Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2007.08.20 CITY C BURUNGAME e Haico Juu[b. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, August 20, 2007 CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m.— Conference Room A a. L;aboi 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 TRAINING SESSION—6:30 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— Regular Council Meeting of July 16, 2007 5. PRESENTATIONS a. Best of Burlingame b. Green Ribbon Task Force c. Launch of CRM - Comcate 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an amendment to design review and special permits related to the construction of a new two-story, single family dwelling, with detached garage, on property 2212 Hillside Drive, located within a single-family residential zone 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. Review/Approve staff recommendation to delay 2007/08 residential sidewalk repair program REVIEW/APPROVE b. (i) Review/Adopt City-Wide Urban Forest Management Plan; (ii) Review/Adopt replacement tree list for lower Easton Drive; (iii) Staff recommendation for removal and replacement of Eucalyptus Tree at Easton Library—Discuss/DIRECT/APPROVE c. Citizen Survey Results - DISCUSS d. U. S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement Endorsement Resolution - Discuss/APPROVE e. Beautification Commission and Parks &Recreation Commission vacancies - Discuss/DIRECT 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of Labor Agreements with American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Locals 829 and 2190 b. Resolution awarding Professional Services Contract with 4LEAF, Inc. for California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation c. Resolution awarding construction contract to Shaw Pipeline for the Trousdale Drive Transmission Pipeline d. Appointment of Trustee Nancy Brock to the Peninsula Library System Advisory Board e. Adoption of Resolution of Support FOCUS Program Priority Development Area Designation Application submitted by C/CAG f. Approval of attendance by Public Works Management Analyst at Out of State Conference in Kansas City, Missouri g. 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 2 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, June 19, 2007; Parks & Recreation, June 21, 2007; Planning, July 23 & August 13, 2007; Beautification, August 2, 2007 b. Department Reports: Building, July, 2007; Police, July, 2007; Finance, June & July, 2007 c. Three letters from Comcast concerning programming adjustments d. Letter from Garbis Bezdjian concerning Broadway Zoning Restrictions e. League of California Cities opposition to Senate Bill 375, a measure to have regional authorities make local land use decisions f. Letters from the following organizations gratefully acknowledging the City's donation: Burlingame Historical Society, Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County and Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse 15. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlineame.or2. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 CITY 0 BURLINGAME m 'wcopq ao "N�T[o JUN[e BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of July 16, 2007 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 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Harriet Cohen. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Cohen, Keighran, Nagel COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Baylock, O'Mahony 4. MINUTES One correction was made to the minutes of the June 18, 2007 regular Council meeting: Change Item 7., in part, to read: "...spoke on the closing of South Lane due to Caltrain's..." Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the June 18, 2007 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Baylock and O'Mahony absent). 5. PRESENTATIONS a. BEST OF BURLINGAME AWARD Mayor Nagel presented Charles E. Voltz with the Best of Burlingame award. Mr. Voltz was instrumental in founding Citizens for a Better Burlingame (CBB), a grassroots coalition of concerned citizens, merchants and property owners dedicated to enhancing the quality of life in Burlingame. He is passionately and totally committed to Burlingame, and welcomes the broadest forms of public participation in civic affairs. b. PG&E REBATE CHECK PRESENTATION Kathy Lavezzo, PG&E Account Manager for Burlingame, and Shelly Sharp, PG&E Senior Director of Service and Sales, presented the city with a rebate check in the amount of$160,000 for the energy efficiency project at the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The project involved installing a co-generation plant so that the methane from the plant is reused to power 80% of the plant which qualified the city for the rebate. C. KEY INDICATORS FOR PARKS & RECREATION 1 Burlingame City Council July 16,2007 Unapproved Minutes P&RD Schwartz and Summer Intern Kathleen O'Rourke presented the Key Indicators for the Parks and Recreation Department. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME SPECIFIC PLAN—PUBLIC OUTREACH PLAN CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and introduced Kevin Gardiner of Kevin Gardiner&Associates, consultants for the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. Mr. Gardiner presented an overview of the Public Outreach Plan. Public outreach focus groups will include property owners, business owners, community groups and business group members, including the Chamber of Commerce. Council requested that green constituents (environmental groups), landscape architects, artists, mothers' groups, and churches and nonprofits be added to the outreach focus groups. Mr. Gardiner stated that starting tomorrow, the Downtown Specific Plan will appear on the city's website under the Planning Department. The site will provide citizens with current project information and the opportunity to sign up for the list service to receive project updates. b. APPROVAL OF AUDIO EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT; AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) IMPROVEMENTS; VIDEO STREAMING SERVICES WITH GRANICUS; AND, APPROPRIATION OF$44,000 IN THE PUBLIC TELEVISION ACCESS FUND FOR AUDIO EQUIPMENT PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council approve the replacement of the audio equipment in the Council Chambers and appropriate $44,000 in the Public Television Access Fund for equipment purchase and installation; approve video streaming services agreement with Granicus for $33,385; and approve ADA improvements to the Council Chambers for$46,000. Councilman Cohen requested giving staff more leeway to investigate the most efficient way to provide video streaming and compare Granicus to other providers. FinDir Nava stated that staff will compare pricing and services of other providers to select the best choice for Burlingame. It was Council consensus that staff proceed with the actions requested. C. DISCUSSION WITH BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT CONCERNING FEE ADJUSTMENTS TO AFTER-SCHOOL RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council to provide appropriate direction to staff. Dave Pine, President of Burlingame Elementary School District Board, stated that the suggested 10% fee increase is modest and is hopeful that the amount will be sufficient to cover the needed additional funds. P&RD Schwartz explained that after increasing fees by 10%, the resulting level of attendance of the first grouping will impact the fees for the second grouping. ,Q It was Council consensus to increase after-school recreational program fees by 10%. ' l 2 Burlingame City Council July 16,2007 Unapproved Minutes 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke on the Sidewalk Program letters they received: Robert Bachrach, 233 Chapin Lane; Marika Metcalfe, 401 Occidental; Jay Kershner, 160 Occidental Avenue; Gurlat Bains, 748 Paloma Avenue; Susan Schroeder, 155 Costa Rica, asked audience for a show of hands of supporters in attendance, and 50-60 people raised their hands; Jim Smolinski, 225 Chapin Lane; Rebecca Knudsen, 315 Occidental; Hugh Ridlehuber, 146 Chapin Lane; Gary Doran, 817 Paloma Avenue; Karl Bakhtiari, 1617 Chapin Avenue; Joanne McArdle, 1720 Ralston Avenue; David Agard, 150 Chapin Lane; Debbie Loudon, 729 Crossway Road; Tom Bellucci, 114 Stanley Road; Yolanda Liu, 1 E. Carol Avenue; Sandy Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue; and Betsy Valdes, 1490 Oak Grove Avenue. Other citizen comments: Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee and 2212 Hillside Drive appeal. Lorne Abramson, 1129 Oxford Road, spoke on Council Chamber audio improvements and web streaming service. There were no further comments from the floor. Asst. DPW Murtuza explained Burlingame's Sidewalk Program and budget funding issues. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 52-2007 ACCEPTING MILLS TANK TRANSMISSION MAIN PROJECT Asst. DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 52-2007 accepting improvements to Mills Tank Transmission Main Project by Shaw Pipeline, Inc. b. RESOLUTION NO. 53-2007 AWARDING CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT TO K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION Asst. DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 53-2007 awarding California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project to K.J. Woods Construction, Inc. C. RESOLUTION NO. 54-2007 AWARDING BROADWAY AND CABRILLO STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO PRECISION ENGINEERING Asst. DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 54-2007 awarding the contract for Broadway and Cabrillo Storm Drain Improvements to Precision Engineering. d. RESOLUTION NO. 55-2007 APPROVING BAYSIDE PARK RESTROOM AND CONCESSION BUILDING PROJECT P&RD Schwartz requested Council approve Resolution No. 55-2007 accepting completion of Restroom and Concession Building at Bayside Park. e. ADOPTION OF ATHLETIC FIELD USER POLICIES P&RD Schwartz requested Council adopt the Athletic Field Use Policies as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 Burlingame City Council July 16,2007 Unapproved Minutes L SUPPORT SUBMITTAL OF A STREET TREE REFORESTATION GRANT P&RD Schwartz requested Council approve Resolution No. 56-2007 for funding from the Urban Forestry Grant Program entitled, "Green Trees for the Golden State," as provided through Proposition 12. g. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 57-2007 DESIGNATING A VOTING DELEGATE FOR 2007 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE CC Mortensen requested Council approve Resolution No. 57-2007 designating the Voting Delegate to the 2007 League of California Cities Annual Conference. h. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants#26191-26723 duly audited, in the amount of $1,845,593.66 (excluding Library checks#25666-25704); Payroll checks #168726-169082 in the amount of $2,312,238.37 for the month of June 2007. Councilman Cohen made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Baylock and O'Mahony absent). Mayor Nagel then moved to Item 11, Public Comments. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke on the Sidewalk Program: Gary Doran, 817 Paloma Avenue; Robert Bachrach, 233 Chapin Lane; Jay Kershner, 160 Occidental Avenue; Kathy Weatherwax, 1611 Ralston Avenue; Tom Bellucci, 114 Stanley Road; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Larry Stenger, 148 Costa Rica Avenue; Lisa McConloge, 150 Chapin Lane; and Jim Smolinski, 225 Chapin Lane. There were no further comments from the floor. To promote public awareness, CM Nantell discussed the budget challenges Council has faced since 9/11. The City has been dependent upon whatever revenue is available, and capital improvements for the city's aging infrastructure has been under funded for the past few years. Consequently, the Sidewalk Program was changed in 2004 to require property owners to fund the repair of sidewalks adjacent to their properties. Regarding suggestions to remove street trees, CM Nantell stated that although some street trees' roots have caused sidewalk damage, the City totally funds maintenance of all street trees; and removing these trees would be counter to the strong values Burlingame citizens hold for our urban forest. 12. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. SET PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE Council set August 20, 2007, as the hearing date for the Planning Commission appeal of 2212 Hillside Drive. 4 Burlingame City Council July 16,2007 Unapproved Minutes b. SIDEWALK PROGRAM Mayor Nagel suggested scheduling a Study Session to discuss the Sidewalk Program. After a brief discussion, Council concurred that a Study Session would be scheduled in August to discuss revenue issues of the Sidewalk Program and to discuss Burlingame constituency's tree philosophy. Asst. DPW Murtuza explained the Sidewalk Program timeline for citizens to consider whether they want the city to repair their sidewalks and the payment options available for the repairs. Mayor Nagel then moved to Item 10, Council Committee Reports. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety and Parking, May 20, 2007; Library, May 15, 2007; Beautification, June 7, 2007; Beautification Community forum Meeting, June 28, 2007; Planning, July 9, 2007 b. Department Reports: Building, June 2007 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 9:51 p.m. in memory of Burlingame resident Jack Friend. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council July 16,2007 Unapproved Minutes of Buringq BURUNGAME Michael Lennon IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED ONE OF THE (4a • yaw ink AeIR FOR PROVIDING OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE l111ii Pula! •5.111..1 - «�:i ,... l.k._. ........til 'ItRRY NAGEL,MAYOR ' - RECEIVE[ Honorable Mayor and City Council: Please schedule an appeal hearing for 2212 Hillside Drive to be heard at the JUN 2 1 2007 August 20, 2007 Council meeting. City Clerk June 21, 2007 I want to appeal the Planning Commission decision in regard to 2212 Hillside Drive. Patricia Giorni 1445 Balboa Avenue Burlingame, Ca 94010 650-347-8418 C 015U �'EAGENDA ITEM NO: 6a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 20, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: August 13, 2007 APPROVED BY: FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558 255 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, WITH DETACHED GARAGE, ON PROPERTY 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1 ) ZONE. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should conduct a public hearing on the appeal of the amendment to the Design Review permit for the single-family residence proposed at 2212 Hillside Avenue, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action regarding the appeal should include specific findings supporting the Council's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the City Council. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. The City Council may consider two alternatives: 1 . deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action approving the amendment to the Design Review Permit; or 2. uphold the appeal, and modify the Planning Commission's decision by providing specific direction to the project applicant regarding further changes to be made to the project, specifically related to the divided light window pattern for the proposed residence. BACKGROUND: Project Description: The property at 2212 Hillside Avenue is currently developed with a one-and-a-half story house and attached garage. The applicant intends to demolish the existing house and replace it with a new, two- story dwelling with a basement and detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,242 square feet (0.54 FAR) where 3,248 square feet (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The plans for the new house include a 693 square foot habitable basement area proposed to be used as a recreation room. This area meets the code definition of a basement (no more than 2 feet of any portion of the basement's height is above the existing grade next to the basement) and no part of the basement is intended or used for parking, so that up to 700 square feet of the area is exempt from FAR calculations. However, the proposed basement has an 8 Y2 foot interior ceiling height, where any basement ceiling height of 6 '/2 feet or greater requires a Special Permit. The following permits have been approved for the project: ■ Design Review for a new, two story single family dwelling and detached garage; ■ Special Permit for a basement interior ceiling height greater than 6 Y2 feet; and CITY COUNCIL MEETING—August 20,2007 Public Hearing—Appeal RE:2212 Hillside Drive • Special Permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well. The project includes a detached garage(228 square feet)which provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space(9 feet x 20 feet)provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met in the project design. The initial Planning Commission staff report (dated March 26, 2007) is attached to this report and contains a detailed analysis of the proposal. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which stated that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single- family residence,or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone,is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Prior Planning Commission and City Council Actions: Initial Planning Commission Approval: At its meeting of March 26, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Kendrick Li's requests for Design Review and Special Permits related to the construction of a new single-family residence on property at 2212 Hillside Drive (see attached minutes). The new residence is to include 3,242 square feet of floor area and will be two stories in height. Special Permits are required to allow a ceiling height greater than 6'/]feet(8'/2 feet proposed)and for a direct exit,both related to a family room proposed in the basement. The Commission approved the applications on a vote of 4-0-1-2(Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioners Cauchi and Osterling absent). In their action,the Commission added conditions requiring: 1)true divided light windows on a grid patter throughout the house;2)elimination of a spiral staircase out of a sunken garden,to be replaced with a ladder per California Building Code(CBC)requirements;and 3)a restriction that the only lighting on the left side of the house be landscape lighting directed to the ground. The approval included a condition requiring that all windows be of a simulated true divided light design with a grid pattern, and that the window design be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item before issuance of a building permit. This approval was subsequently appealed to the City Council by adjacent property owners, Dennis and Delores Huajardo. City Council Denial of Appeal and Approval of Project: On May 7, 2007,the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal of the project filed by the Huajardos. The Council reviewed the project and ultimately upheld the Planning Commission's approval,adding the following conditions: 1)the basement area shall never be used for sleeping purposes; 2) replace the existing Magnolia street trees if it is determined that they need to be removed during or after construction;3)protect the existing Pittosporum hedge along the left side property line on the neighbor's property;4)add landscaping along the right side of the house;and 5)replace the egress door from the basement with an egress window,if allowed by the CBC(see attached minutes). Applicant's Submittal of FYI to Planning Commission: Following the City Council's denial of the appeal and approval of the project,the applicant submitted an application for approval of an FYI (modifications to approved project plans) by the Planning Commission. The Commission reviewed the matter at its meeting of May 14,2007. The Commission requested that the matter be placed on its Action Calendar when the submitted plans were revised to include the divided light window pattern and modifications required to meet additional conditions imposed by the City Council. Subsequent to the May 14`"meeting, the applicant withdrew the FYI,choosing to resubmit a revised FYI proposal addressing the divided light 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING —August 20, 2007 Public Hearing —Appeal RE: 2212 Hillside Drive window pattern and conditions imposed by the City Council. These revised plans, date stamped May 21, 2007, were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 29, 2007. At that time, the Commission again directed that the matter be placed on the next Action Calendar, specifically to discuss the proposed divided light window pattern (see attached minutes). Planning Commission's Approval of Design Review Permit Amendment — Divided Light Window Pattern: On June 11, 2007, the Planning Commission considered Kendrick Li's proposal for and amendment to the approved Design Review permit for the new residence, addressing the divided light window pattern, based upon the plans date stamped May 21, 2007. Ultimately, the Commission approved the proposed divided light window pattern for the proposed residence (see attached staff report and minutes). Since approval of the proposal for the window pattern constituted an amendment to the original Design Review permit for the project (as approved by the City Council on May 7, 2007), the Commission's action was subject to appeal to the City Council. Appeal of Commission's Action — Divided Light Window Pattern: On June 21, 2007; Patricia Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; appealed the Planning Commission's action approving the divided light window patter for the residence, based upon the plans date stamped May 21, 2007 (see attached letter). DISCUSSION: As noted in the prior section, the Planning Commission's June 11, 2007 approval of an amendment to the Design Review permit for the project at 2212 Hillside Drive, relates only to the divided light window pattern for the proposed residence. For this reason, the appellant's appeal is limited to only that discrete aspect of the project approval. The City Council's public hearing on the appeal should be focused on only that aspect of the project design. Attachments: Appeal Letter from Patricia Giorni March 26, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report March 26, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2007 City Council Minutes May 14, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes June 11, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report June 11, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes Notice of Appeal Hearing — Mailed August 10, 2007 City Council Resolution (proposed) 3 Honorable Mayor and City Council : Please schedule an appeal hearing for 2212 Hillside Drive to be heard at the JUN 2 1 2007 August 20 , 2007 Council meeting . - City Clerk June 21, 2007 I want to appeal the Planning Commission decision in regard to 2212 Hillside Drive. Patricia Giorni 1445 Balboa Avenue Burlingame, Ca 34010 650-347-8418 City of Burlingame Item# Design Review and Special Permits Action Iter Address: 2212 Hillside Drive Meeting Date: 3/26/07 Request: Design review and special permits for a new, two-story dwelling with a basement and detached garage. Architect: Ben Behravesh APN: 027-165-100 Applicant and Property Owner: Kendrick Li Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History: On October 23, 2006, the Planning Commission reviewed an application for design review and special permits for declining height envelope and basement ceiling height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at this site (October 23, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission noted numerous concerns with the design and directed that the project be brought back on the regular action calendar with a recommendation for denial with prejudice. For a summary of the concerns, please refer to the October 23, 2006, P.C. Minutes attached to the staff report. After considering the comments and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, the applicant decided to change the architectural style of the house to a Spanish/Mediterranean design. The redesigned house was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a design review study meeting on December 11, 2006 (December 11, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes). In addition to the changing the architectural style, the applicant also eliminated the special permit for declining height envelope, reduced the second floor plate height from 9'-5" to 8'-2", reduced the overall building height from 26- 11" to 264", and eliminated the previously proposed Italian Cypress along the left and right side property lines. At the December 11, 2006 meeting, the Commission noted several concerns with the project and placed it on the January 8, 2007 action calendar. On January 8, 2007, the Planning Commission denied this application without prejudice, noting concerns with design, second floor plate height, location of sump pump, landscaping and architectural details (January 8, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes). At the meeting, it was noted that the applicant may voluntarily go to a design review consultant to address the Commission's concerns with the project. The applicant decided to go to a design review consultant. Please refer to the design reviewer's analysis dated March 13, 2007, attached to staff report and summary on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. The architect submitted revised plans date stamped March 14, 2007, to address the Commission's concerns. Revisions included changes to the architectural details, windows, roof configuration, cave and rooflines. There were no changes made to the footprint or floor area the house and garage. For a more detailed description of the changes, please refer to the design reviewer's analysis and summary on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Design Review and Special Permits 2212 Hillside Drive Summary of Current Project (based on revised plans date stamped March 14, 2007): The existing one-and-a-half story house and attached garage will be demolished. The applicant is proposing to build a new, two-story dwelling with a basement and detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage will have a total floor area of 3,242 SF (0.54 FAR)where 3,248 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 6 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The applicant is proposing a 693 SF basement area. This area meets the code definition of a basement (no more than 2 feet of any portion of the basement's height is above the existing grade next to the basement) and no part of the basement is intended or used for parking, so that up to 700 SF of the area is exempt from F.A.R. calculations. However, the proposed basement has an 8'-6" interior ceiling height and any basement ceiling height of 6 %2 feet or greater requires a special permit. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design review for a new, two story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010, a, 1); ■ Special permit for basement interior ceiling height greater than 6 %2 feet (8'-6" ceiling height proposed) (C.S. 25.28.035, f); and ■ Special permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well (stairway proposed) (CS 25.28.035, g). The project includes a detached garage (228 SF) which provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is proposing to change the driveway location from the left side of the property to the right side. The City Arborist has visited the site and reviewed the plans for the proposed driveway cut to evaluate any impact to the existing Magnolia tree in the city right-of-way, approximately 4'-0" from the proposed driveway, and to evaluate the existing protected-size Elm tree at the rear, left side of the property (see City Arborist comments dated December 15 and October 17, 2006). A Tree Assessment Report, prepared by James Lascot of Arborlogic Consulting Arborists, was submitted to assess the existing trees on the property and in the city right-of-way. The City Arborist reviewed and accepted the report. Regarding the two existing Magnolia street trees, the City Arborist previously recommended removing these two trees because of poor condition. However, the applicant's desire was to retain the Magnolia trees and therefore requested that the City Arborist review their condition with respect to the new sidewalk configuration and driveway. The existing driveway, which is straight and has a low spot in front of this property, will be replaced as part of the project. The new sidewalk will curve around the Magonlia trees and will be installed at a higher elevation to eliminate the low spot (see revised site plan and landscape plan). The new sidewalk's curved configuration and higher elevation will provide a better condition for the root system. The City Arborist reviewed the site conditions and revised plans 2 Design Review and Special Permits 2212 Hillside Drive and accepted the sidewalk and driveway apron configuration. As proposed, the new driveway apron will be located at an acceptable distance from the existing Magnolia tree. However, in his memo dated March 21, 2007, he notes 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. This has been added as a condition of approval. 2212 Hillside Drive Lot Area: 6000 SF Plans date stamped: March 14, 2007 Proposed Allowed/Required i SETBACKS -----...._.._........._.._.................. .__........_......._---....._.....--- - ---- -.... --.._..............._.__...__._...--_ - —---!-...---._... ----- ------------..._._..__....._. Front(Ist flr): 20'-9" ' 20'-9"block average 11 (2nd flr): 20'-9" i 201-9 ........_..._............._._......_........................__.-........_........._--....(right): - .._.._.......__.......................------ — Side rig ht): 10'-6" 4'-0" (left): 4'-0" 4._0.1 ..-..................-.._......._..__._..-._.............._..........---._..__...-..__......_..- --........_._........................._...... __... --------- Rear(I st flr): 36'-6" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 36'-6" 20'-011 -........... — ....---- -._......_..--- -..__..__........_..__..._._.._...- ...._....._.__..........----- Lot Coverage: 2139 SF 2400 SF 36% 40% .........._..... -- —-- ---- FAR: 3,242 SF 3,248 SF ' 0.54 FAR 0.54 FAR -___........._......_.__..._.__ #of bedrooms: 4 --- ......._...._._..- --........._.......—._... - - --....................._.....--....... ----.-..._........._....._............----—.._......_...__....--......------- - _—_.—.._.-.............---._.....-- ---- Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (10'x 20') (10'x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9'x 20') (9'x 20') Height: 261-4" 30'-0" --- .._..----...---.._._._._....--..........__...__..._..---__---......... --- --------.._.. ---__....--- - DHEnvelope: complies CS 25.28.075 Basement: basement with special permit required basement 8'-6 ceiling z with ceiling greater than 6-6" Basement Exit: stairway exit from basement' special permit required for stairway exit from basement ' (0.32 x 6000 SF)+ 1100 SF+228 SF=3,248 SF (0.54 FAR) 2 Special permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6-6" (8'-6"proposed). 3 Special permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well (stairway proposed). 3 Design Review and Special Permits 2212 Hillside Drive Staff Comments: See attached. Delores and Dennis Huajardo, next door property owners at 1400 Columbus Avenue, submitted a letter expressing their concerns with the previously proposed project, dated October 23, 2006. Mr. and Mrs. Huajardo also submitted a letter dated December 11, 2006, addressing concerns with the current design. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer (based on plans date stamped March 14, 2007): The design reviewer met with the architect and property owner to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and subsequently reviewed several revisions to the project. In a letter dated March 14, 2007, the reviewer notes that there have been a series of changes to the roof shape, plate heights and elevation that have contributed to improving the design. The roof configuration has been altered from gables to a main hipped roof with gables attached. The reviewer notes that the revised roof configuration cleans up and improves the front elevation by eliminating the three stepped gables and gives a main mass from which the gables extend. Plate heights have been adjusted to provide more interesting elevations, to break up the mass and to provide less of a layer-cake look. The windows have been re-detailed and changed and are now more consistent while providing a variety of shapes and sizes. The reviewer comments that the addition of wood beam headers will improve the look and feel of the house. Some of the round and arched windows were eliminated, however the use of a few round and arched windows adds variety. The reviewer also notes that the wood sided element along the right side of the house can be a nice detail. This elevation has been improved with varying plate heights, changed roof gable, recessed window niche at the dining area and window detailing. With regard to how this project interfaces with the adjacent houses, the design review notes that the driveway proposed along the right side property line and adjacent to the neighboring driveway will provide a wide separation of structures where the massing and wall heights are the greatest. The hipped roof and highest mass has been placed appropriately in the center of the property and seems like the right decision to minimize impacts on neighbors. The reviewer also notes that the court provides a niche in the building which reduces the mass to the neighbors. In addition, the sump pump previously proposed in the sunken garden has been relocated to the inside of the main dwelling to address concerns with noise. The landscape plan has been revised and clarified to show existing and proposed landscaping. The amount of paving in the rear yard has been reduced and an automatic gate has been added as suggested by the Commission. The reviewer suggests that vine pockets or similar landscaping be added along the two-story wall next to the driveway to minimize the effect of the large stucco wall. In conclusion, the design reviewer notes that the applicant has been very cooperative in responding to the suggestions and comments by the Commission and design reviewer. The design reviewer recommends approval of the project with the following suggestions: ■ Add vine pockets or similar landscaping along the two-story wall next to the driveway to soften the stucco wall; 4 Design Review and Special Permits 2212 Hillside Drive ■ Clarify street tree health and whether Magnolias are to remain (existing Magnolia trees are to remain, see discussion on page 2 of staff report); and ■ Verify materials and provide samples of cap and pan tile for roofing. Make sure to provide a color range, flashing or patina to obtain an authentic tile look, rather than uniform color for tiles. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for basement ceiling height and exit from a basement, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. 5 Design Review and Special Permits 2212 Hillside Drive Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permit, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 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 that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. 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; 3. that windows shall be simulated true divided lite; 4. that an automatic gate shall be installed in the driveway a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; 5. that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce night glare; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11. 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; 6 Design Review and Special Permits 2212 Hillside Drive 12. 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; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 14. 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; 15. 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; 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. 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, 19. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 20. 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. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Ben Behravesh, architect 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2007 November 21,2005,memos,shall be met; (5) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and a grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and suc ite work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Managemen istrict; (6) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage, ich would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architec al features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission revie (7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification t the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing,such as ndow locations and bays,are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification doc enting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division befor e final framing inspection shall be scheduled; (8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspectio licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to t uilding Department; (9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and to compliance of the architectural details (trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the projec as been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (10) that all air ducts,plumbin ents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portio of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved i e construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (11) that the project shall meet all the re ' ements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City urlingame; (12) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recy ng Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to sub a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a struc ,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit;and (13) that the applicant shall comply wit rdinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordin ie. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair wnrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added conditions. The motion pas on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This m concluded at 8:35 p.m. 4. 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (BEN BEHRAVESH, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KENDRICK LI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 26, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty(20) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Kendrick Li,applicant and property owner,Ben Behravesh,4 W.Santa Inez Ave San Mateo,architect;Dennis and Delores Huajardo, 1400 Columbus Avenue;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,spoke. Issues noted:applicant volunteered to go to a design review consultant;wood headers missing over five windows along left elevation; headers over arched windows will be made of stucco; decorative railing;more traditional to have simulated true divided lite windows; site design; spiral staircase used to exit the sunken garden area; lights mounted on outside of house; greenbelt of backyards; detached garage verses a sunken attached garage; privacy tree hedge; noise from basement and sunken garden; large houses and maximum allowable FAR;basement used as fifth bedroom or second unit; City infrastructure supporting sump pumps; a drainage plan; not required to have a basement, but required to have a second exit from a basement; and great house, but on wrong lot. The public hearing was closed. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26 2007 C.Deal moved to approve the application,by resolution,with added conditions that simulated true divided lite windows on a grid pattern be used throughout the house,to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item;that the spiral staircase out of the sunken garden be eliminated and replaced with a ladder per California Building Code requirements;and that the only lighting on the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to the ground, and with the conditions in the staff report: (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; 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 the only lighting along the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to the ground, with the cone of light kept on the site as required in the Burlingame Ordinance; (2) 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; (3) that all windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows with a grid pattern and these windows shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item before issuance of a building permit; (4) that an automatic gate shall be installed in the driveway a minimum 20'-0'back from the front property line; (5) that all skylights shall be tinted to reduce night glare; (6) 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; (7) 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; (8) 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; (9) 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; (10) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (11) 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; (12) 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; (13) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; (14) 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; (15) 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; (16) 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; (17) 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 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 26, 2007 partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (18) 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; (19) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (20) 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 Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the proposed project with the added conditions. The motion passed on a 4-1-2(C.Brownrigg dissenting,Cers.Cauchi and Osterling absent)roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 5. 18 BENITO AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APP VED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(FRANK PRENDERGAST,APPLICANT AND ARCHCT;PIERRE AND CAROL UHARRIET,PROPERTY OWNERS)(57 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER. UBEN HURIN Reference staff re rt March 26,2007,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. leven(11)conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there were any changes to th roject other than the height, staff responded no. Chair Brownrigg opened the p lic hearing. Phillip Uharriet,property owners son,and Frank Prendergast, architect, were available to ans questions. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the applicat n,by resolution,with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on a plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 12, 2003, sheets Al through A5 and to stamped March 14, 2007, sheets Aland A4; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of he buil ' shall require and amendment to this permit; (2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or seco floors,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectura atures or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; (3) that the property owner at 318 Benito Avenue shall be responsible for implementing the recommendations listed in the March 23,200 rborist's report to preserve and protect the existing Coast Redwood tree located at 1320 Benito Avenue;the r ommendations include measures to be implemented before, during and after construction is complete; (4) at prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed profess al shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and b s are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the perty owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be s mitted to the Building Department; (5) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspec nd note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the prod t has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true diva d light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as p Bible; (6) that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termin 'on and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details sh 1 be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (7) that prior 7 for her volunteer duties. As a founding member of the San Mateo County Master Gardener Association, sh has extensive training in horticulture and recently wrote a guide designed to help teachers, parents an children start school gardens. The guide is called "Vegetables, Herbs and Flowers Suitable for S ool Gardens in San Mateo County" and will be available on the City's website. b. REPORT FROM YOUTH VOLUNTEERS CONCERNING DOW OWN CLEAN UP Five of the youth volunteers presented various reasons why the dow wn clean up is important. Their presentation was enhanced with their drawings. The volunteer esenting were Cassis Brown, Lauren Bodenlos, Grace MacArthur, Amelia Milne and Diana D 'els. Councilwoman Keighran spoke about the volunteer opportunities for the near future and enc o ged citizens to contact her to sign up as new volunteers. Mayor Nagel announced that the C ennial Parade will take place on Saturday, June 2, 2007, starting off a year-long celebration of Burl ame's 100th anniversary. A motorcade will leave from Roosevelt School about 9:15 am, proceed n Broadway to California and stop at City Hall for the Kick Off Ceremony. Then the motorcade wil erge with about 1600 marchers as they proceed to Burlingame Avenue. The parade will end at Wash' on Park. Also, Mayor Nagel requested members of the public to contact her with the names of past present Burlingame citizens who are extraordinary in that they have done something unique and worthy. