossing Hillside Drive was ridiculous due to the speed of vehicles. He said that vehicles back-track to Adeline Avenue to avoid this intersection. He added that commercial vehicles caused blind spots and it was difficult for strollers without the curb cutouts. Bennie Ruepert, a 35 year resident, said he could vouch for what everyone was expressing this evening as he has a front seat to this intersection. He supported the trial period of stop signs and the cutouts for ease of use of strollers. Karen Delee-Simpson said she was a 30 year resident who has raised her children in this particular area and are now grown, expressed the difficulties trying to stop traffic while crossing with a stroller. Ms. Delee-Simpson stated that there was an injury accident approximately three years ago at this intersection. She said that vehicles speed to make the stop light, and now with right-turns only on green, cars don't stop. Ms. Delee-Simpson hoped some decision would be made to improve safety and felt it was worth trying. Linda Abbey stated that vehicles do speed on Adeline Drive just like on Hillsdale Drive. Chair James closed the public comment period on this issue and sought input from the Commissioners. Commission Noworolski said that he appreciated the issue of traffic not yielding to the pedestrians and would like to move forward with red curbing at this intersection. Vice-chair Conway acknowledged that this was an emotional issue and stated that it was not necessarily "black and white". He explained that this Commission was appointed by the Council and that laws designate and regulate what could be done in many instances. He said that the TSPC was not ignoring concerns and was trying to serve the City of Burlingame. Vice-chair Conway then stated that there clearly was a difficult problem at this intersection. He expressed his concern that stop signs could create a backup which, in turn could make vehicles speed even more in order to make the light. Vice-chair Conway stated that studies have shown that crosswalks can give a false sense of security and pedestrians don't look left or right. He agreed that drivers might slow down potentially if they saw a crosswalk. Vice-chair Conway added that red curbing made perfect sense to increase visibility. Commissioner Bohnert asked about the ADA curb ramps, and if this was an issue that would be handled without further action by the Commission. Mr. Chou replied that he would ensure that he would talk to the project engineer about getting this work added to the annual program for the following year. Commissioner Bohnert noted that this intersection was within a 4 block radius of a large park, two schools, a market and two churches. He said that he felt strongly for red curbing and crosswalks. Commissioner Warden stated that there were four areas of concern to him. ■ Curb cutouts - which were being dealt with by staff. • Stop signs - which did not meet guidelines imposed by the State and which could create a false sense of security and potential backup of vehicles. • Crosswalks - whose location may not be deemed the safest place to cross, especially since it was one block from EI Camino Real. ■ Red curbing - which he supported, but noted that the residents needed to be forewarned that this might result in commercial vehicles being pushed onto Balboa Avenue and other side streets. Commissioner Bohnert asks about speed abatement, and other available measures such as speed bumps. Mr. Chou replied that stop sign guidelines provided by the State and Federal government stipulated that stop signs should not be used to control speed. He added that speeding traffic control measures, such as bumps and obstructions in the roadway were all Capital Improvement Program items. He said that staff needed to address the enforcement and police staff shortage issues when addressing the speeding issue. Commissioner Noworolski asked if "bots dots" across the roadway were plausible. Mr. Chou replied that bots dots could be installed, however the installation would be effective all the time and the sound would wake up residents at night. Commissioner Noworolski reiterated that a safety issues did exist at this intersection and supported red curbing; however, a stop sign was not suitable and he did not support a stop light or crosswalks. Commissioner Bohnert states that as on Broadway we have over used signage as a way to compensate for lack of enforcement. Commissioner Bohnert agreed with Mr. Chou that a stop sign was not applicable; however, he was adamant about installation of crosswalks and would trust Mr. Chou's determination of the length of red curbing necessary at each corner of the intersection. Commissioner Warden wanted to reiterate to the public about the noise that would result from bots dots, particularly at night. Chair James asked Mr. Chou why crosswalks were not included in his staff report. Mr. Chou replied that studies have been done and that crosswalks create a false sense of security on the part of pedestrians. He said that if drivers did not see a constant flow of pedestrians, drivers would then ignore the crosswalk lines. He stated that staff was not opposed to crosswalks, but was determined that this crosswalk did not have the volume and might not be the best location for crossing. Chair James questioned the line of visibility based on length of vehicles and speeding at this intersection. Mr. Chou replied that a van or truck was generally 20-22' and a car was 12-15'. Chair James asked for confirmation that dealing with speeding was difficult due to Capital Improvement Projects and personnel expenses. Mr. Chou said that, at this point in time,the City was short on personnel for enforcement. Chair James stated that he was inclined to modify the staff report by rejecting the proposed staff report and modify it by adding crosswalks. Commissioner Bohnert asked about undergoing a trial period for a crosswalk and suggested that perhaps there was a lack of pedestrian traffic due to a safety issue. He asked if a volume study could be done after installation of the crosswalks. Mr. Chou replied that crosswalks could be removed, but the commission must be able to quantify when one keeps or removes a crosswalk. He also said that it would require a study before and after installation. Chair James stated that it was a salient fact that the residents felt this intersection was unsafe, and reiterated that speeding could not be addressed due to a lack of personnel and that crosswalks might be an alternative. Motion:To decline the staff recommendation as submitted. M/S/C:Warden, Bohnert; 5/0/0 Motion: To install red curbing on approaching corners and install crosswalks at the Hillside Drive/Balboa Avenue intersection. M/S/C: Bohnert, James; 3/2/0 (Warden, Noworolski dissented) 10.CURRENT BUSINESS 10.1 Traffic Engineer's Report None. 10.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Sergeant Williams reported that staff would like to rescind the city ordinance regarding overnight parking and Chief Van Etten wanted the Commission's input. Chair James stated that part of the process to repeal an ordinance was to open it for public input and to make TSPC aware of what staff was considering. 11.ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT None. 12.PENDING ITEMS None. 13.COMMUNICATIONS 13.1 Request from State Senator Leland Yee's office regarding local support for Senate Bill 279 (Give local law enforcement agencies the same authority currently granted to CHP and Caltrans to tow away vehicles for sale on state highways.) No discussion. 13.2 Press release regarding Burlingame's TDA project grant applications (California Drive Sharrows, Howard Avenue Bike Lanes, and Broadway/Paloma Lighted Crosswalk) Chair James congratulated Commissioner Bohnert, Commission Warden and Mr. Chou on this accomplishment. 14.COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 14.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Commissioner Bohnert reported that the Committee was looking into installing approximately 40 "U" shaped bike racks along Burlingame Avenue and that at the next TSPC meeting they may present a diagram of the plan. He added that these racks were nice for parking three bikes alongside meters and planter benches. Commissioner Bohnert also said that the Committee was looking at a program that would do a 50-50 match financing of this project. 14.2 City Council/Commission Joint Meeting (Monday, May 7 —6pm). Chair James stated that Council would like TSPC to provide their issues to form an agenda for this meeting. Commission Warden suggests funding for traffic calming. Vice Chair Conway suggested explaining the constraints that the Commission must work within. He also wanted to share with the Council the issues that the TSPC comes up against, since they are directed by Council. Commissioner Bohnert suggested dialogue and communication of what role the TSPC plays. Chair James suggested the seminar series. 14.3 Quad Maps Chair James noted that the attached map reflected the corrections made with the inclusion of contact information. 14.4 Grants List Chair James acknowledged that the list provided by staff was agreeable. 15.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, May 17, 2007 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Dittman at 7:00 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Dittman, Muller, Hesselgren, Shanus, Larios, Castner-Paine, Comaroto Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz; Account Clerk III Joleen Butler; Sr. Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Manager, Jim Nantell; Public Works, Engineering, Jane Gomery Others Present: John Cahalan, Los Gatos; Jennifer Pfaff, Burlingame; Diane Condon-Wirgler, Burlingame; Steven Hamilton, Burlingame; Charles Voltz, Burlingame; Tom Paine, Burlingame; Fiona Hamilton, Burlingame; Rosalie McCloud, San Mateo; Terry Nagel, Burlingame, Bobbi Benson, Burlingame MINUTES The Minutes es of the April 19, 2007 regular meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Bobbi Benson inquired as to the plans for the Fragrance Garden in the northeast corner of Washington Park. She said it appears to be taking quite some time to establish the garden and proposed that the area be a Sensory Garden instead. She offered her services in the planning and planting process to get the garden started. NEW BUSINESS (Moved up on the agenda by Chairperson Dittman) A. Centennial Plaza — Public Discussion Schwartz explained to the public the process that led to the decision of a community plaza in front of the train station as the project for the City's Centennial monument. Maureen Brooks stated that the main goals of the project are to: • Create a space designed for public use and events, such as Farmers market or a place for a band to play • Maintain the historic view of the train station from Burlingame Ave • Use the parking lot of weekday commuters & public events on the evenings and weekends • Complement the work being done by Caltrain as a part of their platform renovation project Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17, 2007—Page 2 She explained the process to hire a landscape architect, to help with the planning phase of the project. John Cahalan, who formerly had his office in Burlingame,was chosen for the project. Cahalan presented to the Commission and public his idea to enhance the building with a European-Mediterranean style plaza. Included in the plan is colored concrete banding to designate parking spots and add landscaping. The main entry plaza would retain the current round planter with a new stucco finish to compliment the building. New items must not overpower the historical building or be confused as being part of the original structure. New landscaping would include a decorative iron fence along California Drive and up lighting of the tower and the palm tree. Tom Paine asked if consideration was give to extending to South Lane. Maureen responded that the scope and cost was decided by the committee. Schwartz added that the project dimensions given to Cahalan only included the planter area and the parking lot immediately to the north. Steven Hamilton of the Citizens for a Better Burlingame presented some ideas for inspiration that were created a couple of years ago by a local architect. Steven pointed out that the area around the station was originally designed to be a"Square" as evidenced by the surrounding streets. He felt the area should be multi-use but be a pedestrian priority area where the public and gather and relax. Steven's thoughts are that the plaza or square is our Gift to 2nd Urd Century Burlingame's residents. Bobbi Benson pointed out that the Caltrain plan will close off South lane to auto traffic. She suggests that parking be eliminated from the plaza and people should use the parking over by the donut shop. The curbs should be eliminated and seating be added. The area should be flattened out to create a place to sit and be available day and night. Trees should be added and the area used for more than just special events. We should be thinking on a bigger scope. Bobbi reminded those present that the station will soon be Burlingame's museum. Jennifer Pfaff suggests that parking be eliminated; however, if it cannot be eliminated then rolling curbs could be installed. Cahalan responded that traffic and pedestrians could be separated with flush parking bollards. She pointed out that the drainage problems need to be dealt with. She suggests there be resting places as opposed to traditional benches. She inquired if the flag pole could be moved from its current spot. She presented a sponsor or donation idea for the plaza—a"Ribbon" of the history of Burlingame. The Ribbon would be flat on the pavement with sections having historical facts about the City of Burlingame and include the sponsor or donors name. This could be a chance to"Buy a moment in Burlingame". Kids and Adults could learn about Burlingame from the "ribbon". She also mentioned that there are three markers around the station that need to be preserved. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17, 2007—Page 3 Diane Condon-Wirgler feels there must be a safety zone of pedestrians to the cars however, it should not block the view to the station from Burlingame Ave. She would like to see materials used that will stand the test of time and be maintained to insure safety and cleanliness. She also thinks that water for landscaping and electrical inputs are a must. She feels that the entry area should be Phase One on the project instead of the parking area to the north. Schwartz read an email from Jeriann Fleres who could not be at the meeting. She suggested putting in a clock, gazebo or an arbor with speakers. Perhaps some vintage street lights for the evening lighting. Include in the design lots of greenery, ivy, geranium and lavender with running water to feed the planters. Multi colored tiles could be used to mix with the terra cotta tile of the building to add color to the plaza. Jane Gomery, with the City of Burlingame, has been working with Caltrain on the station platform project. She noted that pedestrians will still have access to South Lane and there will be a demarcation line to show where the old roadway was located. Improvements funded by Caltrain is a huge area, however,there is a small strip on the back of the station owned by Caltrain that they will not be improving but they do not mind if the City of Burlingame wants to develop it. Charles Voltz seconded the need to keep the flow of pedestrian traffic open and make the area more attractive and safe for walkers. He does feel that parking areas can be moved but when a"natural"gathering place starts to emerge it should not be ignored but rather developed. Commissioner Castner-Paine does not think the idea of a fence in front of the station would be a good idea if it blocks the view to the station and asked if it could be vegetation instead. She also thinks the trees chosen should not block the view to the station or the view which acts as an invitation to the entrance to Washington Park. She feels that redwood trees would be a good option. She asked why the slope on the entry area needs to be eliminated. Cahalan replied that the slope was too severe to be a plaza slope. He mentioned that the fence would be a small decorative fence and that a vegetation hedge was most defiantly an option. Commissioner Muller mentioned that she could see confusion for residents over the parking if it is unavailable on the weekends after being open all week. She asked Cahalan how he would suggest dealing with this issue. Cahalan replied there could be flush removable poles or banners and awnings to make people aware of the status. Commissioner Larios asked about the issue oil stains from cars on a plaza that doubles as a parking lot during the week. Commissioner Comaroto reiterated the need to keep plaza users safe. Commissioner Hesselgren thought parking could be limited to 10 minutes. She did not like the idea of a town clock as people will constantly be calling for maintenance if the time is off by a minute or two. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17, 2007—Page 4 Fiona Hamilton stressed the need for trees to sit under and lighting for evening use and safety. Schwartz explained that staff would take feedback from the Commission and the public regarding the presentation that will be taken back to the Centennial Executive Committee in order to have some sort of plan to present to the public at the June 2 Kickoff Parade. The main ideas and concerns from the discussions are as follows: Public Comment SCOPE/PHASING OF PROJECT ❖ Should consider extending the project boundary to include the "kiss and ride" parking area to the south. ❖ Look at the big picture—should be looking to restore the original 'Burlingame Square". ❖ Would like to see the center section considered as Phase One, it is the most prominent. ❖ Should include the sidewalk area on Caltrain property in front of the train station as part of the project,this area is not included in the Caltrain platform project, it is in poor condition,but retain historic markers within this area. ❖ Have very few public spaces available, if we do something nice, it will be a boon to the commercial area as well as to the high school and residents in the area. ❖ Make sure there is a common vision with the Caltrain proposal so it will not look disjointed, should be part of a bigger vision for the area surrounding the train station. PARKING ❖ Should eliminate the existing parking altogether and make it all a plaza, would not need to be curb separation since there would be no parking; would also make the entire space available for activities during the day and night. ❖ Parking could be eliminated, commuters do not park there, should look at current usage and see if it could be eliminated. ❖ If parking is to stay, could have locking,removable parking meters. ❖ Need a transition/safety zone from parking area to prevent cars from hitting the train station building. ❖ Could parking be changed from two-hour to 10 minute for dropping off? SEATING ❖ Need to include permanent places to sit. ❖ Rather not have circular bench, but should include seating, resting places, could use large slabs of granite for seating. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17, 2007—Page 5 LANDSCAPING ❖ Could plant a seedling from "Tom the Tree". ❖ Needs to include something green, growing, small trees. BORDERS AND FENCING ❖ Should keep entire plaza area on one grade, consider using bollards instead of curb and change of grade between parking area and rest of plaza. ❖ Concern that fence will create a barrier between downtown and Washington Park, want to entice people to visit the park. ❖ Need to have some barrier next to roadway to delineate edge of plaza, could use something to separate other than a fence. DRAINAGE AND GRADING ❖ Make sure that in changing the grade and designing drainage that the water will flow away from the train station building,there has been water damage in the past; consider a decorative channel to direct water flow. WATER FEATURE ❖ Like idea of water feature that is flat and has water at specific times. ❖ Like the fountain idea, but concerned with safety, with small children running around it 20 feet from California Drive, would have to be barrier. ❖ Water feature would be high maintenance and an attractive nuisance. ❖ Fountain idea—can be cool but not here, hard to maintain, would be okay if include small, easy to maintain water feature. LIGHTING ❖ Make sure to include enough lighting so plaza is attractive at nighttime. ❖ Could include vintage streetlights. DONOR RECOGNITION ❖ To acknowledge donations, could design a timeline in the pavement, could be a river, marking historic events in Burlingame history, each marker could be engraved with the name of the donor/sponsor, could offer an opportunity for learning history as well as commemorate the centennial. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17, 2007—Page 6 MATERIALS ❖ Plaza should be multi-color mixed with terra cotta. ❖ Materials used should be durable, should last at least 100 years. ❖ Pavement materials should be easy to maintain, particularly concerned with oil stains from cars in parking area; surface should be texture that will prevent slipping. SAFETY Safety should be a primary consideration,this area is bordered by two transportation corridors,cars travel faster than 35 mph on California, should be some separation. ❖ This will be a nice gathering place, will attract young people, some features may be an attractive nuisance, need to address OTHER FEATURES ❖ Could place a centennial clock on the side of the train station building. ❖ Concerned with clock idea, would have to be responsible to maintain correct time. ❖ Could include a gazebo where a band could play, or at least a raised area to act as a stage. ❖ It is important to have electrical outlets available, could include an outdoor speaker system built in&Cable TV hookup. ❖ Could include Wi-Fi access. ❖ Concern that the area directly in front of the train station be left open, do not include anything tall in that area. OLD BUSINESS A. Policy for Use of Private Barbeques in Cily Parks Schwartz reviewed the discussion at the last Commission meeting; the points that were agreed upon and that staff was charged with bringing recommendations back to the Commission as to where BBQ's with grills no larger that 24" in diameter could be placed at the City's larger parks. Schwartz stated staff's recommendation that private barbecues with grills no larger than 24" in diameter be allowed in City parks on even, paved areas that still allows at least four feet of paved walking area around the barbecue for those in wheelchairs or strollers. He gave examples of where those areas would be in Village Park, Ray Park, Victoria Park and Cuernavaca Park. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17, 2007—Page 7 Commissioner Comaroto raised the question of providing or requiring a fire suppression method to be included in the policy. Commissioner Larios agreed with Comorato's concern and suggested that the policy include a recommendation of a fire extinguisher be present when BBQ is used in the park. MOTION by Comaroto (seconded by Larios): Add to BBQ ordinance the recommendation of afire extinguisher be brought with BBQ's due to fire danger. MOTION PASSED 7-0 MOTION by Larios (seconded by Comaroto): Accept staff's recommendation that private barbecues with grills no larger than 24"in diameter be allowed in City parks on even,paved areas that still allows at least four feet of paved walking area around the barbecue for those in wheelchairs or strollers. MOTION PASSED 7-0 B. Arsenic Update Schwartz reported that the Department of Toxic Substances is planning on cleanup at the High School beginning on June 4. Lead cleanup will begin at that time and it will not affect Art in the Park. The arsenic cleanup will begin in the middle to the end of June. Plans for access to the campus by summer camp participants is ongoing and the expectation is the campus will be fully accessible for program use. C. Update on Centennial Celebration Schwartz reported that the Opening Day Parade and Vintage Baseball Game are set for June 2. There are 1,200 to 2,000 participants in the parade with over 85 groups entered to walk. The parade will begin at 9:20 am at Roosevelt Elementary School on Vancouver Ave, move down Broadway, turn right onto California Drive, left onto Floribunda and continue to front of City Hall where there will be staging areas and a Ceremony by City Council. The parade will then continue down Primrose Ave, taking a left onto Burlingame Ave with an announcer introducing the participating groups. The parade will then cross over California Drive and enter Washington Park and proceed to the baseball stadium for the Vintage Base Ball Game. D. Art in the Park Update Schwartz stated that the number of artist booths participants is up this year from last year, however local sponsorship was low and outside sponsors are being sought. Sponsor booths will be intermingled among the artist booths in small clusters. There will be a few food booths with professional restaurants running them and they will donate their proceeds to non-profit organizations. There will be a new Kids Creative Corner with activities and games that will be run by the Youth Advisory Committee. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17,2007—Page 8 NEW BUSINESS B. Athletic Field Use Policies Schwartz stated that, because there have been several new group requesting use of the City's athletic fields in the past couple of years, staff has been working with the non- profit leagues to update the Athletic Field Use Policy. He outlined the suggested updates and asked the Commission for feedback on the policy. Commissioner Shanus asked if Mercy High School would fall under the prevue of the policy to be considered a resident user group. Schwartz responded that they would, as tone of the changes recommended is to define residency as anyone who lives or attends an accredited school in Burlingame. Comaroto asked if any of the changes to the policy would negatively affect the current users. Schwartz said that Coyotes Lacrosse may be affected. He said the Parks & Recreation Department tries to find field space for the smaller sports, such as lacrosse, since there are few opportunities to play on the Peninsula. As the sport's popularity in the County increases, the neighboring cities will have teams and the percentage of Burlingame residents in the program will dramatically increase. Comaroto also asked if scheduling was priority based. Schwartz responded it was. Larios said that as we increase their opportunity to grow, they also require more field space and then field space availability goes down. Schwartz agreed and said the City is looking to increase field space by adding an all-weather field at Bayside Park and the backfield at Burlingame High School should be ready in the next year. Larios said we should give priority to "In Season" sports to encourage multi-sport participation. Schwartz also said that the non-profit groups would like to see (1) Validated User Groups be those that operate full programs, not just individual teams and (2) new organizations prove that their sport or offering is different from an existing program. The Commission will review the draft policy and discuss the matter again at next month's meeting. REPORTS/HAND-OUTS A. Monthly Staff Report—see attached B. 2006-07 Monthly Revenue Report—see attached C. Commissioner Reports 1. Commissioner Shanus reported that the concrete slab for the scoreboard that was donated by BYBA & the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) has been laid and is hoping the installation of the board will be complete by June 14. The board is for multi-sport use and has on it the City of Burlingame and the Parks &Recreation Department logos. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes May 17, 2007—Page 9 2. Commissioner Hesselgren inquired if the Laguna tennis courts were finished being resurfaced. Schwartz reported they were completed earlier in the day. 3. Commissioner Dittman asked about the status of the El Camino Historic Grove trees and Caltrans. Schwartz said he has met with Jennifer of the Historic Arm of Caltrans and they assured us they recognized the trees as a protected grove and that they will be responsible for maintaining them. The City will be following up with Caltrans to ensure the work is on their schedule. 