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL HEARING OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and take action. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and the following citizens spoke: Kendrick Li, owner; Delores and Dennis Huajardo, appellants; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Council discussed the following concerns: at no time can the basement be used as a bedroom; if the code allows, install an egress window instead of an egress door in the basement area; maintain neighborhood open space effect with tall landscaping to cover garage; more new single-family dwellings have large basements; the conflict between the policy to promote detached garages and the recommendation for an attached garage at this site; that the two Magnolia street trees shall be replaced if they are removed at the property owners expense; and that the divided light windows provided shall be true divided light or simulated divided lites as confirmed by the Community Development Director. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve Resolution No. 39-2007 approving Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permits for 2212 Hillside Drive, with the addition of the following conditions: that the basement area shall never be used for sleeping purposes as a bedroom; 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; that if it is determined 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; that an arborist report shall be prepared and approved by the City and construction protection measures shall be installed before a building Burlingame City Council May 7, 2007 Approved Minutes XW permit is issued for the existing Pittosporum hedge along the left side property line on the neighbor's property at 1400 Columbus, and that the protection measures shall remain in place until the occupancy permit is issued for the project; and that landscaping shall be added along the right side property line adjacent to the house in protected planter bays wherever possible and still maintain a 9'6" clear driveway width,plant materials shall be selected to provide screening between the properties; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Baylock dissented). b. INTRODUCTION OF AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 22 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE SIGN REGULATIONS enior Planner Maureen Brooks reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance a ding the provisions of the sign code. Mayor el opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Mayor Nagel req ested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance adopting a revised Title 22 (Sign Code). Vice yor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilw an Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock ma a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was app ved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the propose ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1 6 ESTABLISHING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND MAKIN ONFORMING CHANGES TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requ ted Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 1806 to establish the community de lopment department. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no ments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of O 'nance No. 1806 establishing the Community Development Department and making conforming chan es to the Municipal Code; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by v ice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of a tion. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, stated that the next Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee eting is on Thursday, May 10, and that Bike to Work Day is Thursday, May 17. Stephen Hamilton, 105 Cresc t Avenue, spoke on volunteer opportunities. The following citizens spoke in favor of saving the Easton E tus Tree: Mike Dillon, 1719 Easton; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Cr ent Avenue; and Diane Condon Wirgler, 1536 Cypress. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS Burlingame City Council May 7,2007 I Approved Minutes City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007 conclusions and mitigations in the Final EIR were considered and the actions are consistent with disclosures and information in the Final EIR. Chair Brownrigg called for&roll call,,,vote on,the motioiilo the determination that the oposed project is consistent with the intent of the Rollins Road design guidelines of the North ingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling di ting)roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no design review study items for ' cussion. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORT There were no Commission ' eports for review. XI. ROTATION O FICERS XII. PL R REPORTS City Council regular meeting of May 7, 2007 CP Monroe noted that the City Council reappointed Commissioners Brownrigg and Deal,each for another four year term on the Commission. The City Council also adopted a new procedure for interviewing and selecting commissioners. (R - FYI: Update to a previously approved design review project at 2212 Hillside Drive. Commissioner asked that this item be placed on the action calendar when the submitted plans include the divided light grid pattern on all of the windows through out the house and all of the conditions added by the City Council are shown on the plans. Confirm Rotation of Commission Officers The rules of procedure of the Planning Commission require that the officers of the Commissi rotate annually at the first regular Commission meeting in May. Commission confirmed the tion of officers with C. Deal becoming Chair; C. Cauchi becoming Vice-Chair; an . Terrones becoming Secretary. Out going Chair Brownrigg thanked the Commissione r a great year, he noted that they did not always agree,but that was the way it should be. en passed the gavel to Chair Deal. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 1 p.m. Respectfully submi , and Terrones, Secretary 40 VAMINUTMunapproved 05.14.07.doc 20 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 29, 2007K Fu r Commission comment: is there a need for story,poles? Have to ask for story poles because this project i ' the hillside area. C. Brownrigg ma motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar at a time when the story poles have been install nd certified by a licensed surveyor, the front porch has been slightly expanded, when all Commission commN4 have been addressed and when the slope of the roof has been verified. This motion was seconded by C. erling. Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion t ce this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion pa d on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory d not appealable. This item concluded at 11 :45 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports for review. XI. PLANNER REPORTS CDD Meeker reviewed the actions of City Council regular meeting of May 21 , 2007. - FYI: Update to a previously approved design review project at 2212 Hillside Drive. Commissioner asked that this item be placed on the Regular Action Calendar for discussion, particularly with respect to the window designs. XI.- JOURNMENT Chair Deal adjourn eeting at 11 :48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Secretary V:\MINUTES\unapprove 9.07.doc y Y 13 Item# City of Burlingame Action Item Amendment to Design Review Address: 2212 Hillside Drive Meeting Date:6/11/07 Request: Amendment to Design Review for a new,two-story dwelling with a basement and detached garage. Architect: Ben Behravesh APN:027-165-100 Applicant and Property Owner:Kendrick Li Lot Area:6,000 SF General Plan:Low Density Residential Zoning:R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3—(a)construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History:An application for Design Review and Special Permits for basement ceiling height and direct exit from a basement for construction of a new,two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at this site was originally approved by the Planning Commission on March 26,2007,with a condition that all windows be simulated true divided lite with a grid pattern(March 26,2007 P.C.Minutes). The application was approved with the following condition:"that all windows shall be simulated true divided lite windows with a grid pattern and these windows shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item before issuance of a building permit." The Planning Commission's March 26,2007 approval of the project was appealed. On May 7,2007, the City Council reviewed the project and upheld the Planning Commission's decision with additional conditions including: 1)clarification that the basement area shall never be used for sleeping purposes as a bedroom,2)replacing the existing Magnolia street trees if it is determined that they need to be removed during or after construction,3)protecting the existing Pittosporum hedge along the left side property line on the neighbor's property,4)adding landscaping along the right side of the house and 5) replacing the egress door from the basement with an egress window if allowed by the California Building Code. On May 14,2007,the Planning Commission reviewed as an FYI the windows and grid pattern chosen for the windows, based on plans date stamped April 4, 2007. At the meeting, the Commission requested that this item be placed on the action calendar when the submitted plans include the divided light grid pattern on all of the windows throughout the house and all of the conditions added by the City Council are shown on the plans(May 14,2007 P.C.Minutes). The applicant then chose to withdraw the FYI application based on the plans date stamped April 4, 2007 (reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 14,2007)and submit a new FYI application,along with a letter and revised plans date stamped May 21, 2007, to address concerns he felt the Commission had with regards to the windows and grid pattern. The revised plans, date stamped May 21, 2007, were reviewed by the Commission at their May 29, 2007, meeting. The revised plans also incorporate the conditions of approval added by the City Council(see below). At the May 29,2007,meeting,the Commission again requested that this item be placed on the Regular Action Calendar for discussion, particularly with respect to the window designs(May 29,2007 P.C.Minutes). Current Request (based on plans date stamped May 21, 2007): As noted, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised plans, date stamped May 21, 2007,as an FYI application at their meeting on May 29, 2007, and requested that the item be placed on a Regular Action Calendar for further discussion regarding the window designs. In a letter dated May 18,2007,the architect, Ben Behravesh, notes that the revised plans include divisions on all of the windows with the exception of the picture window on the front fagade of the house. Planning staff would note that a combination of horizontal and full grid patterns are proposed,with the majority of the windows containing a horizontal grid pattern(see building elevations,sheets DD-5 and DD-5). Amendment to Design Review 2212 Hillside Drive Planning staff would note that the design and project related issues have been thoroughly discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council in their previous actions. Therefore, with this application for an Amendment to. Design Review, the Planning Commission should focus its review and discussion only on the window design and grid patterns proposed, as referenced in condition 6 of the conditions of approval. Summary of Previously Approved Project: The existing one-and-a-half story house and attached garage would be demolished. The applicant is proposed to build a new, two-story dwelling with a basement and detached garage. The proposed house and detached garage would have a total floor area of 3,242 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,248 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 6 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The following applications were approved: ■ Design review for a new, two story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010, a, 1 ); ■ Special permit for basement interior ceiling height greater than 6 '/2 feet (8'-6" ceiling height proposed) (C.S. 25.28.035, f); and ■ Special permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well (stairway proposed) (CS 25.28.035, g). The project included a detached garage (228 SF) which provides one covered parking space for the proposed four-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements were met. 2212 Hillside Drive Lot Area: 6000 SF Proposed Allowed/Required SETBACKS Front (1st fir): 20'-9" 20'-9" block average (2nd fir): 20'-9" 20'-9" Side (right): 10'-6" 4'-0" (left): 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st fir): 36'-6" 15'-0" (2nd fir): 36'-6" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2139 SF 2400 SF 36% 40% 2 Amendment to Design Review 2212 Hillside Drive 2212 Hillside Drive Lot Area: 6000 SF Proposed Allowed/Required ........_.___._._.___-'.--_.__.__-.-__....._._-._.-.__..._---._._ -__-_.--.-......_._......-_...-.__.....-..._-...-.._.........-........--.._..__._.-__._1 .--.._...-----.............-....._..._...._...._--..._...._...._..._-.----.._.....-.-.-._...._..._.. FAR: 3,242 SF 3,248 SF ' 0.54 FAR 0.54 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9'x 20') (9' x 20') Height: 26'-4" 30'-0" --------------- DH -_DH Envelope: complies CS 25.28.075 Basement: basement with special permit required 8'-6" ceiling 2z basement with ceiling greater than 6'-6" Basement Exit: stairway exit from basement' special permit required for stairway exit from basement ' (0.32 x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF + 228 SF = 3,248 SF (0.54 FAR) 2 Special Permit for a new basement with an interior ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (8'-6" proposed). 3 Special Permit for a direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well (stairway proposed). Staff Comments: See attached comments from the City Arborist, Chief Building Official, City Engineer, Fire Marshal, Recycling Specialist and NPDES Coordinator. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 3 Amendment to Design Review 2212 Hillside Drive Planning Commission Action:The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for amendment to design review. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered(revisions to conditions are shown in italics or strikethrough): 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 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 shall be simulated true divided lite windows with a grid pattern; and these building p ..r.it; 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; 4 Amendment to Design Review 2212 Hillside Drive 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; 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 Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5 Amendment to Design Review 2212 Hillside Drive 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. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Kendrick Li, applicant and property owner 6 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 r property line, clarify what the roof overhang will be, Building Code may not allow overhang that se to the property line; • The existing accessory structure is two-story, clarify that this two-story structure wi removed, or is there another accessory structure in the rear yard that is not shown on th ans, clarify what will remain when project is completed; • Drawings need to be revised to show the gutter on the accessory str ure 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 wher a cross section on Sheet S 2.2 is taken. This item was set for the regular action calendar all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item conclu at 7:22 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calend - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously u s separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commission rior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. re 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 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 necessary to 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 m aterials, 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 the ground, w ith the cone of light 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 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 egres s window; (4) that any street tree roots of one inc h diameter or larger that are encountered during installation of the new sidewalk and driveway are not to be dam aged 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 arbor ist 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 P lanning Com mission review; (15) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; (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 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 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 11, 2007 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. 51 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN R JEW FOR A SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (LYNN BETOP G, APPLICANT; TODD LEVINE, POLLACK ARCHITECTURE,ARCHITECT;AND STANLEY LO, PRTY OWNER) (33 NOTICED PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference ff report June 11, 2007, with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and st comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened t public hearing. Todd Levine, Pollack Architecture, 2584 Folsom, San Francisco, and Kimberly Smith, C erica Bank, represented the project. Commissioners commente n the project design, discussed options for the canopy overthe ATM,whether it should be flat like the other c nopies or sloped glass as proposed; noted that the windows appear to be punched openings in a solid wa nd need some work; would like to see the stone feature at the base of the wall extended up the wall to the ame level as the lower muntin bars of the windows;would like to see a real door installed in the blank ope ' g on the Primrose side of the building. There were no further comments and the public hearing was sed. C. Terrones moved to approve the applicati , by resolution, with the following amended conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on th lans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 5, 2007, Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Ex ting Floor Plan, Demo Plan, Proposed Floor Plan, Exterior Elevations and Finishes, any changes to the xterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; and the following changes shall a incorporated into the project: (a) the stone base along the perimeter shall be increased in height to t level of the bottom muntin bars of the windows; (b) an aluminum storefront door shall be added i the existing opening along Primrose; (c) the awning over the ATM on Howard shall be flat to match the tyle of the other awnings; (d) the applicant shall bring back to the Commission as an information i m a revised design for the windows; (2) that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall c sul t with the City Arborist to choose an appropriate tree species to be planted in the ri ght-of-way ong Primrose Road; the tree grate design shall be consistent with the Burlingame Avenue Streetsca Plan design criteria; and that the tree species chosen and grate details shall be included on the plans; ) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 5, 2007, memo, the City Engineer's March 5, 007, and March 2, 2006, memos, the Fire Marshal's March 5, 2007, memo, and the NPDES Coordinat s March 5, 2007, and March 5, 2006, memo shall be met; (4) that demolition or removal of the existin structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occ ur until a building permit has been ' sued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality nagement District; (5) that any changes to the size or envelope of building, w hich would include anging or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural fea es or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; (6) that prior to schedu ' g the framing inspection the project architect or designer, or another architect or design professions , shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design ich should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the appro d plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD o. r 016H16504325 BURLINGAME, CA 94010PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 6y .�6� www.burlingame.org Maned From 94010 Site: 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVEUS POSTAGE The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following PUBLIC HEARING public hearing on Monday, August 20, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. NOTICE in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission's decision on an application for design review and special permits for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a basement and detached garage at 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE zoned R-1. (APN 027-165-100) Mailed: August 10, 2007 (Please refer to other side) City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,DENYING THE APPEAL OF PATRICIA GIORNI AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 11,2007 APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE,TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 2212 HILLSIDE DRIVE,ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONE RESOLVED,BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS,on March 26,2007,the Planning Commission approved Design Review and Special Permits, and adopted a Categorical Exemption, related to the construction of a new single-family residence to be constructed on property located at 2212 Hillside Drive(APN:027- 165-100),and owned by Kendrick Li,163 Louise Lane,San Mateo,California;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's March 26, 2007 approval was appealed by Dennis and Delores Huajardo, and the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal on May 7, 2007; denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval,with additional conditions;and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2007, the Planning Commission considered an FYI (proposed amendment to the project plans)submitted by the applicant,but which was later withdrawn;and WHEREAS,a revised FYI was considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 29, 2007;and the Commission directed that divided light window pattern reflected on the submitted plans (date stamped May 21, 2007) be placed on the next Action Calendar specifically to discuss the proposed divided light window pattern for the project;and WHEREAS, on June 11, 2007, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed amendment to the project plans related to the divided light window pattern for the proposed residence, as reflected on the plans date stamped May 21, 2007; and approved an amendment to the Design Review permit for the project to reflect the proposed divided light window pattern;and WHEREAS, on June 21, 2007, Patricia Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; appealed the Planning Commission's June 11,2007 action approving the divided light window pattern for the proposed residence at 2212 Hillside Drive;and WHEREAS, on August 20, 2007, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal filed by Patricia Giorni,considered all oral and written testimony provided at the public hearing, including the analysis contained in the staff report prepared by the Community Development Department; NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The June 11, 2007 Planning Commission amending the Design Review permit for the proposed single-family residence was limited to consideration and approval of only the divided light window pattern for the proposed residence,as reflected on the project plans 1 Resolution No. City Council Agenda —August 20, 2007 APPEAL—2212 Hillside Drive date stamped May 21, 2007. No other changes to the proposed project were considered or approved by the Commission. 2. The City Council finds that the appellant's appeal is without merit, given the limited focus of the appeal (the divided light window pattern). The divided light window pattern is consistent with the design of the proposed residence, as determined by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2007. 3. The City Council hereby denies the appeal and affirms the Planning Commission's June 11, 2007 approval of an amendment to the Design Review permit for 2212 Hillside Drive, based upon the approved plans, date stamped May 21, 2007; subject to the conditions applicable to the Design Review and Special Permits for the proposed project, attached herewith as Exhibit A. Findings for the City Council's action are as set forth in the minutes and recording of the City Council meeting of August 20, 2007. 4. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Mayor I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 201" day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 EXHIBIT A Conditions of Approval — Planning Commission —June 11, 2007 Design Review and Special Permits 2212 Hillside Drive 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 the only lighting along the left side shall be landscape lighting directed to 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 shall be simulated true divided lite windows with a grid pattern and these windows shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item before issuance of a building permit; 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 property line adjacent to the driveway in protected planter bays wherever possible to maintain a 9'-6" clear driveway 1 2212 Hillside Drive— Conditions of Approval (June 11, 2007) 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; 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 Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 2 2212 Hillside Drive—Conditions of Approval (June 11, 2007) 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. 3 Linda Dyson-Weaver 1545 Burlingame Avenue AUG 14 2Q�7 Burlingame, CA. 94010 (650) 344-7366 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURL1f GAME August 8, 2007 Members of the Burlingame City Council RE: 2212 Hillside Drive, Burlingame AND Design Review Guidelines Dear City Council Members: I am writing to object to the above mentioned project because of the size and scope of the project and, in particular at this stage, to the grid pattern in the windows. THIS PROJECT JUST SOLIDIFIES MY BELIEF THAT IT IS TIME FOR THE COUNCIL TO ACT TO REFORM THE DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES. My personal experience with oversized homes is the property next door at 1541 Burlingame Avenue, a very recent and large remodel. I did not protest the project because I like my neighbors and so I did not want to put myself in a confrontational situation with them. I am not opposed to remodels. However, the Queen Mary is now docked next to my home. It is out of scale to both my residence and the home directly next to it on the other side. I think it is the responsibility of the Council to have in place Design Review Guidelines that do not allow for oversized homes to be built. I also think that the `orange netting' that I sometimes see on pre-construction projects to outline the proposed remodel should be REQUIRED for all remodels. Lay people can hardly be expected to understand plans and specifications. When the work is complete it can be a BIG surprise. Thank you for addressing this very pressing issue. It is not only developers that are of concern. It is also neighbor to neighbor — when one party is allowed to construct a residence that overpowers and is out of size and character for the immediate surrounding. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, �,, ( �COMMUAUCA4710 1 V V ' V .� '`_____� AMP 2R?'1N Linda Dyson-Weaver August 8, 2007 TCs Members - Burlingame City Council AUG 14 2007 SUBJECT: Building Permit - 2212 Hillside Drive This house is entirely too large for allot this size. I strongly recommend that this permit be denied. We owe this developer nothing, and he should be made to conform to our codes. I am an old timer here and have been a resident of Burlingame for over three quarters of a century. My grandfather came to Burlingame in the late 1800's, and our family has watched a lot of development in Burlingame, some good and some not so good. A permit was given to a fireman from Foster City about 10 years ago to tear down and build a house next to us at 1349 Columbus Avenue. What a fiasco I had to replace our driveway and numerous cracks developed in our walls. I can never understand why an individual with no construction experience or general contractors license is allowed to build a house here. Cn another topic, we need new infrastructure in the worst way, especially sewer-'lines. Most of the opposition to a bond issue to finance it comes from new residents, who paid a price for their home that defys reason and logic. Yet, they won't support something as important as new sewer lines. Realtors should be made to tell prospective buyers that a bond measures looms that will be costly. Your attention to the ove is appreciated. q,m az/ 4Ak�� Ronald E. Durkee 1353 Columbus Avenue Burlingame, Calif 94010-5631 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT red/ �� CITY 0 BV.WM9AME STAFF REPORT woq 9,m AGENDA ITEM# 8a MTG. DATE August 20,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED NZW DATE: August 16, 2007 BY FROM: Jim Nantell APPROVED Tel.No.: 558-7205 By 40VW SUBJECT: REVIEW STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DELAY THE 2007-08 RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: That the Council concur with recommendation of the City Manager and defer the 2007-08 residential sidewalk repair program pending the outcome of State Constitutional Amendment 12 (SCA) or a possible City sponsored ballot measure to secure additional funding for infrastructure repairs. BACKGROUND: As the Council is aware we have received considerable push back from the community regarding our discontinuation of the City funded residential sidewalk repair program. We know that all of you would prefer to find a way for the City to be able to fund that program but you are also well aware of the significance under funding of our infrastructure through our capital improvement program (CIP). Since 9-11 not only have we been unable to meet the need to fund $7 to $8 million in annual CIP but our ongoing revenue is $3 million below our minimum CIP funding need of$4 million per year. Until we are able to identify reduced operating cost or increase revenues to fund at least $3 million more in CEP we are not in a position to fund an option program like the residential sidewalk repair program. The passage of the proposed SCA 12 would allow us to fund storm drainage improvements,which accounts for$2 million of the$4 million minimum CIP need through an assessment program similar to how we fund the water and sewer improvements. Should SCA 12 not be successful then I believe the Council needs to place your own measure on the ballot for storm drains and sidewalk repairs. If such a measure is not successful then the Council needs to look at authorizing a$3 million reduction in operating cost before we are in a position to even consider funding the sidewalk repair program. I know that many of the Council members have indicated an interest in a possible increase in hotel tax (TOT) to fund the sidewalk program. Unless the Council was interested in dedicating the hotel for a specific purpose, which would then require a 2/3rds majority for approval, we cannot place a general purpose hotel tax increase, which requires a simple majority approval, until the next Council election in November of 2009. 1 In the absence of an approval of SCA 12 or our own storm drain measure that hotel tax would be needed to help fund the current $3 million short fall in our minimum CIP. It is important to note that passage of SCA 12 and a hotel tax measure (i.e. 2%)would help our CIP funding gap by a total of$4 million. Although it would allow us to fund beyond our minimum CIP annual needs of$4 million we would still be $2 to $3 million below our target of$7 to $8 million of annual CIP funding which would provide adequate funding to be able to cover the residential sidewalk repair program. Given the community's resistance to paying the sidewalk repair cost, the Council desire to find a way to fund the program and the possible ballot measures to help address the situation, I am recommending that the Council agree to postpone the residential sidewalk repair program for another year to allow time to see what happens with the potential ballot measures. BUDGET IMPACT: No immediate budget impacts can be identified with the exception that further delays on fixing sidewalk trip hazards increases our exposure to trip and fall claims. 2 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b MTG. 8/20/07 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMTTED --�\ BY DATE: August 13, 2007 APPROVE FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 180 EASTON DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached updated Urban Forest Management Plan and provide direction to staff regarding Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive. BACKGROUND: Due to the concern of traffic safety hazard and impacts to the roadway and drainage infrastructure, Public Works Department requested removal of the eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive in 2004. Following an inspection from an independent arborist, the issue was taken to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) in January 2005 and to the Beautification Commission (BC) and Library Board in February 2005. All three groups supported the request to remove and replace the tree. In March 2005, Council held a public hearing and referred the item to the BC to develop a reforestation plan and to the TSPC to address traffic safety issues. The commissions each met and the information was brought back to the Council in December 2006, and as a result the Council approved the removal and replacement of the tree. On January 16, 2007, the Council held a public hearing to seek additional public input and review options regarding the tree and road realignment. After extensive public feedback, the Council directed staff to return in May 2007 with information on the health condition of the tree and to determine whether the tree roots could be shaved to remove the root hump. Staff returned to Council with the results of the tree evaluation and its health condition. At its May 7t1i 2007 meeting, the Council reviewed the options regarding the tree replacement and street realignment and directed the TSPC to develop criteria for tree removals due to roadway impacts and the BC to meet with the Easton residents and confirm the preferred type of tree to use for future replacements as well as update the urban forest management plan. The BC held a public meeting to discuss the Easton Drive Street Tree list and confirmed the recommendation at their August 2, 2007 meeting. Staff worked with the TSPC to develop criteria for roadway standards impacted by trees, approved for recommendation to Council at the August 9, 2007 meeting. At the August 20t' Council meeting, staff will present the amendments to the Urban Forest Management Plan — particularly the Easton Street Tree List and the policy regarding roadways impacted by trees. In addition, staff will review the options regarding the Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive as follows: • Assume the liability risk and let the tree remain. • Let the tree remain but minimize the liability risk by making street related improvements such as: Realign Easton Drive on the west side of Cabrillo Avenue Install curb around the root hump and signage Install signage only • Let the tree remain but eliminate safety hazard by realigning the street to statewide accepted standards. • Respond to the liability risk by replacing the tree. Using the public works list serve, staff researched processes and policies other cities have with regards to roadway-tree impacts. This research found that the majority of the cities do not have written policies with regards to tree impact on roadways. Staff will also present tree removal criteria from other California cities, including Berkeley, Davis, Tulare, Whitehorse, Redwood City and Hayward. While the policies do not go into much details, they do indicate that the trees be removed when they are hazardous. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT(CEQA) ANALYSIS: The Community Development Department conducted a review of the facts of this matter, as they relate to the applicability of review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based upon this review, it has been determined that the "project" may best be defined as a roadway improvement project intended to enhance the safe movement of traffic through the intersection of Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue. In order to improve the traffic flow, and hence the safety of the intersection, the City is considering options that may or may not include the removal of a mature Eucalyptus tree located in front of the Easton Branch Library, located at 1800 Easton Drive. It is the Department's conclusion that the improvements to Easton Drive, west of Cabrillo Avenue, that are necessary to improve traffic flow and safety, and which may or may not include the removal of a mature Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive, are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to CEQA, pursuant to Section 15301(c) —Existing Conditions, of the CEQA Guidelines, which exempt "the maintenance and repair" of existing "public or private" facilities environmental review. Specifically, maintenance and repair of "existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities (this includes road grading for the purpose of public safety)" is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, and requires no further environmental analysis. Further, Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines — Review for Exemption, states in subsection (b)(3) that an "activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA". In support of this finding,the following facts are stated for the record. Arborist reports prepared as background to inform the City Council's decision-making process in this matter indicate that the tree in question is healthy and that measures may be implemented to protect the tree under a scenario where Easton Drive is realigned to avoid further impacts upon the viability of the tree. However, the alternative alignments for Easton Drive around the base of the tree result in a less than optimal intersection from a traffic-safety standpoint, in the opinion of the Public Works Department. By revising the intersection of Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue in a manner which does not comply with accepted roadway design standards consistent with its "collector" street status (containing minimum 12-foot wide travel lanes), a traffic safety hazard would remain due to the tree's encroachment into the alignment of Easton Drive. The City would assume liability for any claims related to the traffic safety hazard since it would be aware of the continued presence of a traffic safety hazard. The public record, to date, reveals divergent interests in the community relative to the preferred method of addressing the safety hazard present at the intersection. Section 15304 of the CEQA Guidelines — Minor Alternations to Land, describes exemptions related to the minor alterations to land which "do not involve removal of healthy, mature scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes". The Scenic Roads and Highways Element (dated September 15, 1975) of the City of Burlingame General Plan identifies Easton Drive as a portion of a County of San Mateo scenic roadway system that "follows Skyline Boulevard to Canyon Road, down a narrow, winding county road to Easton Drive and via Easton Drive to El Camino Real". The County of San Mateo General Plan (dated November 1986) further documents that Easton Drive contributes to a scenic roadway system within the County. The County's General Plan states that scenic roadways are recognized as providing "outstanding views of scenic vistas, natural landscape features, historical sites and attractive urban development". Presumably, Easton Drive's status as a contributing element to the County- identified scenic roadway is attributable to the views across the landscape and the attractively developed residential areas that line the roadway as you traverse the system. Neither the City's General Plan, nor the County's General Plan specifically identify the non-native Eucalyptus trees lining Easton Drive as a significant element that defines the character of the scenic roadway system, nor are the trees specifically identified as "scenic trees". Specifically, the tree located in front of the Easton Branch Library at 1800 Easton Drive is not itself considered to be a "scenic point", such as the Cypress trees at Pebble Beach in Monterey County, in any document known to the Community Development Department. It is staff's opinion that if the improvement of the intersection of Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue requires the removal of the Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive, this will not result in a significant impact upon the character of the scenic roadway system in the area. Easton Drive is lined with scores of similar sized trees of the same species. If the tree is removed to accommodate the roadway improvement, a replacement tree will be installed at a more optimal location in the general area that will not impact the safety of the roadway system, while still maintaining the character of the street. Staff recommends that, based upon the above facts, the City Council find that the removal of the mature Eucalyptus tree located at 1800 Easton Drive in order to accommodate necessary roadway safety improvements at the intersection of Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue is Categorically Exempt from further environmental review, pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301(c) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BUDGET IMPACT: Costs associated with each of the options will be part of the staff presentation. ATTACHMENTS: A. Urban Forest Management Plan—August 10, 2007 B. Easton Tree Chronological Account with references to supporting documents C. Criteria for Tree Removal Due to Roadway Impacts as recommended by Traffic, Safety Parking Commission D. Revised Easton Street Tree List as recommended by the Beautification Commission E. January 16, 2007 Staff Report F. May 7, 2007 Staff Report G. Criteria for tree removals from other California cities ATTACHMENT A CITY OF 1BURLINGAM N SURL I C A L 1 F 0 a :4 1 t r> " R 1, 6, • R URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT FLAN Wrea���� ""Place to 610, Compiled August 10, 2007 ° ,�y fa 9'rrneohna BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN o % t� 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 17 • Pesticide Spraying& Injections 17 • Tree Protection During Construction 18 • Tree Grates 19 • Tree View Policy 20 • Landscaping Impacts 24 • Trees & Roadway Impacts 25 Criteria for Removal 29 Approved Replacement Species 30 Plan to plant in new areas 31 Public/Political Input and Appeals Process 32 Compiled August 10, 2007 - 2 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN ATTACHMENTS A. California Tree City USA's 33 B. Tree Permit 35 C. Protected Tree Removal Permit 36 D. Street Tree Inventory Report (Tree frequency by species) 37 E. Criteria for City Street Tree Removal 42 When There is On-going Sidewalk Damage F. Tree Evaluation Form: Matheny-Clark 43 G. City Street Tree Removal Process 46 H. Street Tree Lists 1. Trees Under Utility Lines 47 2. Trees in Planting Strips Under 3' Wide 49 3. Trees in Planting Strips 3' to 6' Wide 51 4. Trees in Planting Strips Over 6' Wide 53 5. Easton Drive 55 I. Burlingame Beautification Commission Rules of Procedure 56 Compiled_August 10, 2007 - 3 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 longtime commitment to trees is evidenced by recognition as a "'free 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 Goal of the Plan is to manage the community's forest 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. The