4. Commissioner Castner-Paine asked about the status of the arborist report on the Camphor trees along Burlingame Ave. Schwartz reported that he would check with the arborist and report to the Commission on the matter. (The origin of the decline of the trees at 509 Burlingame Ave is from root damage resulting from sidewalk repairs done three years ago. The decline is not from verticillium wilt. The rest of the trees are scheduled for evaluation to determine the cause of their decline) NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:53 pm. Respectfully submitted, 9- , - V � Joleen Butler Burlingame Parks &Recreation Account Clerk III CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA June 11,2007 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Deal called the June 11, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: Community Development Director,William Meeker, Senior Planner,Maureen Brooks;City Attorney,Larry Anderson 111. MINUTES The minutes of the May 14,2007 and May 29,2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1569 BALBOAAVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION FORA NEW SEVEN- FOOT, SEVEN-INCH HIGH FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK (JOHN AND LYNN RYAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CDD Meeker presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Proposal is for fence 7'-7"tall,would consider support of the project if the height were reduced to 6 feet with one foot of lattice and total height of 7 feet;that would be the height allowed if it were a side yard fence. • Was the fence built by the property owner or a contractor? • There may be justification for the Variance based on the location on Ray Drive near the school,is highly impacted corner. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. 857 PALOMAAVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACKS IN THE REAR 40%OF THE LOT AND GREATER THAN 28 FEET IN LENGTH FORA NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DAVID ARANA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MIKE PIZZOLON DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • What is the intention for the use of the garage,there are a lot of GFI electrical outlets proposed; • Application indicated Mike Pizzolon is the designer for the project,but some pages of the plans appear to be prepared by an engineering firm,please clarify; Clarify why the floor plans for the house show an addition, but staff report indicates there are no changes proposed to the house; • Provide an accurate description of the doors and windows proposed for the accessory structure including materials and finish; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 • Site plan shows garage located one foot from side property line and a minimum of one foot from rear property line,clarify what the roof overhang will be, Building Code may not allow overhang that close to the property line; • The existing accessory structure is two-story, clarify that this two-story structure will be removed, or is there another accessory structure in the rear yard that is not shown on the plans, clarify whatwill remain when project is completed; • Drawings need to be revised to show the gutter on the accessory structure and to indicate that the walls adjacent to property lines will be one-hour construction; and • Provide a notation on the floor plan that indicates where the cross section on Sheet S2.2 is taken. This item was set for the regular action calendarwhen all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no consent calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RELATED ONLY TO THE DIVIDED LIGHT WINDOW PATTERN FOR THE NEW TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND '1 ARCHITECT:KENDRICK LI PROPERTY OWNER)(61 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Osterling indicated that he lives within 500 feet of the project, recused himself from the proceedings and left the chambers. C. Brownrigg indicated that he would abstain because he opposed the project previously and therefore would not participate in the discussion. Reference staff report June 11, 2007, with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. He noted that the topic of discussion would be limited to the divided light window pattern for the project. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Kendrick Li, 2212 Hillside Drive, project applicant, represented the project. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Dolores and Dennis Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue, and Florence Allen, 1411 Columbus Avenue, spoke. Issues noted: concern with exit from basement, erosion/dust control measures, preservation of tree roots, prefer consistent window grid pattern throughout. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted concern with the site condition, should be kept clean,leaves raked, not necessaryto have mullions on picture window,should have consistent window pattern on remaining windows,preferthe horizontal grid pattern. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 14, 2007, sheets DD-1 through DD-7.0, and date stamped May 21, 2007, sheets DD-1 through DD-6; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that the spiral staircase from the sunken garden shall be eliminated and replaced with a ladder per California Building Code requirements; and that only the lighting along the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 the ground, with the cone of light kept on the site as required in the Burlingame Ordinance; 2. that based on the requirements of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.28.037, the basement area shall never be used for sleeping purposes as a bedroom; 3. that if it is possible under the regulations in the California Building Code, the egress door from the basement area shall be replaced with an egress window; 4. that any street tree roots of one inch diameter or larger that are encountered during installation of the new sidewalk and driveway are not to be damaged or cut prior to inspection and approval by the City Arborist or the Park Department Supervisor; 5. that if it is determined during construction or after that the two existing Magnolia street trees need to be removed, they shall be replaced at the property owner's expense with an appropriate species selected from the City s street tree list as determined by the City Arborist, the tree selected shall be the largest sized determined appropriate by the City Arborist; 6. that all windows except the picture window on the front elevation shall be simulated true divided lite windows with a consistent horizontal grid pattern; 7. that an automatic gate shall be installed in the driveway a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; 8. that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce night glare; 9. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report prepared by Arborlogic Consulting Arborists, dated August 3, 2006; 10. that construction protection measures shall also be determined and installed before a building permit is issued for the existing Pittosporum hedge along the left side property line on the neighbor's property at 1400 Columbus, and these measures shall remain in place until the occupancy permit is issued for the project; 11. that landscaping shall be added along the right side of the house in protected planter bays wherever possible to maintain a 9'-6" clear driveway width, plant materials shall be selected to provide screening; 12. that the conditions of the City Arborist's March 21, 2007 memo, the Chief Building Official's November 27, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's November 27, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 29, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's November 27, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 12, 2006 memo shall be met; 13. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 14. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 16. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 17. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 18. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 19. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall 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; 20. 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; 21. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 22. 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 1 Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 23. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 24. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 25. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, C. Osterling recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:48 p.m. 4. 1351 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (LYNN BETEAG,APPLICANT;TODD LEVINE, POLLACK ARCHITECTURE,ARCHITECT;AND STANLEY LO, PROPERTY OWNER) (33 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN_ Reference staff report June 11, 2007, with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 �..� Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Todd Levine,Pollack Architecture,2584 Folsom,San Francisco,and Kimberly Smith, Comerica Bank, represented the project. Commissioners commented on the project design,discussed options for the canopy over the ATM,whether it should be flat like the other canopies or sloped glass as proposed; noted that the windows appear to be punched openings in a solid wall and need some work;would like to see the stone feature at the base of the wall extended up the wall to the same level as the lower muntin bars of the windows;would like to see a real door installed in the blank opening on the Primrose side of the building. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Terrones moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 5, 2007, Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Existing Floor Plan, Demo Plan, Proposed Floor Plan, Exterior Elevations and Finishes, any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; and the following changes shall be incorporated into the project: a. the stone base along the perimeter shall be increased in height to the level of the bottom muntin bars of the windows; b. an aluminum storefront door shall be added in the existing opening along Primrose; C. the awning over the ATM on Howard shall be flat to match the style of the other awnings; d. the applicant shall bring back to the Commission as an information item a revised design for the windows; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall consult with the City Arborist to choose an appropriate tree species to be planted in the right-of-way along Primrose Road; the tree grate design shall be consistent with the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Plan design criteria; and that the tree species chosen and grate details shall be included on the plans; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 5, 2007, memo, the City Engineer's March 5, 2007, and March 2, 2006, memos, the Fire Marshal's March 5, 2007, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 5, 2007, and March 5, 2006, memo shall be met; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or designer, or another architect or 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; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 10. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Crs. Brownrigg, Osterling and Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 5. 1611 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE (INDOOR BADMINTON FACILITY) (JEFF LEA, DAROSA&ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT & DESIGNER; AND JOEY LO AND FRANCES HUANG, PROPERTY OWNERS)(13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report June 11,2007,with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Ben Lee, 761 Maybury Road, San Jose, represented the project. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa spoke in support of the project. Commissioners noted that the parking study provided compelling evidence that the parking supply would be adequate for the facility, the mitigated negative declaration is well reasoned in its findings, and given the mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval, can make findings that the project will have no adverse impact on traffic, circulation and parking. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 23, 2007, sheets A1.1 through A1.9; 2. that demolition or removal of any existing walls 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; 3. that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed and maintained as shown on the Site Plan, date stamped April 23, 2007, and that all areas of landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system on a timer and shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 4. that the indoor badminton facility shall only be open seven days a week from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., with a maximum of five full-time employees and a maximum of 62 people on-site at any one time,including the owner,employees and customers;that any changes to the floor area,use,hours-, of operation, or number of employees or people on-site which exceeds the maximums as stated i. these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5. that there shall be no gambling or wagering on this business premise and no alcoholic beverages shall be served, stored in lockers or private use, or sold on the site; 6 P City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 6. that the indoor badminton facility shall be limited to 40,419 SF in area with 2,085 SF of office, 493 SF of retail, 1,765 of storage and 36,076 SF for the 16 indoor badminton courts and associated activities including a lounge,children's play zone,stretching zone and restrooms;that outdoorareas shall not be used for any activities associated with the badminton facility; 7. that this Conditional Use Permit shall only apply only to an indoor badminton facility;that if a different type of commercial recreation facility is proposed at this site in the future, a new application for a Conditional Use Permit shall be required; 8. that the parking variances for on-site parking spaces and parking space dimension shall expire with the termination of the conditional use permit for the indoor badminton facility;shall be reviewed with any amendment to the Conditional Use Permit granted to the indoor badminton facility; and shall expire should the building on the site be deliberately demolished or destroyed by a natural catastrophe or disaster or should a major remodel of the building be proposed; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 15, 2006, memo, the City Engineer's December 15,2006, memo,the City Traffic Engineer's January 25,2007,memo,the Fire Marshal's December 18,2006,memo,and the Recycling Specialist's November 28,2005 memo shall be met; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 11. that while the badminton facility operates in this building, the current and future office/warehouse businesses in this building shall only be open for business from morning until 6 p.m. on weekdays and shall not be open on weekends; any changes to hours for the office/warehouse use shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit; 12. that there shall be a maximum of two tournaments per year at this facility;the tournaments shall only be held on weekends(Saturday and Sunday)and holidays and shall be limited to a maximum of 60 players; and 13. that spectators who wish to attend the tournaments shall be encouraged to arrive in the same vehicle as the tournament player, shall arrive by carpooling or taking public transportation and walking to the facility. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:46 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2516 HALE DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;AND STEVE SPINA, PROPERTY OWNER) (72 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment. James Chu, 55 W.43d Avenue,San Mateo,and Steve Spina,330 Primrose Road #312, represented the project. Victor Subbotin, 2519 Hale Drive, spoke. Issues raised include: size of project compared to neighborhood and increase in number of cars, predominate styles in neighborhood are Spanish and Tudor with stucco exterior. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. --IN Commissioner comments: • Add handrail at the steps leading to the porch at the front of the house; • Include an automatic gate across the driveway located at the front of the dining room wall to allow room for a car to pull up in front of the gate; • Existing Crepe Myrtle street tree should be replaced with a larger scale tree such as Evergreen Pear; • Encourage revision to the first floor plan to combine the family room and nook with a smaller footprint to allow for a larger back yard; • Revise front entry porch to be lighter and more open wood detailed elements instead of a shingle wall, something not so closed in, could also be expanded toward the front of the lot; • Type of shingles used shall be stain grade; • Clarify if there will be a window above the entry porch and the area shown with bars on the second floor, it appears on the elevations that it is a frame over shingles; • Provide existing elevations in outline form to compare existing and proposed height; and • Look at the chimney in the family room, it may seem towering to the neighbors, if it is a gas fireplace it may not need to be that tall. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 7. 2925 FRONTERA WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (CLEMENT HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chairman Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the applicant, recused himself from the item and left the chambers. CDD Meeker briefly presented the project description,and noted that there were two desk items submitted, one from the applicant regarding the requested variance and one from a resident at 2919 Frontera Way. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public comment. Stuart Grunow, JD & Associates, project applicant, represented the project. Kevin Karl, 2931 Frontera Way, Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Tom Reed, 2916 Dolores Way, spoke. Topics discussed include: Courtyard is integral to Eichler style to provide light and airto the interior; in Eichlers can do pressure test of pipes in the floor, if they are fine can replace boiler; loss to community to destroy an Eichler,fabric of the neighborhood should be respected;two foot additional height will impact views; this is one of four original Eichler model homes; concern with drainage, should drain to the street Commissioner comments: • Expanse of stucco finish reeks of economy; • Concern with parapet finish, consider solution that has more of an overhang; • Should celebrate that this is an Eichler, that is not being done, Eichlers typically use three materials.--N wood, brick and glass; • Recommend that project stay within the Eichler style and make it an update; Eichlers take advantage of the flow between the indoor and outdoor space; 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 • Find it difficult to grant variance for lot coverage, this is considered new construction,would be hard to find justification; • Should be egress from the right side bedrooms into the garden area on that side of the lot; • Existing courtyard is not covered, is open to the sky, should not be included in the existing lot coverage calculation to establish the baseline condition; • If the project comes back with height increased over existing structure,would need to erect story poles. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: make sure design reviewer listens to the tapes, need to look at conserving Eichlers if we can and that should be taken into consideration;applicant should recognize thatwe don't see any compelling reason to grant a lot coverage variance, whether the house is preserved or modified, the variance needs to be eliminated; suggest that this design doesn't have to be taken to the design review consultant, can rework design to go along the lines of an Eichler,could withdraw application and resubmit or restore the existing structure. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (C. Deal recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. Chair Deal returned to the dais. 3. 1324 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (IGOR ELGART, APPLICANT; DAVID BINMAN, PROPERTY OWNER; AND KEVIN WEINMANN, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CDD Meeker briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked about the email submitted regarding weeds, trash and rats on the site,the site is still not completely cleaned up. CA Anderson noted that the building materials that had been stored there for other job sites have been removed. Chair Deal opened the public comment. Kevin W einmann,4005 Alameda De Las Pulgas, San Mateo,and Igor Elgart, 1115 Bromfield, Hillsborough, represented the project. Bob Currie, 1320 Montero Avenue,and Rick Quintana, 1321 Montero Avenue,spoke. Topics discussed include: appreciate the design comments of the Commission, concern with second floor deck and privacy,tarp placed over structure is pulled tightly and is very noisy when it is windy, has looked unsightly for a full year, would like to see it resolved, needs some work, should follow Commission direction, concern with what it will look like from across the street, is very heavy on top, would like to see the project completed. Commissioners asked what can be done to encourage prompt completion of this project. CA Anderson advised that last year an ordinance was adopted that imposes penalties, can use the Housing Code standard to require the property be secured with sheathing plywood while the project is being processed, if there is no progress with the design review process, could proceed with civil action and go to court. Commissioner comments: • Site is currently unsightly, should be cleaned up and landscaping maintained within next two weeks; • The existing half timber on the right front is not done well, should not be emulated on the second floor; half timbers not handled well throughout, looks like cheap tract home in Oklahoma, could be done better, this is a cheap looking attempt at a Tudor style; • There are no details on the porch; 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 • Brick wainscot around the perimeter is discontinuous; -� • Chimney and brick wainscot appears to float, need accurate representation of grade, brick needs to go all the way to the ground; • Window style in back doesn't fit with others; • Second floor deck is in odd place, hidden behind roof, doesn't conform to the style of the building, generally discourage large second floor decks with a gathering area, would like to see it removed; • Chimney is too big, is five feet wide at the top; • Tacked on dormer on second floor doesn't fit with the style; • There is a closet with a ceiling height of five feet, need to rethink; • Should include details such as vents and gable ends; • Drawings are difficult to read, clarify the finish on the wall below the finished floor line of the first floor; • Hodge-podge of trims and details; • Massing is okay, is broken up fairly well; • Concerned with some of the massing, needs work, look at proportions; • Cantilever over bay window on east side is awkward; • Concerned with rear landing from family room, it is too small,would like to see family room smaller and a larger deck that fits the door opening; • Birches on the left side of the house should be protected; • Provide a landscape plan that is meaningful, the one provided is incomplete. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: The design review consultant should listen to the tape to better understand the Commission's concerns. Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:25 p.m. 9. 446 MARIN DRIVE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TED AND CYNTHIA CROCKER,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;AND MARK PEARCY ARCHITECT) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment. Ted Crocker,446 Marin Drive and Mark Pearcy, 1650 Barroilhet, project architect, represented the project. Commissioners noted that this is a wonderful application, beautifully put together and informative. Commissioner comments: • Look closely at the placement of the bed wall in the master bedroom to be sure that changes to windows and doors are not triggered later on; • Show the handrail on the rear steps, may be hard to integrate into design; and • Propose galvanized steel attic vent to match existing, recommend replace with wood but keep the narrow and vertical shape. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been �. revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:38 p.m. 10. 102 VICTORIA ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JEFF AND CHRISTINE OBERTELLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOANN M. GANN, DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: UBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment. JoAnn Gann, 111 Glenn Way#9, San Carlos, represented the project. Commissioner comments: • Entry door is not prominent, it does not look like a"front", might want to consider using a rounded tower on the corner with steps from both Victoria Road and Bayswater Avenue; • Concerned with the crown of the Holly tree, it is only four feet from the ground,will have to be trimmed to allow clearance for use of the front walk way; • The treatment below the bay window should be changed from the sloped bottom to a square bottom with corbels supporting it; • Details and character of the garage door should be noted on the plans; • Consider adding trees on site along Victoria Road or street trees in the planter strip to provide privacy and shade; • Gable end beams are noted as 4 x 6, which would be small, they look larger on the plans, should indicate the appropriate size; Show second floor ceiling height as actual height of 8'-1'; • Make sure the existing chimney is 10 feet from eave not just measure to face of building; • Roof tiles should be a blend of colors, not just solid red or orange tiles; There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports for review. Xl. PLANNER REPORTS CDD Meeker reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 4, 2007. FYI: Update to a previously approved design review project at 3121 Margarita Avenue. Commissioners asked that this item be placed on the Regular Action Calendar for discussion. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 11:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary SAMINUTES\unapproved 06.11.07.doc 11 City of Burlingame MAY PERMIT ACTIVITY ** Although commercial permit activity was slow last month, residential alterations were up significantly. In addition, permits were issued for four new homes in May. Activity for minor permits such as roofs, water heaters, and electrical services was down significantly. ** There were no requests for pre-application meetings in May. THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 1 1 ,098 10 109501 -90 42 659513 67 645862 1 SWIMMING POOL 2 86,500 5 1035800 -17 SIGN 4 325300 45 2625395 27 735677 256 ROOFING 20 4019308 28 1 ,0889959 -63 242 3,4339578 236 3,5971140 -5 RETAINING WALL 3 2749020 6 2549017 8 PLUMBING 13 46,900 6 149950 214 155 5849428 333 111639646 -50 NEW SFD 4 290305000 14 793999000 12 4,3455000 70 NEW COMMERCIAL NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 355009000 NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT 1 650,000 MECHANICAL 7 113,282 1 75500 1,410 52 674,640 35 163,365 313 KITCHEN UPGRADE 5 113,500 4 148,000 -23 35 1 ,0749253 32 8719594 23 FURNACE 2 239220 20 1549716 35 1409175 10 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2 49800 5 385000 -87 21 46,730 17 1165200 -60 City of Burlingame MAY PERMIT ACTIVITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % ELECTRICAL 3 13,100 5 27,500 -52 52 402,360 68 268,172 50 BATHROOM UPGRADE 3 54,000 4 67,500 -20 40 570,300 45 792,863 -28 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 33 1,857,630 44 2,402,779 -23 300 15,720,366 387 14,997,257 5 ALTERATION NON RES 10 384,533 11 2,050,061 -81 85 14,609,307 89 27,146,448 -46 Totals: 107 5,075,671 118 5,855,750 -13 1,110 49,508,106 1,394 54,098,216 -8 06-12-07 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: MAY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 1 1 4 -3 -75.00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 4 1 6 3 3 100.00 Robbery Knife 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 2 3 12 -9 -75.00 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 4 8 11 -3 -27.27 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 1 0 4 5 -1 -20.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 12 12 80 75 5 6.67 Burglary - Forcible Entry 4 5 14 26 -12 -46.15 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 6 5 33 40 -7 -17.50 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Larceny Shoplifting 4 3 15 21 -6 -28.57 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 20 22 88 124 -36 -29.03 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 15 14 69 55 14 25.45 Larceny Bicycles 2 2 8 3 5 166.67 Larceny From Building 13 11 39 47 -8 -17.02 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 2 9 8 1 12.50 Larceny All Other 9 6 37 32 5 15.63 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 6 5 31 34 -3 -8.82 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 1 1 1 5 -4 -80.