Plan includes 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 August 10, 2007 - 4 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 sustainable 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 August 10, 2007 - 5 - URBAN FOREST M NAGEMENT PLAN 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 August 10, 2007 - ( - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 August 10, 2007 - 7 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 hannful 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 August 10, 2007 - 8 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 August 10, 2007 - 9 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 August 10, 2007 - 10 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 ifI 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 August 10, 2007 - 11 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 pen-nit 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 August 10, 2007 - 12 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 August 10, 2007 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ELAN 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 Cycles 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 August 10, 2007 - 14 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PIAN 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 August 10, 2007 - 15 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Trees & Sidewalk Impacts Sidewalk Impacts and Replacement Damage to urban infrusturcture by tree roots is a significant problem in cities throughout the world. In the United States virtually every city has sidewalks, curbs, and gutters that have been cracked, uplifted by tree roots, or both. Damage to infrastructure elements are not only costly to repair, but they represent liability risks that can't be ignored. In addition, many trees (typically repeat offenders) are removed because of infrastructure- related damage. In California this is the second most common reason for tree removal. Collectively, tree loss, infrastructure repair costs, and liability issues make this a significant problem that merits close attention from arborists, urban foresters, planners, and engineers. (L.R. Costello 2005) If any sidewalk near or around City trees are scheduled to be repaired, a City arborist, supervisor or staff member must be notified before roots are cut or sidewalk is replaced. The following shall be considered when replacing sidewalk damage that is caused by tree roots. • Health and Structure of tree. • Future cost or damage to sidewalk. If the tree is deemed healthy and structurally sound, several sidewalk design alternatives will be recommended to increase the planting space for the current tree and future trees. Curving sidewalks—When at all possible, increasing the City right-of-way toward the homeowner's property for the minimum ADA requirement will be encouraged. This will increase the growing area for the current tree, protect roots, and provide a larger planting area for future large-stature tree species. Ramping—Where root pruning is not an option, ramping may be the only alternative to avoid root damage and tree preservation. Ramps must not exceed the requirements for the American with Disabilities Act. Root Barriers—Root barriers can be placed in strategic location to delay sidewalk damage or damage to landscape. City staff can suggest areas where root barriers will be useful. Compiled August 10, 2007 - 16 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Pruning Standards Specific to Species To be included Pesticide Spraying & Injections To be included Compiled August 10, 2007 - 17 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT pJ_AN Protection During Construction TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION Construction damage is one of the most common causes of tree death and decline in urban areas. Unless the damage is extreme, trees may not die immediately, but could decline over several years. Because construction equipment is operated next to trees, damage to trees is likely to occur. Branches will be broken,trunks are wounded, pruning cuts are made by untrained construction workers, but the most serious damage to tree caused by construction is underground. Root systems of trees may spread a distance beyond the root zone. The small, absorbing roots are generally located in the upper few inches of soil. The soil can become compacted by construction equipment and the small roots can be damaged or killed and the result could be yellowing leaves, dead twigs, and, large limbs may eventually die. Prior to construction, an on-site inspection should be preformed by a qualified arborist. The arborist must be able to communicate his needs of tree preservation with the developer, contractor or homeowner. The arborist should evaluate each trees condition and suitability for saving. Specifications should written with the intent to protect selected trees and should detail exactly what can and cannot be done to and around the trees. To avoid tree damage during construction, the following will be considered in order to protect trees from injury. Erect Barriers—as early as possible, a physical barrier should be established around the trees that are to be preserved. This fence can be made out of wood, plastic, wire or a combination and placed as far out from the trunks of the tree as possible. As a guidline, allow 1 foot from the trunk for each inch of trunk diameter. The intent is to protect not only the overhead branches but also the root system. The area inside the barrier must be kept clear and not used for storage of materials, parking, waste accumulation, or travel of trucks and heavey equipment. Limit Access—If possible allow only one access route on and off property. Reduce Compaction— Soil compaction caused by heavy equipment will close the air spaces in the soil. Without air and moisture, roots will die and cause dieback in the canopy. To reduce compaction, spread a thick layer(about 6 -12 inches) of mulch around the base of trees, and to obtain addition additional weight dispersal place large sheets of plywood over the mulch. Avoid Grade Changes—Changes in grade can be devastating to trees. If the grade is to be raised, the addition of only a few inches of soil around a tree could suffocate the roots and kill some species. Tree wells and aeration systems could be installed to preserve the tree. If the grade must be lowered,terracing or tree islands can be constructed to increase tree survival. Compiled August 10, 2007 _ 18 _ URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PL4N Tree Grates To be included Compiled August 10, 2007 - 19 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree View Policv CITY OF BURLINGAME GUIDELINES FOR RESOLUTION OF BAY VIEW DISPUTES A. PURPOSE The purpose of these guidelines is to set forth a procedure for the resolution of disputes between parties (both private and city property owners) relating to the loss of Bay views due to tree growth. 1. These guidelines do not impair obligations imposed by an existing agreement, or a valid pre-existing enforceable covenant, easement or agreement. 2. Nothing in these guidelines is meant to replace the peaceful, sensible, and just resolution of differences between neighbors acting in good faith. The provisions contained in these guidelines are meant to encourage that such resolution occurs prior to engaging in the recommended remedies provided by them. B. OBJECTIVES 1. To restore access to existing views of the bay from properties within the Hillside areas subject to a hillside construction permit (Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 25.61). 2. To encourage the maintenance of positive relationships within a neighborhood when there is a conflict between a tree or trees and Bay view preservation. 3. It is not the objective of these guidelines to facilitate or encourage access to any other views such as of hills and landmarks, nor access to sunlight, nor the transmission of radio,television, satellite dishes, or other electronic signals. 4. To preserve and protect the aesthetic and practical benefits which trees provide for individuals and the entire community. 5. To discourage ill-considered pruning or destruction of trees. C. DEFINITIONS 1. "Bay view" means a distant vista or panoramic view of the San Francisco Bay. 2. "Crown Reduction" means a method of reducing the height or spread of a tree by performing appropriate pruning cuts. 3. "Crown Restoration" means a method of restoring the natural growth of a tree that has been topped or damaged in any other way. 4. "DBH" means the diameter of the tree at breast height measured at 4.5 feet above the natural grade. In the case of multiple stemmed trees, the measurement will be the sum of diameters of all stems measured at 4.5 feet above the natural grade. 5. "Obstruction" means any substantial blockage or diminishment of a bay view from a structure lawfully used as a dwelling which is attributable to the growth, maintenance or locations of tree(s). Compiled August 10, 2007 - 20 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 6. "Originating party" means any property owner who wishes to either remove and perhaps replace or have trimmed a tree(s) on the property of another which creates an obstruction to the bay view of another within the Hillside areas subject to hillside construction permit(Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 25.61). 7. "Restorative action" means any specific requirement to resolve a tree dispute. 8. "Topping" means removal of the top portion of a tree's main leader(s) resulting in an overall reduction in the tree's height and size. 9. "Tree" means any woody perennial plant characterized by having a single trunk of 15.28"DBH(48" circumference) or more, or any street tree regardless of size. 10. "Tree mediator" means any trained or experienced mediator(s) either recommended by, or on retainer with, the City of Burlingame. 11. "Tree owner" means any individual, company, corporation, or other property owner owning real property in Burlingame upon whose land is located a tree or trees alleged by an originating party to cause an obstruction to a Bay view. 12. "Tree removal"means the elimination of any tree from its present location. 13. "Trimming" means the selective removal of entire branches from a tree as to improve visibility through the tree and or improve the tree's structural condition. D. PROCEDURES The procedures described in this section shall be followed in the resolution of Bay view disputes caused by the obstruction of tree growth within the Hillside areas subject to Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 25.61. 1. Initial Reconciliation: An originating party who believes in good faith that growth, maintenance or location of trees on the property of another (hereafter referred to as the tree owner) diminishes the beneficial use or economic value of his or her property because such tree(s) interferes with Bay views that existed prior to such growth, maintenance, or location of the tree(s) on the property during the time the originating party has occupied the property shall notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns. a. The notice shall include all the pertinent information describing the bay view obstruction. b. The notification shall, if possible, be accomplished by personal discussions to enable the originating parry and tree owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. 2. Mediation: If such initial reconciliation attempt fails, the originating party shall propose mediation as a means to settle the dispute on a relatively informal basis. a. Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary. b. If mediation is elected, the parties agree to use any trained or experienced mediator(s) either recommended by, or on retainer with, the City of Burlingame. C. The mediation meeting may be informal, and no written record is necessary unless desired by one of the parties. Compiled August 10, 2007 -21 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN d. The mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the properties of the originating party and tree owner. e. The tree mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for the restorative action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute. E. GUIDELINES FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES Factors to consider In attempting to resolve Bay view tree disputes the parties and/or mediator may consider the following factors in determining what restorative actions, if any, are appropriate: 1. Visual quality of the tree, including but not limited to species, characteristic size, growth, form, and vigor. 2. Location with respect to overall appearance, design, and/or use of the tree owner's property. 3. Soil stability provided by the tree(s) 4. Visual, auditory, and wind screening provided by the tree(s)to the owner and to neighbors. Existing privacy provided by the tree to the tree owner's home shall be given particular weight. 5. Energy conservation and/or climate control provided by the tree(s). 6. The economic value of the tree(s) as measured by the criteria developed by the International Society of Arboriculture and the economic value of the property as a result of the existence or maintenance of the tree(s). 7. Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s). 8. Other factors including: the degree to which the species is native to the area, indigenous nature of tree species, and specimen tree quality. 9. The tree(s) relation to the Municipal Codes governing the removal or pruning of a tree. 10. The existence of Bay views that cannot be seen from habitable structures because of the growth of trees since the acquisition of originating party's property within the Hillside areas subject to Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 25.61. 11. Expert opinion from mutually agreed upon tree expert(s) or an expert appointed by the mediator with the consent of the parties. F. RESTORATIVE ACTIONS The mediator may recommend restorative action, consistent with requirements in the municipal code, or no action. Restorative actions may include trimming, thinning, topping, crown reduction, crown restoration, removal, or removal with replacement. Written directions as to appropriate timing of restorative action may be included. Such restorative actions are to apply only to current parties to the dispute. It will be the responsibility of the originating party to provide the mediator with a copy of the City's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection and/or Street Tree Ordinance. Compiled August 10, 2007 - 22 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN G. APPORTIONMENTS OF COST 1. The originating party shall pay all costs, if any, of mediation, unless otherwise agreed upon by all parties. 2. At any time during the procedure specified in this policy the parties may agree between themselves as to the allocations of the costs of restorative action. If such an agreement is not reached, the originating party shall pay one hundred percent to the costs of the initial restorative actions, as well as the cost of subsequent restorative actions as the result of reoccurrence of the same obstruction. H. POLICY REVIEW This policy will be evaluated as to its effectiveness by the City Council two years from the date of Council approval. Compiled August 10, 2007 - 23 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PIAN Landscaping Impacts To be included Compiled August 10, 2007 - 24 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Trees & Roadway Impacts Administered by the Public Works Department Critical Minimum Street Width Policy for Managing Street Tree Impacts in the Roadwav The City of Burlingame has jurisdiction and responsibility over four types of roadway within its city limits. These are classified as: local streets, collector streets, arterial streets, and highways. A fifth classification, freeways, falls within the jurisdiction of the State of California(Caltrans). Local Street—Limited width and limited vehicular volume. A local street has travel lane widths varying between 10 feet and 12 feet, resulting in a two-lane street width no greater than 24 feet when on-street parking is prohibited. A local street serves as direct access for homes and residents. The average daily traffic (ADT) volume of a local street is no more than 2,000 vehicles per day. Collector Street — A collector street has travel lanes no less than 12 feet wide per lane, with a total roadway width of 24 feet when on-street parking is prohibited. The collector street serves to "collect" residential traffic from one or more local streets and channels them through the city in a more efficient manner. The ADT volume for a collector street is no more than 15,000 vehicles per day. Arterial Street and Highway — Serves as main thoroughfare to move large numbers of vehicles through the city. Traffic from local and collector streets are fed into the arterial streets and highways. The roadway width of an arterial street or highway usually exceeds 40 feet in width, and can accommodate traffic volumes above 15,000 vehicles per day. Lane configuration varies from two-lanes to four-lanes with and without on-street parking. Freeway — A freeway is a multi-lane roadway corridor that facilitates large-scale vehicle movement between regional areas and metropolitan centers. Within the boundaries of Burlingame, ADT volumes for freeways easily exceed 50,000 vehicles per day. This type of roadway is under the jurisdiction and responsibility of Caltrans. STREET TREES The City of Burlingame has made great efforts to promote "quality of life" matters to benefit its citizens. The planting and preservation of street trees have been one of the more successful efforts. Street trees are typically planted within the parking strips of residential and collector streets. In some cases, the trees have grown such that their trunks, roots or root systems now encroach and intrude into the roadway causing damage to sidewalks, curbs and gutters, as well as the roadway surfaces. This intrusion and encroachment also pose safety problems in the form of diminished sight-visibility at intersections. Compiled August 10, 2007 - 25 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN This policy provides minimum roadway widths, as well as a set of criteria and a process to manage impacts caused by tree roots, tree trunks or other physical features that present safety hazards to the vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, and general public. MINIMUM STREET WIDTH FOR SAFE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION • Local street without parking— The minimum lane width for local streets without parking will be ten (10) feet wide per lane of through-traffic. Therefore, two-lane roadways will have a total minimum roadway width of twenty (20) feet, as measured from curb face to curb face. • Local street with parking—If on-street parking is allowed on a local street, a parking lane width of 6 feet per lane will be used. This results in a total minimum desirable roadway width of thirty-two (32) feet for a two-lane local street assuming parking on both sides. However, due to existing conditions of narrow road width and parking demand, the width could be reduced to no less than 30 feet. • Collector street without parking— The minimum lane width for collector streets without parking will be eleven (11) feet wide per lane of through traffic. Therefore, two-lane roadways shall have a total minimum roadway width of twenty-two (22) feet; and, four- lane roadways shall have a total minimum roadway width of forty-four (44) feet, as measured from curb face to curb face. • Collector street with parking — If on-street parking is allowed on a collector street, a parking lane width of 6 feet per lane will be used, resulting in a total minimum roadway width of thirty-four (34) feet for a two-lane collector street; or, fifty-six(56) feet for four- lane collector streets assuming parking on both sides. MINIMUM STREET WIDTH RELATED TO TREE ROOT IMPACTS • There shall be no horizontal encroachment into the roadway that reduces the travel lane width to less than ten(10) feet, or twenty(20) feet for two-lane roads. • There shall be no vertical displacement greater than a 2-inch into the minimum travel lane width as described above. • Any physical objects including tree roots and tree trunks that reduce sight visibility and safe-stopping distances (as specified in the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual) will be considered for removal or alternative evaluations. UTILITIES • If a tree has grown directly over a utility line (such as water line, sewer line, gas line, electric line or storin drain line), or its roots have intruded into a utility pipe system; and, is causing damage to the utility, the tree will be considered for removal or alternative evaluations. Compiled August 10, 2007 -26 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN ALTERNATIVES TO TREE REMOVAL Before there is any consideration of tree removal, alternate actions such as those outlined below will be examined first. • Installation of warning signs — The Public Works Department will examine the use of warnings signs as a possible first-line safety measure to notify drivers of potential obstructions which are in the overall roadway area, but have not yet encroached into the actual travel lane. Signs will be evaluated for appropriateness, and to ensure that they are sanctioned signs that have state and federal departments of transportation approval. • Root barriers — The Parks and Recreation Department will examine the use of root barriers on tree roots that begin to encroach into the overall roadway area, but have not yet encroached into the actual travel lane. • Root grinding — The Parks and Recreation Department will consider root grinding as a measure to reduce uplifting of the roadway asphalt or concrete sidewalk areas. Root grinding would be considered as an alternate when it can be done in such a manner as to maintain the health and stability of the tree. The Parks and Recreation Department will coordinate with the Public Works Department to carry out the grinding and asphalt/concrete repair as a part of each department's normal operations. • Removal of on-street parking— The Public Works Department will consider the removal of on-street parking as a method to accommodate tree growth and preservation of public safety. The department will conduct field investigations to evaluate feasibility of this alternative and present its findings to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) to solicit public comments and input. If recommended by the TSPC and approved by the Council, the Public Works Department will proceed with the appropriate course of action. • Street re-alignment — The Public Works Department will consider this alternative as an option to maintain roadway safety and tree preservation after other alternatives above have been evaluated and deemed ineffective. If a location meets the definition or classification of an historical site and is designated as such, staff will work with the Beautification Commission to secure potential grant funds to re-align streets in order to preserve historical trees. PROACTIVE TREE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Public Works and Parks staff will work jointly on annual street surveys and tree inspections as proactive measures to address potential tree root issues before they become traffic and public safety problems. Staff will identify potential problem locations and develop possible solutions before tree root intrusion into the minimum roadway width. Tree roots and tree trunks which Compiled August 10, 2007 - 27 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT FLAN encroach to within two feet of the roadway edge will be the threshold point at which staff will note and log the locations for additional evaluation. The Parks Department will take the lead on annual tree inspections, while the Public Works Department will head the annual street surveys. PROCESS OUTLINE • Field inspections will be conducted by Parks and Public Works staff. This will include the annual tree inspections and street surveys. • Locations that are identified by the field inspections to be potential problems will be forwarded to the city arborists for consultation of appropriate measures. • Recommendations will then be made to the Beautification Commission and the Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission on the most effective and desirable measures of action. • Final recommendations will go to the City Council for approval and authorization to proceed. EXAMPLES OF POLICY Example#1: A tree root has encroached into the 20-foot width of travel lanes of a two-lane roadway and has raised the roadway by more than 2 inches. Staff would consult the city arborist to determine if the root or roots can be ground down. Staff would then proceed with a course of action based on the arborist's recommendation. If the arborist believes that grinding/trimming the roots would de-stabilize the tree or adversely affect the health of the tree, staff would present these findings to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and the Beautification Commission. However, if the root intrusion is outside of the travel lane, staff will monitor the situation. If appropriate, rot barriers may be installed, as advised by the city arborist. Example 42: A 6-foot fence, mature tree, or other large obstruction is situated near the corner of an intersection between two streets. If the obstruction is located such that its placement causes a sight-visibility problem or severely reduces the safe approach speeds for vehicles entering into the intersection, the obstruction would be considered for removal or modification to improve the sight-visibility at that location. Staff would present these findings to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and the Beautification Commission. SAA Public Works Directory\Author, By Name\Murtuza\Tree Encroachinent Policy.doc Compiled August 10, 2007 - 28 - URBAN F®REST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. " (MathenyiClark) "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 identify 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 August 10, 2007 -29 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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.I. • 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 CAMINO REAL AND VANCOUVER,Attachment H.5. Compiled August 10, 2007 - 30 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT FLAN 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 August 10, 2007 - 31 - URBAN FOREST IIANA GEMENT PLAN Public/Political Input and Appeal 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 August 10, 2007 - 32 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment"A" CALIFORNIA TREE CITY USA's Commerce 20 13,292 CITY YEARS POPULATION Hayward 20 146,027 Burbank 29 104,000 La Verne 20 38,000 Santa Fe Springs 20 16 600 Sacramento 29 430,000 Davis 28 64,500 South San Francisco 20 60,552 Santa Rosa 28 156,200 Hemet 19 65,044 Burlingame 27 29 050 Lompoc 19 42,320 Gilroy 27 46,594 Monrovia 19 37,566 La Mesa 26 56,049 Newark 19 43,708 Los Gatos 26 30,000 Santa Clara 19 109,106 Modesto 26 207,634 Atascadero 18 28,677 Oroville 26 13250 Carpinteria 18 , 14,300 Santa Barbara 26 95,000 La Canada Flintridge 18 21,500 Concord 25 121,780 La Mirada 18 50,136 Fullerton 25 135,672 Riverside 18 281,515 Merced 25 73,600 San Buenaventura 18 105,000 Monterey 25 30,300 Corona 17 141,000 Redding 25 80,000 Cypress 17 45 000 Redwood City 25 76,000 Glendora 17 I 52,000 San Mateo 93,630 Morro Bay 17 10 522 25 Santa Maria 25 88,793 Orange 17 136,701 Santa Monica 25 90,000 Rancho Cucamonga 17 147,000 Stockton 25 261,300 Sunnyvale 17 131,700 Arroyo Grande 24 17,005 Tulare 17 50,000 Campbell 24 39,312 Atherton 16 7,200 Roseville 24 102,191 Highland 16 50,860 San Jose 24 923,000 Irvine 16 180,803 San Rafael 24 56,000 Los Banos 16 36,000 West Covina 24 106,500 Newport Beach 16 80,800 San Luis Obispo 23 44,500 Ontario 16 170,373 Visalia 23 102,684 Pasadena 16 133,936 Anaheim 22 345,000 Pittsburg 16 59,650 Chico 22 73,558 Santa Clarita 16 164,900 Glendale 22 200,200 Escondido 15 141,350 Grover Beach 22 13,067 Manteca 15 61,927 Lakewood 22 74,000 Napa 15 74,000 Oakland 22 351,000 Pismo Beach 15 8,200 Oxnard 22 182,027 Turlock 15 67,009 Whittier 22 85,500 Chula Vista 14 215,000 Beverly Hills 1 21 33,784 Millbrae 14 20,800 Claremont 21 35,077 Pomona 14 155,000 Coronado 21 26,000 Ceres 13 37,388 Los Angeles 21 3,900,000 Hanford 13 48,070 Palo Alto 21 62,000 Livermore 13 76,500 Compiled August 10, 2007 -33 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 12 133,500 Lemoore 3 21,950 Weed 12 3,005 Santa Barbara County 3 164,000 Redlands 11 70,324 Temple City 3 33,000 Sonora 11 4,573 Carmel-By-The-Sea 2 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 August 10, 2007 - 34 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment"B" 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 August 10, 2007 - 35 - ZIdZBAIiT FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment"C" PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 BURLINGAME A VENUE, 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 CIRCUMFERENCE 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 $50.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME Attach any supporting documentation you may have ADDRESS (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 Code Chapter 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 replacements) 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 August 10, 2007 - 36 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment"D" Street Tree Inventory Report Tree Frequency by pecies Platanus acerifoiia(SYCAMORE/LONDON PLAN) 1758 12.96 Liquidambar (SWEET GUM) 1156 8.52 Magnolia wandiflora(SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA) 961 7.08 Vacant planting site (VACANT PLANUNG SITE) 955 7.04; Eucalyptus globulus (BLUE GUM) 668 4.92 Crataegus spp. (ILAWTHORN SPECIES) 383 2.82 Pyrus kawakamii (EVERGREEN PEAR) 373 2.75 Prunus blireiana(FLOWERING PLUM) 311 2.29 Gink6o biloba(MAIDENHAIR TREE) 306 2.26 Pyrus callM ana'Aristocrat( STRQCRAT PEAR) 262 1.93 Prunus cerasifera(CHERRY PLUM) 257 1.89 Ma3tenus bdaria( YTEN) 235 1.73` Ma-nolia 'Samuel Sommer (MAGNOLIA 227 1.67 'S L SOM) Casuarina spp. (BEEFWOOD) 227 1.67 Prunus serrulata(JAPANESE FLOWERING C) 218 1.61 Eucalyptus viminalis (MANNA GUM) 206 1.52' Pistacia cinensis (CHINESE PISTACHE) 199 1.47 F raxinus stag. (ASH SPECIES 192 1.41' Ulmus americana(AMERICAN ELM) 166 1.22 Pobir is oseudoacacia(BLACK LOCUST) 164 1.21' Porus CalleEyana/Chanticleer(CHANTICLEER 161 1.19 PEAR Sapium Sebiferurn (CIUNESE TALLOW E) 160 1.18 Eucalyptus spp. (EUCALYPTUS SPECIES) 155 1.14 Cinnamomum camphora(CAS HOR TREE) 151 1.11 Other(O'T'HER) 150 1.11 Compiled August 10, 2007 - 37 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Genera:parvilolia(AUS TRALIAN ' LOW) 140 1.03 Acer spp.(MAPLE SPECIES) 140 1.03 Quercus rubra(RED OAK) 136 1.00' Photinia spp. (P-HOTINIA) 130 .96 Betula pendula(EUROPEAN WIHTE BIRCH) 125 .92 Pittosporum spp. (PITTOSPORIJ SPECIES) 120 .88 Pyres calle1yana(BRADFORD PEAR) 118 .87 Palm spp. or cordyline spp (PALM SPECIES OR DRAQ 116 .85 Laaerstroemia Indica(CRAPE TLE) 111 .82 Pinus radiata(MONTEREY PINE) 102 .75 Myo.porurn laetum( OPOR ` ) 99 .73 SIA GNOLIA `LiTTLE GEM' (NIA GNOLIA LITTLE GEIS) 98 .72 Celtis sinensis(CFHNESE IIACKBERRY) 98 .72` Acer saccharinum (SILKIER MAPLE) 88 .65 Tilrte . (L ) 82 .60 L iriodendron tulipifera(TULIP TREE) $0 59 Quercus ilex(HOLLY OAK) 72 .53 Acacia melanoxylon ( 3LACK ACACIAS 72 53 Catalpa speciosa(WESTERN CATALPA) 71 .52 Eucalyptus polvanthemos (SILVER DOLLAR G 4) 70 .52 Sequoia sempervirens(COASTREDWOOD) 69 .51 L igustrum spp. (PRI'A'E'I SPECIES) 68 50 Prunus yedoensis 'akebo o'( BONO CIS 66 .49 Juglans regia(ENGLISH�WALN-IJP') 59 .43 Ulmus parvifdlia(CHINESE ELM) 54 .40 Eucalyptus lelu-nan-nii (BUSILY PATE) 52 , .38 Eucaly -us bancroTtii (BANCROFTS EUCALYPTUS) 52 .38` Ma®nolia "St. Mar✓' CMAGNOL IA 'ST. NIARY) 52 .38 Eucalyptus ficifolia(REIN-FLO EPING GUM) 52 .38 Compiled August 10, 2007 - -1 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Quercus agrifolia(COAST LINE OAK) 47 .35 Aesculus carnea(RED HORSE-CEESTI~31JT) 44 .32 Acer Rubru-n (REIN MAPLE) 44 .32 Koelreuteria bipinnata(CHTNESE FL E) 43 .32 Robina ambiwaa(IDAFTIO LOCUST) 35 .26 Cercis Canadensis (EASTERN REDBLTD) 35 .26 Quercus spp. (OAK SPECIES) 35 .26 Prunus spp. (STONE FRUIT SPECIES) 32 .24 Ulmus sop. (ELM SPECIES) 32 .24 Eucalyptus sideroMlon(RED IIZOi ) 31 .23 Eucalyptus nicolii (NICHOL°S WILLOW-LEAF) 30 .22 Schinus rnolle (CALIFORNIAPEPPER 29 .21 Pinus spp. (PINE SPECIES) 26 .19 Koelreuteria paniculata(GOLDEN RAIN TREE) 24 .18 Ceratonia silioua(CAROB) 24 .18 elaleuca linariifolia(FLAXLEAF PAPE 24 .18 CUPAINIOPSIS anacardioides (CARROT WOOD) 20 .15 Olea europaea(OLDIE TREE) 19 .14' Ulmus procera(ENGLISH ELM) 19 .14 Metrosideros excelsus W ZEALAND X-MAS 19 .14 Pinus halepensis (ALEPPO PINE) 18 .13 Eriobotrva Japonica(LOQUAT) 18 .13 Celtis australis (EUROPEAN HA CKBE Y) 17 .13 Tristania conferta(BRISBANE BOX) 16 .12 C allistemon spp. (BOTTLEBRUSH) 14 .10 Cupressus macrocarpa(MONTEREY CYPRESS) 14 .10 Celtis spp. (HA CKBERRY SPECIES) 14 .10 Juglansni,gra(BLACK WALNUTS 13 .10 Acer nezundo (BOX-ELDER) 12 .09 Schinus terebint ifolius(BRAZILIAN PEPPED) 11 .08 Stump (STL ) 11 .08 Compiled August 10, 2007 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Crataegus Phaenop (WASHINGTON.THORN) 10 .07 Gleditsia triancanthos (HONEY LOCUST) 1 .07 Quercus Coccinea(SCARLET ) 10 .07 Brachychiton nooulneum (BOTTLE E TREE) 10 .07 Laurus nobilis (SHEET-BAY) 9 .07 Cedrus deodara(DEODAR CEDAR) 8 .06 Zclkova serrata(ZELK0VA) 8 .06 Prunus amy dalus (ALMQND) 8 .06 Ficus micros a nitida(IN-DLA-N LAUREL FIG) 8 .06 Prunus Yedoensis 'Yoshino' (YOSHINC C Y) 8 .06 Cercis Occidentalis ( ST- REDBUD) 7 .05 C alocedrus decurrens (INCENSE CEDAR) 7 .05 Mag! glia ',Majestic Beaute C N LIA 'MAJESTIC B) 7 .05; Magnolia -r. 'Victoria' (NIACNCLIA 'VICTORIA') 7 .05 Acacia decurrens (GREEN WATTLE) 6 .04 Magnolia stellata(STAR IVIAGN®LIA) 5 .04 Aescdlus step. (HORSE-CHESTNUT SPECT) 5 .04` Cupressus spp. (CYPRESS SPECIES) 5 .04 Syzygium paniculatum, EjjQBN'IA) 5 .04 Morus alba(WHITE MULBERRY) 4 .03 Jacaranda mimosifolia(JACARANDA) 4 .03 Unknown Species (UNKNOWN SPECIES) 4 .03 U1mus Accolade(Accolade Eli 4 .03, Ailanthus altissima(TREE OF HEAVEN) 4 . 3 Popultds nigra italica (LC ' Y POPLAR) 4 .03 Pittosporum spp. (PITTCSPORUM SPECIES) 3 .02 Thuja plicate STERN RED.CEDAR) 3 .02 Thula occidentalis (AMERICANARBORVITAE) 3 .02 Unknown(U own) 3 .02 Umbellularia californica(CAL,IFCR_�IIA LAUREL) 3 .02 Prunus persica(PEACH) 2 .01 Compiled August 10, 2007 - 40 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PIAN Salix babylonica (1 El=?NC= WILLOW) 2 .01 Podoca us gacilior(AFRICAN FERN PINE) 2 .01 NOT CITY TREE (NOT CITY TREE) Z .01 Neriurn oleander JOLEAN E ) 2 .01 Melaleuca leucadendra(CAJEPUT T REE) 2 .01 Melaleuca auinqui ervia(C PIJT) 2 .01 Pinus pinea(ITALIAN STONE PINES 1 ®01 Lvonlhamnus floribunda(CATALINA IRONWOOD) 1 .01 Populus spp. (COTTONWOOD SPECIES) 1 .01 Leptospennum laevigatum,(AUSTRALIAN TEA 1 .01 TREE) Prunus anneniaca(APRICOT) 1 .01 Dodonaea viscosa(HOPSEED BUSH) 1 .01 Quercus chrysolepsis (NIAAUL OAK) 1 .01 Lauraceae (AVOCADO) 1 .01, Juniperus spp. (JUNIPER) 1 .01 Orevillea robusta(SILK OAK) 1 .01 13,569 Species Found 132 distinct species Burlingame, CA TreeKeeper 7,6 I Compiled August 10, 2007 -41 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT ULAN Attachment "E" Ct•itel°i`l 0l' City Street Tree Removal Allen There is 0116 Goin-i Sidewalk D aln.ace Adopted Copy (updated June 2006) 5 points 1 5,points 45 points 100 points Health and Structure - existinE, roJacted atter remedy a'i`1T:3i "?ii .r}•)! G:;.tjF?�i c2! :.'tarPsa rGUS Cost to Homeoivner - Present S:Future to sidewalk-. curb. ?utter. pipes.draimge. etc t�iir,irnat �igrti caant 114,19;;Present cost cost &Fature cost Species Inappropriate for plantinfz area S'i9hty �t9ri nCcirlt'`: trtaparopr;are Inaperoptrare Impact on neiShborhood if removed Extremely NO Sianitficarn 'exatve 'Vegwive Impact Does not allow for ADA WidthiSlope aorrne 4ccor"noda#Porr �cwcrrt�datic�a ccgmwaiton Difficult or Nor PossiNe �iecessary Expenses Total points wr L Total of 100 points Wot.id regLlire removal Compiled August 10, 2007 - 42 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment "F" City of Burlingame - Parrs & Recreation Dept. rgim 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010m BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 recreation&burlingame.org TREE EVALUATION FORM: MATHENY-CLARK Date: Site: Evaluated by: Owner : City Private Unknown Tree 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 August 10, 2007 -43 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 Co-dominants 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 August 10, 2007 -44 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 August 10, 2007 -45 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment "GII City Street Tree Removal Process WT 1- Recites-for Removal II Parks.td uinistratian Request (, P;,o - III Decision P-Iocess V. Removal Steps na phon [E-r—staff---cuou 7 1 email. fax. letter'i may r---------- r----------i r---------- come from. prp,,z�, I E.A.Cad for clarificanon r-----------i R'-A- Letter-o pro-pam-I �,r A - Remodj mmer. public. staff xee I and or explain relevant I MA. Sen-vicereque-for I clitmer of intent to 1 L---------J e..ner. public. staff xee "P I �! I j company. ---------- company.busine-s cv.mer. I ordinance pojjc,,-. I I remm-aL :1 warranted.I j remove; replacement I r-----------t I pracnc e or cer-=Liner Emergency -nicivais I I 'Tee Hit included Other -13. Snacps are gromid to urban forest j I are attended to j L---------- mouth::by contract_ L---------J I immediately xiiii no I r--------=1 while contract is in r----------1 I process:or aPea:", Bea-utification- elle-t------- I ffer I H.B. Service Request fort C-�-nnv-.stor.:IOZiCedl L---------- . T can-, :Tees r------------ I IsDectim for Posmble I r---------- wLen �' `� I IM3. Deny renioval are removed.include:,,V I IVC- Replacement ".33( = , L---------J I requer, or phone emergency rema-als eperyear- reQUeSte., C '" ")I L---------- Apni.October) Lr---------- r---------, IVC. Histoncai -Socievv I M.C. Alternate actianl I Loticedrvheutrees tobej temoredarehistoricalivI prone.. fertilize. etc me rensimuficmit i6onater acton I--- . - L----------i r----------1 ---------- HI.D. Appeal'Frocesss I WD. Appeal Processs u a t,o a Bea-a-,.-icarion Bea Commk -.on 11e2rin.--i Co--,i::.au hearing. decn4m--wav be&-rthm appfialei to CoMxA appealed to cot=il L---------- L--------- Vpiced•1::;G7 RS Compiled August 10, 2007 -46 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS DIVISION Attachment "11.1." 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 **����**��tat�'e*a'c�t�9c9c9eaiesQdtac9e�'efe�'t�Y9cokxkx9e�k�i'e�'e�k�k9cxk�kxsc�k�'c�'e9c�k�kxxxkk�kx9:9c�kx';�kkxx�k9c�k�ck9cxxx'ck9exxk9cx�kxx�k�kx�k3ckk�c�kxrx4c9kok�koka'ckx�kxxkxkxicx�'c�kx CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (Across from Rose Garden I 0-18' is, 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 Channing 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 (1152 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 fence 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.Mary, 'Samuel Sommer' (Broadway Shopping Area) to Southern Magnolia,but smaller. (*Requires 6'wide&over planter strip.) Compiled August 10, 2007 -47 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TREES TO BE USED UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES Page 2 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 Mayten Tree Burlingame Ave) branches. 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. PHOTINIA FRAZERI (516 Bayswater& 15' 15' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth; new growth is bronzy red Frazer's Photinia 525 California Dr.) in Spring;leaves large glossy green. * PISTACIA CHINENSIS 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 pink Purple Leaf Plum (1400 Lincoln Ave) * PYRUS CALLERYANA (920 Linden Ave. & 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;upright form;masses 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 Tallow Tree (990 Burlingame Ave./Parking crown;outstanding Fall color Lot median island-Lions Club parking lot) Requires planter strip 3.Jiw wide and over 9/2005 Compiled August 10, 2007 -48 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Attachment"H.2." CITY OF B URLINGAME PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 3'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 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 Channing Rd.) flowers;leaves yellow in Fall,drop late. LAGERSTROMIA INDICA (pillage ParW535Calif. 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 Tree 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 August 10, 2007 -49 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS Y WIDE AND UNDER AND IN ALL PLANTING SPACES IN PAVED AREAS Page 2 PHOT] IIA FRAZERI (516 Bayswater& 15' 15' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;new growth is bronzy red Frazer's Photinia 525 California Dr.) in Spring; leaves large glossy green. PRUNUS CERASIFERA 20' 15' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth;coppery leaves;light pink to Purple Leaf Plum (1400 Lincoln 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. Park/850 Burlingame-- 25' 20' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth. Variety is smaller than species Akehono' Westside children's playground) and flowers are pinker than P.yedoensis. 9/2005 Compiled August 10, 2007 - 50 - UR13AN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OFBURLINGAME Attachment 1111.3." PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER Y AND UNDER 6'WIDE BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description 9e 9e9t�9e'tat�e�'e��a'taYsteat�ta�alcareak�edcak*�a'is�alratca'eatah�eatiaea'ce'cn'tF'C3c��cYxxx'c'c��xxdcx�yexicxr,9c9cx9c�xx7cxx9c9crr'e'cxxr'.x�ac*�e'ckx�x�9c�'c9:rr,�>c�x9e'cxFxx>c9c�c�cxY9c9c AESCULUS CARNEA (1421 Palm Dr./Side 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 (1275 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 Bloomfield Rd.) textured, light green leaves;slight odor of peppermint EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOS 30-60' 30' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; slender Silver Dollar Gum (1131 Capuchin 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 byplay area&853 Paloma Ave) dark green leaves turn claret red in Fall. Compiled August 10, 2007 - 51 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER 3'AND UNDER 6' WIDE Pale 2 GINGKO BILOBA 30-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth;fan shaped leaves turn Maidenhair tree (700&800 blk.Bayswater Ave) yellow in Fall; spreading, almost umbrella form. MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20' 10' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;upright branches; 'Little 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 Burlingame Ave) crown;outstanding Fall color. Lions club parking lot 9/2005 Compiled August 10, 2007 - 52 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OFBURLINGAME Attachment 1111.4." 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 Hal11501 Primrose Rd. 40-60' 40' DECIDUOUS:Moderate to fast growth; American Sweet 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#1&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 August 10, 2007 - 53 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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.12 trees) Spring clusters of bright magenta flowers; long leaves divided into oval leaflets. TRISTANI CONFERTA (S 10 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 August 10, 2007 - 54 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME Attachment "II.5." PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED ON EASTON DRIVE BOTANICAL NAME Height 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 to 14 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 NICHOLH 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. URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Attachment "I" COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE I. 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. H. 