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 1 1 1 3 -2 -66.67 ------- ------ ------ ------ 102 98 450 516 102 98 450 516 06-12-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change All Other Offenses 28 31 135 183 -48 -26.23 Animal Abuse 1 0 1 0 1 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Arson 0 4 2 12 -10 -83.33 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 0 3 4 12 -8 -66.67 Child Neglect/prot custody 8 4 38 30 8 26.67 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Curfew and Loitering Laws 1 0 1 0 1 Death Investigation 1 3 12 14 -2 -14.29 Disorderly Conduct 0 1 0 9 -9 -100.00 Driver's License Violations 0 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Driving Under the Influence 7 6 39 30 9 30.00 Drug Abuse Violations 5 2 18 12 6 50.00 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 Drunkeness 3 11 30 31 -1 -3.23 Embezzlement 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 1 0 1 False Police Reports 0 1 1 1 0 0.00 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 1 0 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting 2 6 14 19 -5 -26.32 Found Property 9 7 23 26 -3 -11.54 Fraud 0 2 12 14 -2 -14.29 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 6 4 25 13 12 92.31 06-12-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Hit and Run Accidents 6 8 18 19 -1 -5.26 Impersonation 0 0 6 0 6 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 1 4 3 1 33.33 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Liquor Laws 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 4 3 15 7 8 114.29 Mental Health Cases 9 10 36 42 -6 -14.29 Missing Person 8 4 31 23 8 34.78 Missing Property 8 10 39 37 2 5.41 Municipal Code Violations 6 5 43 38 5 13.16 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 Offenses Against Children 2 0 5 3 2 66.67 Other Assaults 12 12 80 75 5 6.67 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 1 0 1 Other Police Service 1 11 14 30 -16 -53.33 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 1 2 2 0 0.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 0 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 1 1 2 5 -3 -60.00 Prowling 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Resisting Arrest 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Restraining Orders 0 0 1 0 1 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 2 0 2 Sex offenses 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 06-12-07 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Suying;Receiving;Possess 3 0 6 2 4 200.00 Suspended License 1 2 14 17 -3 -17.65 o 0 0 Tax Evasion 0 p Terrorist Threats 0 0 1 4 -3 -75.00 Towed Vehicle 45 29 159 136 23 16.91 Trespassing 0 0 3 7 -4 -57.14 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 1 0 1 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 vandalism 20 24 89 100 -11 -11.00 Vehicle Code Violations 2 5 10 8 2 25.00 Violation of Court Order 0 1 2 5 -3 -60.00 Warrants - Felony - 1 2 6 5 1 20.00 Warrants - Misd 5 4 22 25 -3 -12.00 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 2 6 5 1 20.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 205 224 984 1,030 205 224 984 1,030 06-12-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2007 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD . . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 4265 3 , 455 19, 564 15 , 124 Moving Citations - 109 156 842 1, 105 4374 3 , 611 20 , 406 16 , 229 4374 3 , 611 20 , 406 16 , 229 Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 06/12/2007 at 11 : 53 : 07 AM Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 05/01/2007 to 05/31/2007 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid All Voids All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 922 22.47 14 18.42 98.50 DOTSON 509 888 21.64 16 21.05 98.23 FEITEL3ERG 508 964 23.50 13 17.11 98.67 GARRETT 501 460 11.21 16 21.05 96.64 SMITH 654 869 21.18 17 22.37 98.08 Total 4103 76 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary May 31, 2007 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF&County Pool 23,803,146.43 23,803,146.43 23,803,146.43 64.68 1 1 4.926 4.995 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 13,000,000.00 12,940,740.00 13,000,000.00 35.32 1,335 996 4.868 4.935 36,803,146.43 36,743,886.43 36,803,146.43 100.00% 472 352 4.906 4.974 Investments Total Earnings May 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 144,450.41 1,323,716.15 Average Daily Balance 34,414,433.53 31,078,412.82 Effective Rate of Return 4.94% 4.64% Pursuant to State law,there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types,and availa of some of these unds is restricted by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds). � 07 J US NAV FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 05/01/2007-05/31/2007 Portfolio CITY CP S Run Date:06/14/2007-09:20 PM(PRF_PM1) y rnRe pt 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments May 31 , 2007 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date LAIF & County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 14,203,046.39 14,203,046.39 14,203,046.39 5.248 5.248 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 9,600,100.04 9,600,100.04 9,600,100.04 4.620 Aaa 4.620 1 Subtotal and Average 23,285,401.27 23,803,146.43 23,803,146.43 23,803,146.43 4.995 1 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 999,060.00 1 ,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 21 06/22/2007 3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 998,440.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 4.817 511 10/24/2008 3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 994,380.00 1 ,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 535 11/17/2008 3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 998,130.00 1 ,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 210 12/28/2007 3133XGQM9 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2006 1 ,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 1 ,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 840 09/18/2009 3133XJ6F0 531 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/20/2006 1,000,000.00 990,310.00 1 ,000,000.00 5.025 Aaa 5.025 1 ,298 12/20/2010 3133XKKM6 533 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1 ,000,000.00 997,500.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1 ,057 04/23/2010 3133XKL94 534 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1,000,000.00 992,190.00 1 ,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1 ,788 04/23/2012 3133XKU37 535 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/30/2007 2,000,000.00 1 ,986,880.00 2,000,000.00 5.450 Aaa 5.450 1 ,825 05/30/2012 3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/06/2006 1 ,000,000.00 992,980.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1 ,588 10/06/2011 3128X5SU3 532 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 12/29/2006 1 ,000,000.00 996,180.00 1 ,000,000.00 5.220 Aaa 5.220 1 ,306 12/28/2010 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 994,690.00 1 ,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 139 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 11,129,032.26 13,000,000.00 12,940,740.00 13,000,000.00 4.935 996 Total and Average 34,414,433.53 36,803,146.43 36,743,886.43 36,803,146.43 4.974 352 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale: 06/14/2007 - 09:20 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl 6.41.202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type May 1 , 2007 through May 31 , 2007 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF & County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 4.620 552,746.52 0.00 Subtotal 23,250,399.91 552,746.52 0.00 23,803,146.43 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133XKU37 535 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.450 05/30/2007 2,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 11,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 13,000,000.00 Total 34,250,399.91 2,552,746.52 0.00 36,803,146.43 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale: 06/14/2007 - 09:20 PM (PRF_PM3) SyrnRept 6.41 .202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary May 2006 through May 2007 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 Tenn Days to Maturity May 2006 15 34,904,265.49 4.169 4.227 4.293 4 0 317 155 June 2006 16 33,717,988.31 4.224 4.283 4.375 1 0 330 150 July 2006 16 32,218,943.80 4.307 4.367 4.539 0 0 346 143 August 2006 16 32,238,322.45 4.317 4.377 4.558 0 0 345 128 September 2006 14 30,514,724.43 4.326 4.386 4.500 1 3 379 158 October 2006 15 29,368,136.07 4.375 4.435 4.533 1 0 456 210 November 2006 14 26,276,897.39 4.464 4.526 4.812 0 1 496 211 December 2006 15 30,496,489.44 4.455 4.517 4.691 3 2 506 267 January 2007 14 29,678,426.66 4.672 4.737 4.780 0 1 410 260 February 2007 13 31 ,235,440.74 4.788 4.855 4.970 0 1 385 237 March 2007 13 31 ,665,460.80 4.825 4.892 5.024 0 0 380 223 April 2007 13 34,250,399.91 4.899 4.967 5.027 2 2 401 282 May 2007 14 36,803,146.43 4.906 4.974 4.995 1 0 472 352 Average 14 31 ,797,587.84 4.517% 4.580% 4.700 1 1 402 214 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 06/14/2007 - 09:20 PM (PRF_PM4) SymRept 6.41 .202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type May 2006 through May 2007 May June July August September October November December January February March April May Average Security Type 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 by Period LAIF & County Pool 58.6 55.6 53.6 53.6 54.2 49.0 46.8 52.5 61 .3 64.8 65.3 