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 August 10, 2007 - 56 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PIAN M. MEETINGS A. Regular meetings shall be held on the_rirst Thursday 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 Comnussaon. The application of this rule may be waived, for good cause, by the Chairperson of the Commission. Compiled August 10, 2007 - 57 - URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 August 10, 2007 - 58 - ATTACHMENT B CONSIDERATION FOR REMOVAL EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE Chronological Account (August 6, 2007) March 18, 2004 • Letter to Arborist Porter from Asst. PW Supt. Falzon requesting removal of the City owned Eucalyptus tree fronting 1800 Easton Drive because the tree causes a traffic hazard, and is causing major damage to the roadway, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and to the sanitary sewer. October 10, 2004 • Mayne Tree Arborist Report conducted by Kevin Kielty, concluding that though the roots deeper in the root crown had not yet been inspected, the Eucalyptus tree is in generally good health, is well maintained and proper maintenance should keep the tree healthy for many years to come. January 3, 2005 • Letter to Asst. Supt. Falzon from Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz informing him of the findings in the October 10, 2004 Arborist Report and stating that the request for removal was denied but that the request would be forwarded to as an appeal to the Beautification Commission for hearing at the February 3, 2005 meeting. Copies of the letter were sent to residents within a 300' radius of the Eucalyptus tree. January 13, 2005—Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission Meeting • Traffic Engineer informally notified Commission that tree issues on Easton Drive would be discussed at future Beautification Commission meeting. February 3, 2005 —Beautification Commission Meeting • PW Supt. Phil Scott and Asst. Supt. Vince Falzon made a power point presentation showing the damage the Eucalyptus roots had caused to the street/curb; the drainage problems, sewer damage, grade issues, and vehicular and traffic hazards and explained that many alternatives to removal were considered but were cost prohibitive (ranging up to $100k). Following the presentation and a lengthy discussion by the Commission, the Commission voted 5 — 1 — 1 (AbsentfWebb). February 7, 2005 • Letter to Asst. Supt. Falzon informing him that the Beautification Commission upheld the appeal and approved the removal of the Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive on a 5 — 1- 1 (absent) vote. Copies of the letter(decision) were sent to residents within a 300' radius of the Eucalyptus tree. February 11th and February 14th, 2005 • Email and letter from Susan Lahey, 1719 Easton Drive, appealing the Commission's decision approving the removal of the Eucalyptus tree on Easton Drive. February 11, 2005 • Letter from Director Schwartz notifying Susan Lahey, 1719 Easton Drive, that the appeal had been received and would be heard at the March 7, 2005 Council Meeting. 1 EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE Chronological Account -Page 2 February 15, 2005 • Daily Journal Article: "Trees Death Sentence Appealed." February 16, 2005 • Letter to Mayor Galligan from the Library Board of Trustees in support of removal of the Eucalyptus tree on a 4-1 (absention)vote. March 7, 2005 • Staff Report to Council from Director Schwartz: Appeal of the Beautification Commission's Decision to Allow for a Tree Removal at 1800 Easton Drive. March 7, 2005 —Council Meeting • Public Hearing — Appeal of the Beautification Commission's Decision to Allow for a Tree Removal at 1800 Easton Drive "Council requested the reforestation program be in place and traffic issues be addressed before making a decision. Council continued action and referred this item to the Beautification Commission and to the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission for further study." • Council heard from Public Works staff and Beautification Commission about tree removal. A power point presentation was conducted for Council by PW Supt. Phil Scott. March 10, 2005 - Traffic Safety&Parking Commission Meeting • TSPC notified via staff that Council wanted Commission to conduct technical evaluation on roadway realignment traffic volumes. Sub-committee subsequently formed to evaluate roadway alignment and one-way options. April, 2005 • TSPC sub-committee field meeting took place. On-site evaluation revealed that realignment might have to include power pole relocation and removal of other trees. One-way street option could be further evaluated based on traffic counts. No consensus reached at that time among members regarding a preferred option of tree removal, one- way streets, or roadway realignment. • Engineering staff conducted in-depth field measurements and design cost estimates for roadway realignment. An estimate of approximately $120,000 was calculated for realignment. Preliminary one-way street analysis was also conducted. Ancillary traffic count data was used to determine that one-way traffic would create potential traffic flow problems in the area. April 15, 2005 —Traffic, Safety& Parking Commission Meeting • Commission heard from sub-committee members regarding their field evaluation and staff's preliminary analyses. All but one commissioner concurred with the option of tree removal as being the most logical and cost-effective engineering solution. 2 EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE Chronological Account -Page 3 May 12, 2005 —Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission Meeting • TSPC sub-committee members reported to the full commission that they and the Traffic Engineer met with Parks & Recreation Director to discuss Beautification Commission's reforestation plan. • Still no full commission consensus could be reached about either tree removal or roadway realignment. Traffic counts were discussed in regards to one-way street evaluation. Commission agreed that traffic counts should be conducted after September due to inaccurate count data likely resulting from summer vacation. September—November, 2005 • Traffic counts could not be done due to construction projects on Easton Avenue. November, 2005 • TSPC sub-committee decided not to expend anymore staff resources to conduct costly traffic counts or additional realignment design analysis until the Beautification Commission's plan on reforestation is either approved or rejected. April 6, 2006 -Beautification Commission Meeting • Commission held a special community meeting regarding long-range reforestation program and answered public questions and concerns about program. TSPC sub- committee members and Traffic Engineer were in attendance by invitation. October 5, 2006 -Beautification Commission Meeting • Commission met with residents a second time to establish tree types for replacement. Four tree species agreed upon. November 2, 2006—Beautification Commission Meeting • Commission voted to recommend to Council at the next Council meeting adoption of the list of replacement trees for Easton reforestation program. December 4, 2006—Council Meeting • Council adopted Easton reforestation replacement tree list. December 4, 2006—Council Meeting • Council approved the removal of the tree at 1800 Easton by a 3-2 vote. December 12, 2006 • PW-Engineering staff completed an updated cost estimate for roadway realignment using current dollar values. The estimated was $182,340. This estimate includes site demolition work, asphalt & aggregate base work, concrete curb & gutter work, sidewalk realignment, sign/striping & paint work, utility manhole adjustments, sewer cleanout relocation, other tree removal, and utility pole relocations. 3 EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE Chronological Account -Page 4 January 16, 2007—Council Meeting, Public Hearing • Councilman Cohen made a motion to defer Council's decision to remove and replace tree to explore other alternatives; Councilwoman Baylock seconded the motion. Mayor Nagel stated on the motion to direct staff and commissions to look at specific alternatives: tree options to be explored by Beautification Commission; signage, minor jogging of street and speed table by Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission; various tree experts were named as possible contacts/consultants; requested staff return in early May to report back on the following issues: a further study of tree in front of Easton Library; specifically to look at whether roots can be shaved or roots are safe - to look at them with an x-ray machine to determine their viability; to evaluate whether cables can strengthen the tree and what the cost would be; to remove the asphalt to look at tree roots to determine what can be done; and with street issues, the need to look at whether a minor realignment of street is possible and the cost; to look at growth of tree root: to consider if a root barrier would stop further growth. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-2 (Keighran and O'Mahony dissented). January 27, 2007 - Council Goal Setting Session • CM Nantell and Park Supervisor and Arborist Disco discussed the reforestation plan. PS Disco recommended a master plan with a sub plan for reforestation which would include tree timelines. CM Nantell stated that staff will respond in May as to the Easton Library tree; however, the master plan will take longer to prepare before presenting to Council. April 23, 2007—Independent Arborists Report on Health of Tree • Kielty Arborist Services &Advanced Tree Care Report—"Tree Assessment—Large Blue Gum Eucalyptus @ 1800 Easton Drive" May 7, 2007 - Council Meeting • Certified Arborist Kevin Kielty whose company performed the tree testing and evaluation provided an overview of the tree's favorable health analysis and stated that the chance of failure for this tree is low. The tree's root growth into the street is estimated to be 1/8"to 1/4" per year. • DPW Bagdon reviewed the Easton Drive Realignment option which would cost $80,000; however, it would not meet roadway standards for safety. Other less costly alternatives included signage and delineators. A traffic study would cost $50-60,000. • Mayor Nagel asked to have a complete reforestation plan with an Easton street tree list prepared by the Beautification Commission and criteria of roadway impacts prepared by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission in the next 60 days. June 7, 2007—Beautification Commission Meeting • Discussed direction from City Council and planned for Community Forum June 13, 2007—Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission Meeting • TSPC reviewed the first draft of Critical Minimum Street Width Policy (the traffic component of the Urban Reforestation Plan document). The Commission accepted and endorsed the draft version. 4 EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTONDRIVE Chronological Account -Page S June 18, 2007—Joint City CounciUBeautification Commission Meeting • Staff distributed copies of the first draft of the Urban Forest Management Plan; a compilation of the existing policies and procedures the City has used for management of public and private trees. June 18, 2007—City Council Meeting • P&R Director Schwartz presented the first draft of the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Plan will be expanded before the anticipated Council meeting in August with additional components. June 28, 2007—Beautification Commission Public Hearing • 1St Presbyterian Church — Easton Drive Tree Selection Forum. TSP Commission representatives and staff from Parks & Recreation and Public Works were in attendance. • Community consensus was reached on amending the Easton Drive Street Tree List as follows: o Eucalyptus to be the only tree genus to be considered as suitable for Easton Drive tree replacement. o The favored Eucalyptus specie to be considered is the readily available Eucalyptus Citriodora. o That there be no corner or "accent" trees; Eucalyptus Citriodora be the sole replacement tree all along the lower Easton Drive. August 2, 2007—Beautification Commission Meeting • Based upon community input from the June 28, 2007 meeting, Commission made a recommendation to Council on a revised Easton Drive Tree List. August 9, 2007—Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission Meeting. • TSPC reviewed the final version of Critical Minimum Street Width Policy and endorsed this final version to be incorporated into the overall Urban Forest Management Plan. August 20, 2007—Council Meeting • Council to receive Urban Forest Management plan, complete with revised Easton Street Tree List and criteria of roadway impacts, and decide on the status of tree at 1800 Easton. 5 ATTACHMENT C BURLINGAME PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Critical Minimum Street Width Policy for Manacling Street Tree Impacts in the Roadway INTRODUCTION Cities and counties typically have jurisdiction and responsibility over the roadway. These roadways are classified as: local street, collector street, arterial street, and highway. Freeways fall within the jurisdiction of the State of California (Caltrans). STATE STANDARDS Local Street — Limited width and limited vehicular volume. A local street has standard travel lane widths of 12 feet, resulting in a two-lane street width no greater than 24 feet when on-street parking is prohibited. Substandard lane widths of 10 feet and 11 feet may be used under special circumstances. A local street serves as direct access for homes and residents. The average daily traffic (ADT) volume of a local street is no more than 2,000 vehicles per day. Collector Street — A collector street has standard travel lanes no less than 12 feet wide per lane, with a total roadway width of 24 feet when on-street parking is prohibited. Similar to local streets, substandard lane widths of 10 feet and 11 feet may be used under special circumstances. The collector street serves to "collect" residential traffic from one or more local streets and channels them through the city in a more efficient manner. The ADT volume for a collector street is no more than 15,000 vehicles per day. Arterial Street and Highway — Serves as main thoroughfare to move large numbers of vehicles through the city. Traffic from local and collector streets are fed into the arterial streets and highways. The roadway width of an arterial street or highway usually exceeds 40 feet in width, and can accommodate traffic volumes above 15,000 vehicles per day. Lane configuration varies from two-lanes to four-lanes with and without on- street parking. Freeway — A freeway is a multi-lane roadway corridor that facilitates large-scale vehicle movement between regional areas and metropolitan centers. Within the boundaries of Burlingame, ADT volumes for freeways easily exceed 50,000 vehicles per day. This type of roadway is under the jurisdiction and responsibility of Caltrans. 1 BURLINGAME MINIMUM STREET WIDTH FOR SAFE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION Many of the streets in Burlingame were constructed in the early 1900s. Modern street width standards for local and collector streets had not yet been established; and, as a result, there are situations where the city's streets are typically narrower than those currently specified by state standards. The minimum roadway widths listed below are established to take into account the overall narrowness of local and collector streets in Burlingame. • Local street without parking—The minimum lane width for local streets without parking will be 10 feet wide per lane of through-traffic. Therefore, two-lane roadways in Burlingame will have a total minimum roadway width of 20 feet, as measured from curb face to curb face. (While statewide accepted standard roadway width is 12 feet.) • Local street with parking — If on-street parking is allowed on a local street, a parking lane width of 6 feet per lane will be used. This results in a total minimum desirable roadway width of 32 feet for a two-lane local street assuming parking on both sides. However, due to existing conditions of narrow road width and parking demand,the width could be reduced to no less than 30 feet. • Collector street without parking — The minimum lane width for collector streets without parking will be 11 feet wide per lane of through traffic. Therefore, two- lane roadways shall have a total minimum roadway width of 22 feet; and, four- lane roadways shall have a total minimum roadway width of 44 feet, as measured from curb face to curb face. • Collector street with parking—If on-street parking is allowed on a collector street, a parking lane width of 6 feet per lane will be used, resulting in a total minimum roadway width of 34 feet for a two-lane collector street; or, 56 feet for four-lane collector streets assuming parking on both sides. STREET TREES The City of Burlingame has made great efforts to promote "quality of life" issues to benefit its citizens. The planting and preservation of street trees have been an excellent example. Street trees are typically planted within the parking strips of residential and collector streets. In some cases, the trees have grown such that their trunks, roots or root systems now encroach and intrude into the roadway causing damage to sidewalks, curbs and gutters, as well as the roadway surfaces. This intrusion and encroachment also pose safety problems in the form of diminished sight-visibility at intersections. This policy provides minimum roadway widths,as well as a set of criteria and a process to manage impacts caused by tree roots, tree trunks or other physical features that present safety hazards to the vehicular traffic,pedestrian traffic,and general public. 2 MINIMUM STREET WIDTH RELATED TO TREE ROOT IMPACTS • There shall be no horizontal encroachment into either a local or collector roadway that reduced the travel lane width to less than 10 feet, or 20 feet for two- lane roads. • There shall be no vertical displacement greater than 3-inches into the minimum travel lane width as described above. • Any physical objects including tree roots and tree trunks that reduce sight visibility and safe-stopping distances (as specified in the Caltrans Roadway Design Manual) will be considered for removal, or for an alternative course of action. UTILITIES • If a tree has grown directly over a utility line (such as water line, sewer line, gas line, electric line or storm drain line), or its roots have intruded into a utility pipe system; and, is causing damage to the utility, the tree will be considered for removal, or for an alternative course of action. ALTERNATIVES TO TREE REMOVAL Before considering a tree removal, the following alternate actions will be explored. • Installation of warning signs — The Public Works Department will examine the use of warning signs as a possible first-line safety measure to notify drivers of potential obstructions which are in the overall roadway area, but have not yet encroached into the actual travel lane in excess of 3 inches. Signs will be evaluated for appropriateness, and to ensure that they are sanctioned signs that have state and federal departments of transportation approval. • Root barriers — The Parks and Recreation Department will examine the use of root barriers on tree roots that begin to encroach into the roadway area, but have not yet encroached into the actual travel lane. • Root grinding — The Parks and Recreation Department will consider root grinding as a measure to reduce uplifting of the roadway asphalt or concrete sidewalk areas. Root grinding would be considered as an alternate when it can be done without adversely affecting the health and stability of the tree. The Parks and Recreation Department will coordinate with the Public Works Department to carry out the grinding and asphalt/concrete repair as a part of normal operations. • Removal of on-street parking — The Public Works Department will consider the removal of on-street parking to accommodate tree growth and preserve public safety. The department will conduct field investigations to evaluate the feasibility of this alternative, present its findings to the Traffic, Safety and Parking 3 Commission (TSPC) and receive public input. If recommended by the TSPC and approved by Council, the Public Works Department will proceed with the parking removal. • In addition to the listed alternate actions, if a location meets the definition or classification of an historical site and is designated as such, staff will work with the Beautification Commission to secure grant funding to make a physical change in the street to preserve historical trees. PROACTIVE TREE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Public Works and Parks staff will proactively conduct annual street surveys and tree inspections to identify potential tree root issues before they become traffic and public safety problems. Staff will develop possible solutions to avoid tree root intrusion into the minimum roadway width as defined above. Tree roots and tree trunks that reduce roadway width below state standards will be noted and logged for additional evaluation. The Parks and Recreation Department will take the lead on annual tree inspections, while the Public Works Department will be responsible for the annual street surveys. PROCESS OUTLINE • Field inspections will be conducted by Parks and Public Works staff. This will include annual tree inspections and street surveys. • Locations that are identified by the field inspections to be potential problems will be forwarded to the city arborist for consultation of appropriate measures. • A recommendation will then be made to the Beautification Commission and the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on the most effective and desirable measures of action. The commissions will make the final approval on a course of action. • Decisions of the commissions may be appealed to the City Council. 4 POLICY EXAMPLES Example #1: A tree root has encroached into the 20-foot width of travel lanes of a two-lane roadway and has raised the roadway by more than 3 inches. Staff would consult the city arborist to determine if the root or roots can be ground down. Staff would then proceed with a course of action based on the arborist's recommendation. If the arborist believes that grinding/trimming the roots would de-stabilize the tree or adversely affect the health of the tree, staff would present these findings to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and the Beautification Commission. However, if the root intrusion is outside of the travel lane, staff will monitor the situation. If appropriate, root barriers may be installed, as advised by the city arborist. Example #2: A 6-foot fence, mature tree, or other large obstruction is situated near the corner of an intersection between two streets. If the obstruction is located such that its placement causes a sight-visibility problem or severely reduces the safe approach speeds for vehicles entering into the intersection, the obstruction would be considered for removal or modification to improve the sight-visibility at that location. Staff would present these findings to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission and the Beautification Commission. 