67.9 64.7 57.5% Certificates of Deposit - Bank Certificates of Deposit - S & L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift & Ln _ Negotiable CD's - Bank CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper - Interest Bearing Commercial Paper - Discount Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 37.2 40.0 41 .9 41 .9 44.2 49.4 51 .4 45.9 37.1 35.2 34.7 32.1 35.3 40.5% Federal Agency Issues - Discount 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.5 1 .6 1 .6 1 .8 1 .6 1 .6 2.0% Treasury Securities - Coupon _ Treasury Securities - Discount Miscellaneous Securities - Coupon Miscellaneous Securities - Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments _ Mortgage Backed Securities Miscellaneous Discounts -At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts -At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale: 06/14/2007 - 09:20 PM (PRF_PM5) SyrnRept 6.41 .202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary May 31 , 2007 May 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 25,000.00 538,729.44 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 123,224.31 123,224.31 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 103,159.03) ( 119,852.38) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 45,065.28 542,101 .37 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 45,065.28 542,101 .37 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 0.00 713,513.09 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 521 ,947.47 521 ,947.47 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 422,562.34) ( 453,845.78) Interest Earned during Period 99,385.13 781 ,614.78 Total Interest Earned during Period 144,450.41 1 ,323,716.15 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 144,450.41 1 ,323,716.15 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale: 06/14/2007 - 09:20 PM (PRF_PM6) SymRept 6.41 ,202a Report Ver. 5.00 PFA, I Asset / / / / I , I Investment Portfolio Information For CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00) Portfolio # 12510150 Section / Report Title A. Account Summary B. Detail of Securities Held C. Fair Market Values & Analytics D. Security Transactions & Interest E. Cash Transactions Report F. Realized Gains & Losses G. Cash Balance Report For The Month Ending May 31, 2007 CAMP - CITY OF BURLINGAME CA PFM Asset Management LLC * One Keystone Plaza * North Front & Market Streets, Suite 300 * Harrisburg, PA 17101-2044 * (717)232-2723 For more information, please contact your client manager: NSESA KAZADI (415) 982-5544 KAZADIN@pfm.com Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OT 11 URLINGAML (116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: May 31, 2007 MARKET % OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST AIMUCET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORST FED AGY DN 2,000,000.00 1,983,269.72 1,982,930.72 100.000 5.202 5.217 0.158 TOTAL SECURITIES 2,000,000.00 1 ,983,269.72 19982,930.72 100.000 5.202 % 5.217 % 0.158 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 2,0OO,0m).0O 1,983,269.72 11982,930.72 100.000 % ACCRUED INTEREST 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PORTFOLIO $2,000,000.00 $1,983,269.72 $19982,930.72 Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity. The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes (i.e. settles) all investment transactions. The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions. Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities. Clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies, implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions. PFM recognizes that our clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping, therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved. PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by F.T. Interactive Data, Bloomberg or Telerate. Prices that fall between data points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of deposit are priced at par. Please promptly report any inaccuracies or discrepancies on your account statement in writing to your client manager or to customer service. To protect your rights, if you report orally you should confirm in writing. A-1 PFA, lAssetmanagentent LLC - CAMP PROGRAM Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY0FBURLINGAMB (116-00) MONTH ENDED: May 31, 2007 (Excluding Cash) SECURITY TYPE MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARKET CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY DN 313384HK8 FHLB DISC NOTE 1,000,000 06/27/07 A-1+ 05/30/07 05/31/07 996,118.75 5. 195 0.00 996,262.50 996,108. 16 313396LC5 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 08/31/07 A-1+ 05/30/07 05/31/07 986,864.44 5.208 0.00 987,007.22 986,822.56 2,000,000 1,982,983.19 5.202 0.00 1,983,269.72 1,982,930.72 TOTAL SECURITIES $2,000,000 $1,982,983.19 5.202 % $0.00 $1,983,269.72 $1,982,930.72 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value 100.0% p "HLe E999Ane 5az3e Total, $1,982,931 100A9'a ® "NEMC E900023 49.Bh Tolel' E1,90)931 100.0$ B-I Asset Management LLC - MP PRO Fair Market Values & Analytics : 12510150 CAHP-CITY O1- BulurNGAAIL (116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: May 31 , 2007 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY FIRST CALL MARKET MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UNREAL G/(L) DURATION YTM CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE DATE PRICE VALUE ON AMORT COST ON COST TO WORST AT MKT TED AGY DN 313384HK8 FHLB DISC NOTE 1 ,000,000 06/27/07 99.611 996,108. 16 (154.34) (10.59) 0.072 5.209 313396LC5 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1 ,000,000 08/31/07 98.682 986,822.56 (184.66) (41 .88) 0.246 5.225 SUBTOTALS $1,982,930.72 ($339.00) ($52.47) 0.158 5.217 % ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 0.00 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $1,982,930.72 GI PFM Asset Manggentent LLC -_ CAMP PROGRAM Security Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CA lr-CrTJ' 0FBURLlNGAN1L (116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: May 31, 2007 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL 05/30/07 05/31/07 BUY FHLB DISC NOTE 313384HK8 A-1+ 1,000,000 0.000 06/27/07 (996,118.75) 0.00 (996,118.75) 05/30/07 05/31/07 BUY FHLMC DISC NOTE 313396LC5 A-1+ 1,000,000 0.000 08/31/07 (986,864.44) 0.00 (986,864.44) 2,000,000 (1,982,983. 19) 0.00 (1,982,983.19) TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS ( 1 ,982,983.19) D-1 PFMAsset Management LLC - CAMP PROGRAM Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAJIIJ-ClrrornURLINGAML, (116-00) MONTH ENDED: May 31, 2007 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT 05/31/07 CC CONTRIB 1,982,983. 19 1,982,983.19 NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONS/(WITHDRAWS) $11982,983.19 E-1 P,PM, Asset Management LLC - CAMP PROGRAM Realized Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAn1P-Cr7'Y OF BUI?L1 vGAAfE (116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: May 31 , 2007 TRADE SETTLE PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED DATE DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSH, PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L) COST GI(L) AMORT CST No transactions during the month TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES F-1 � 1 � PFRAsset Management i PROGRAM Cash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP--CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00) MONTH ENDED: May 31, 2007 CASH 11M,ANCE: $0.00 Earninus Calculation Templates Current Month-End Book Value -1 Add Coupon Interest Received + Current Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons Less Purchases - Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/- Less Purchased Interest Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month Add Disposals (Sales, Maturities, Paydowns, Sinks, etc.) + Add Coupon Interest Received + Less Previous Month-End Book Value Less Previous Month-End Accrued Interest Total Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month Economic Calendar 06/01/07 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 06/19/07 Housing Starts 06/01/07 Unemployment Rate 06/19/07 Building Permits 06/04/07 Factory Orders 06/25/07 Existing Home Sales 06/13/07 Advanced Retail Sales 06/26/07 New Home Sales 06/14/07 Producer Price Index 06/27/07 Durable Goods Orders 06/15/07 Consumer Price Index 06/28/07 FOMC Meeting Market Commentary Relatively strong economic data pushed yields to their highest levels since February 2007. Although the economy grew at less than I% for the first quarter, forward looking data seems to indicate that growth may accelerate for the balance of the year. The manufacturing sector continued its upswing with durable goods orders increasing for the third consecutive month. The housing sector has been a drag on growth but some data released in May was optimistic. Sales of new homes increased 16% to 981,000 units, but the tnedian price dropped 11% to $229,100 from $257,000. Although new home sales were strong, existing lioine sales were weaker than predicted. Existing home sales may have suffered because of competition from builders slashing prices to reduce inventory. Reacting to the firm economic data the market now believes the FOMC will leave rates unchanged for the balance of 2007. This is a change from just two months ago when it was thought that Fed would cut rates before year end. The Fed maintained their position that inflation is still their first concern as opposed to the possibility of slowing growth. Moving forward, the markets are likely to continue to react to evolving economic data. G-I