5 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF BURLINGAME Attachment"H.5." PARKS DIVISION W 558-7330 ct OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST Q Easton Street Tree List shown here as recommended by TREES TO BE USED ON EASTON DRIVE Beautification Commission & staff for approval by City Council at the August 20, 2007 meeting. BOTANICAL NAME Height 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. EUCALYPTUS CITRIODORA up to 100 feet Lemon scented, evergreen tree, fast growing, slender, airy (to be used as the main replacement tree) canopy,whitish to pinkish tan bark, peeling, pendant, light green leaves. Little to moderate water, drought tolerant, tolerates lawn watering. ATTACHMENT E Agenda Item # Meeting Date: January 16, 2007 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT F �r 1 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 5, 2007 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council receive comments from the public and provide direction to staff regarding the eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive. BACKGROUND: Easton Drive is a two-lane collector street. The section of roadway between Vancouver Avenue and EI Camino Real is lined mainly with large, old-growth eucalyptus trees. The trunk and root system of a tree at 1800 Easton Drive has encroached significantly into the westbound lane of the roadway. Because of the root system intrusion into Easton Drive, a hump has formed which effectively reduces the usable roadway to one lane and creates the potential for head on collisions between east and west bound vehicles. The height of the hump increases the risk of vehicle undercarriage damage as well as creates a barrier which restricts drainage and causes storm water to pond. In addition, Public Works Department crews have not been able to perform roadway maintenance at this location as root grinding, asphalt patching and any roadway build up would damage the tree according to the City Arborist. As a result of this situation, Public Works staff asked the City Arborist in March 2004 to evaluate the condition of the eucalyptus tree. The Arborist indicated that the tree was in general good health despite its invasive root intrusion into the roadway infrastructure. In early 2005, the issue was presented to the Beautification Commission for consideration to remove the tree. While the Commission agreed that the tree should be removed, the City received a letter from a resident appealing the decision to City Council. On March 7, 2005, Council reviewed the matter and determined that a workable reforestation program should be developed and traffic concerns be reviewed. As a result, the Beautification Commission was directed to develop a reforestation program for Easton Drive and the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) was requested to examine engineering alternatives to a tree removal. In late 2005, the TSPC conducted two field evaluations, held several discussions regarding options and concluded that tree removal was the most cost-efficient and SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Easton Drive Eucalyptus Tree(2)Jan 2007.doc logical action to address the root encroachment into the roadway infrastructure. At the same time, the TSPC recognized that because of the sensitive nature of this issue, no formal determination should be established until an adopted reforestation program was in place. Over the next several months,the Beautification Commission held three public meetings and developed a reforestation program. At its December 4,2006 meeting, the Council approved the reforestation program and also voted to remove the eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive.(A detailed account of this chronology and related documents are attached.) DISCUSSION: Following are four options which have been considered including their advantages and disadvantages. It should be pointed out that staff did not consider options involving the placement of reflectors, signage, delineators and striping as these elements do not meet roadway design standards. OPTION 1—Preserve the tree by re-aligning the roadway:$180,000 Advantages: • Eliminates the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated liability Eliminates the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage • Reduces the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree • Eliminates storm water ponding • Allows for regular roadway maintenance such as paving • Preserves a full-growth mature tree Disadvantages: • Possible need to remove trees on the opposite side of the street to accommodate roadway re-alignment • Most expensive option and diverts CIP funding from other priority safety related projects such as storm water improvements and sidewalk repair. OPTION 2—Replace the tree and repair the roadway:$20,000 Advantages: • Eliminates the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated liability • Eliminates the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage Eliminates the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree • Eliminates storm water ponding • Allows for regular roadway maintenance • Does not divert CIP funding from other safety related projects Disadvantages: • Loss of a full-growth mature tree OPTION 3—Preserve the tree by making Easton Drive and surrounding streets one-way:$60,000 Advantages: • Eliminates the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated liability • Eliminates the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage • Reduces the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree s:VA Public Works Directory\Staff ReportstEaston Drive Eucalyptus Tree(2)Jan 2007.doc - • Preserves a full-growth mature tree Disadvantages: • Creates potentially significant traffic circulation impacts in the neighborhood including access to the library • Does not eliminate storm water ponding • Is three times more costly than Option 2, diverting funding from other safety related projects OPTION 4—Status quo/no change Advantages: Does not immediately require funding Preserves a full-growth mature tree Disadvantages: • Does not eliminate the potential for head-on vehicle collisions and associated liability • Does not eliminate the potential for vehicle undercarriage damage Does not reduce the potential of a vehicle collision with the tree • Does not eliminate storm water ponding • Does not allow for regular roadway maintenance such as paving • Could result in future claims to the City for vehicular damage or injuries EXHIBITS: Frequently Asked Questions Easton Tree Chronological Account with references to supporting documents Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum Tree-Replacement Tree c: SAA Public Works Directory\StaB ReportstEaslon Drive Eucalyptus Tree(2)Jan 2007.doc ATTACHMENT F Agenda Item # Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: 7 2007 ,r 1 , SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: April 19, 2007 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: EUCALYPTUS TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council review the attached report on the eucalyptus tree root testing as well as the Easton Drive realignment and concur with staff's previous recommendation to replace the tree for safety reasons. BACKGROUND: After a lengthy public process regarding the eucalyptus tree root growth into the roadway of Easton Drive and its potential safety hazards, Council approved the replacement of the tree with a new Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum tree on December 4, 2006. Council held a public hearing on January 16, 2007 to seek additional public input and review options regarding the tree and roadway realignment. After extensive public feedback Council directed staff to return in May with information on the health condition of the tree and to determine whether the tree root could be cut or shaved to remove the hump. Further, Council asked that staff explore a less expensive alternative for realigning Easton Drive than the one presented at $180,000. DISCUSSION: Based on the Council direction, the tree root was tested and the Easton Drive realignment was reevaluated as follows: Tree Root Testing: Staff retained the team of Kielty Arborist Services, Hortscience and Advance Tree Care to perform the tree testing and evaluation. The root system was exposed by carefully excavating the roadway around the hump. The findings per the arborist report are: ■ The canopy is thick and healthy ■ The lower trunk appears to be normal with sound wood ■ The potential for tree failure from the trunk or root collar is low ■ Any new curb and gutter should be located at least six feet from the trunk and beyond the root mass In addition Kevin Kielty of Kielty Arborist Services verbally indicated that the root will continue to grow at the rate of 1 /8 to 1/4 of an inch per year. He will be present at the meeting to discuss the report and answer questions. S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Easton Drive Eucalyptus Tree Update May 2007.doc Easton Drive Realignment: Based on the public input and the Council feedback as well as the testing results, staff performed a topographic survey of Easton Drive at the Cabrillo Avenue intersection and developed a realignment of the street (see attached sketch). The realignment meets the following criteria: • The scope of work is limited to an Easton Drive realignment west of Cabrillo Avenue only. ■ The south side of the realigned street is set such that no utility poles or trees are impacted. ■ An asphalt curb bulb-out is included on the north side of the street such that no part of the hump is within the roadway. The bulb-out is bonded to the road surface and does not require any root shaving. • The realigned road width is twenty feet and allows two-way traffic. • A drainage piping system is installed to alleviate the ponding problem on the north side of Easton Drive. The cost of the realignment is approximately $80,000. Although this is a less expensive option than the one previously studied, staff continues to be concerned that it does not meet roadway standards for safety. The option creates a jog in Easton Drive at the Cabrillo Avenue intersection making turning movements on both streets as well as east-west movements on Easton Drive potential safety hazards. Alternatively, if the Council desires to wait until a comprehensive re-forestation program for Easton Drive is developed,signage and delineators could be installed to warn the public of the hump.Additionally, an asphalt curb could be bonded onto the existing pavement adjacent to the tree(see bulb and signage attachments). PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff published a public notice in the local news media, sent notices to the public on the list serve and placed signage at the Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue intersection regarding this meeting. BUDGET IMPACT:The budget will be based on Council direction. EXHIBITS: Arborist report, tree root testing photos, Easton Drive realignment sketch,Easton Drive bulb and signage sketch,signage details C: Randy Schwartz, Parks and Recreation Director; Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor Sye u uza, P.E. Assist Director of Pubic Works SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Easton Drive Eucalyptus Tree Update May 2007.doc ATTACHMENT G Tree Pruning Information Page 1 of 2 PARKS RECREATM d WATERMNT LIM Trees/ Urban Forestry, 1326 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 644-6566, Fax: (510) 883-6524, TDD: (510) 981-6903, Office Hours: Mon-Fri 6:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., Email: trees@ci.berkeley.ca.us MARINA PARKS TREES / URBAN FORESTRY RECREATION CAMPS YOUNG ADULT PROJECT 6 • General Info Tree Removal Program > Public Notices > Berkeley Marina It is the policy of the City to protect all public trees from needless Cita Parks removal and every effort is made to preserve and protect public trees until such time removal is warranted and prudent. > Recreation Marina Experience There are many reasons why trees need to be removed in an urban area and City staff evaluates each tree considered for removal on a > Camps case-by-case basis. The criteria listed below are used by urban I Young Adult Project forestry staff when evaluating trees for possible removal. The criteria are not listed in order of importance and individually may not justify > Urban Forestry removal. i i } Volunteering Tree Removal Criteria i The following criteria are used in evaluating a public tree for possible removal: F I • Tree is dead or dying. i • The~tree-is deemed-hazardous, when the hazardous condition g cannot-be--corrected-through--pruning-or-other-reasonable arboricultural.practices.- When ractices.When trees are not deemed dead, dying or hazardous, the following factors will be considered: ; C • Life expectancy of the tree. • Desirability of the tree species. • Amount of space allowable for tree growth. • Overall quality and structural integrity of the tree. i • Persistent and uncontrollable insect, disease or fruiting problems. • Frequency and extensiveness of the tree's maintenance requirements. http://www.cityofberkeley.info/trees/treeremoval.html 6/13/2007 Tree Pruning Information Page 2 of 2 • Feasibility and timeliness in which a replacement tree will be planted. • Proximity and quality of trees near to the one-considered for removal- • Wishes and desires of.the property owner/resident • Quality and extent of past pruning and other tree maintenance practices the tree has undergone. • Extent-and.frequency of damage.the tree-is,-causing to I surrounding infrastructure-such as.sidewalks, streets; sewers; etc., • Location-of the-tree with regard to streetlights; traffic control- deuices,_.-.intersection.sight-lines-and the-requirements--of the- tree-related-to availableigrowing'space. In all instances where tree removal is considered, City staff will notify the nearest resident concerning the proposed removal, the reason for the removal, and a number to call to receive further information 3 concerning the tree. Unless the tree is deemed a hazard, there will be I a minimum of two weeks between the time it is marked for removal g and the actual removal date. Shortly after the tree is removed the stump will be ground out. The City tries to replant where trees have been removed, but in most instances the replacement tree will not be planted in the same spot due to the presence of underground utilities and other concerns. I e Any person having questions concerning the removal of a street tree may call the Parks Division, Urban Forestry Office at (510) 981-6660 or send an e-mail to trees@ci.berkeley ca us l d I Text Only Sidebar/City of Berkeley Home/Departments/Parks and Waterfront Home I Marina/Parks!Trees-Urban Forestry/Recreation I Camps/YAP Parks Recreation&Waterfront Trees/Urban Forestry ! 1326 Allston Way I Berkeley,CA 94704 Tel:(510)644-6566 TDD: (510)981-6903 Fax:(510)883-6524 Email:trees ci.berkeley.ca us f i I http://www.cityofberkeley.infoitrees/treeremoval.htrffl 6/13/2007 I City of Davis-Urban Forestry Program-City of Davis Page 1 of 2 CITY OF DAVIS,CA. t RESIDENTS ' VISITORS BUSINESSES CITY SERVICES SITE MAP SEARCH: Urban Forestry PCS Home Downloads Parks&Facilities Recreation Community Services Social Services Online Registration Tree Removal and Modification Requests Street Tree Replacement Policy Urban Forestry Home How to Care for Your Tree Guidelines for Preserving Existing Trees Tree Removal or Modification Request Community Forest Management Plan Master Tree List Landmark Tree List City Code Chapter 37- Tree Planting. Preservation and Protection Tree Davis This replacement policy is to govern the replacement of any undesirable tree. An undesirable tree is any tree having characteristics which cause or may cause extreme problems in growth, maintenance, and use as a street tree. Examples: Trees with poor heath, disease, exceedingly slow growth rate, large scale breakage and decay. Responsibility for determining if a tree is undesirable rests with the Tree Commission with the final approval for replacement by the City Council. 1. The Urban Forest Manager or designee shall recommend to the Tree Commission the removal and replacement of an undesirable tree if, in their professional judgment, they determine it is not performing adequately or based on tree health as a street tree. 2. A property owner may make a request for tree replacement by contacting the Urban Forest Manager or designee who will review the request and submit it to the Tree Commission with a recommendation. A processing fee will be collected when the request for removal is submitted, however if after review by the Tree Commission, the tree is determined to be dead the processing fee will be fully refunded. Replacements are generally planted in January through March. 3. If approved by the Commission, trees for replacement will be purchased and planted by the City in accordance with current tree planting policies and the Tree Planting, Preservation and Protection Ordinance (City of Davis Municipal Code Chapter 37). 4. Removal work will be governed by the availability of City tree crews. Timing of removal must consider the impact of the area. Block Renovation reptacements in a small area may be scheduled over a period of several years. 5. The Urban Forest Manager or designee will determine the number of replacement trees to be planted. The number removed and the number planted may not necessarily be the same. 6. The property owner may request placement from those trees on the approved Master Street Tree List. However, final approval rests with the Urban Forest Manager or designee and the Tree Commission, as well as tree availabitity. 7. The City will endeavor to avoid excessive damage to lawns, ground cover, and shrubs in the working area during removal and replanting. Modification and Removal Forms http://www.cityofdavis.orv-/ncs/trees/remove.cfin 6/13/2007 City of Davis-Urban Forestry Program-City of Davis Page 2 of 2 Please Note:There is a$40.00 processing fee for all tree removal or modification requests. If the Tree Commission determines the tree is dead, unhealthy,or in a hazardous condition,the processing fee may be refunded. Please use one of the following forms to submit your request: • If you want to modify a tree,complete this form: Tree Modification Request PDF • If the tree you want removed is located on your property,please use this form: Residential Tree Removal Request roF • If the tree you want removed is located on Public Property,such as a park or greenbelt, please use this form: Public Space Tree Removal Request poF I Text Only j Home Disclaimer !! Privacy [ Copyright 2007 Site Tips Feedback City of Davis,California 23 Russell Blvd. I Davis,Ca.95616 i http://www.cityofdavis.org/pcs/trees/remove.cfin 6/13/2007 Chapter 37.01.01 Public nuisance--Certain conditions designated. -Davis Municipal Cod... Page 1 of 1 CITYOFDAVIS,CA. RESIDENTS VISITORS BUSINESSES CITYSERVICES SITEMAP ! SEARCH: ' Municipal Code Davis Maps Job Opportunities City Council&Commissions Departments Contact Us Municipal Code Municipal Code Main Index Search Municipal Code PDF This Article PDF CHAPTER 37 TREE PLANTING PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION* 37.01.120 Public nuisance -Certain conditions designated. The following are declared public nuisances. (a)Any-tree or other plant or partthereofgrowing upon private property but overhanging the street or-interfering with the use of any street,which in the opinion of the park and grounds superintendent endangers the life; health,safety or property of-the public. lI (b)The continued existence of any tree or other plant on private property within the city that is infested or infected with i insects, mites, fungus,bacteria, virus or growths which constitute a threat to or may be injurious to trees or other plants in the surrounding area. (c)Any tree or other than thirty-six inches in heightmeasured from the:curb gutter grade and planted in a i triangular area measured twenty-five feet along the inside face ofthe sidewalk in either direction from the sidewalk, intersection. i I (d)Any-plant which does interfere with,impair or destroy any street improvement,sidewalk, curb; gutter,sewer,.street j trees-or any public improvement. i II (e)Vines or climbing-piants.growing,into or over any streettree oranypublic hydrant; pole orelectrotier: (Code 1964, 5 i 7-9.13.) I Text Only ` Home ? Disclaimer j Privacy Copyright 2007 Site Tips Feedback City of Davis,California 23 Russett Blvd. Davis, Ca. 95616 http://www.cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/detail.cfm?p=37&q=1548 6/13/2007 Chapter 37.01.01 Same—Abatement; liability of city, etc. -Davis Municipal Code-City o... Page 1 of 1 CITY OF DAVIS,CA RESIDENTS YlsToRs i BUSINEssiis ? CITY SERVICES i SITE MAP i SEARCH: �? Municipal Code Davis Maps Job Opportunities Clty Council&Commissions Departments Contact Us Municipal Municipal Code Main Index Search Municipal Code PDF This Article pOF 6 CHAPTER 37 TREE PLANTING PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION* 37.01.130 Same--Abatement; liability of city, etc. The park and grounds superintendent shall in writing notify the owner of the property on which a public nuisance exists describing the nuisance and stating the work necessary to remove the same. If the owner of such property does not correct or remove such nuisance within ten days after receipt of such written notice, or within ten days after notice of j the decision of the street tree commission, the park and grounds superintendent shall cause the nuisance to be corrected or removed and the cost shall be assessed to such owner. i Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to impose any liability upon the city,its officers of employees, nor to relieve the owner of any private property from the duty to keep any tree or other plant upon his property or under his control in i such a condition as to prevent such tree or other plant from constituting a public nuisance. (Code 1964,5 7-9.14; Ord. No. 1369, 54(part).) Text Only '. Home Disclaimer ':'. Privacy Copyright 2007 Site Tlps Feedback City of Davis,California 23 Russell Slue. Davis,Ca.95616 http://www.cityofdavis.org/cmo/citycode/detail.cfhl?p=37&q=1549 6/13/2007 Section 8,32.110 Criteria for granting tree removal permits. Page 1 of 1 Chapter 8.32 STREET TREES Section 8.32.110 Criteria for granting tree removal permits. (A) The Director may cause street trees or other plant material planted in a parkway or easement to be removed by the City if they are deemed by the Director to be unhealthy, hazardous, undesirable or causing excessive damage to existing public improvements, or street trees. (B) Any property owner desiring to remove a tree from the parkway or easement abutting his property shall make application to the Department. The Director shall determine whether or not such tree is required to be retained in order to preserve the intent and purpose of the Street Tree Plan, in making his determination the Director shall consider the inconvenience or hardship which retention of the tree would cause the property owner, and consider also the condition, age, desirability of tree species and location. If the Director finds that the tree may be removed without violating the intent and spirit of the Street Tree Plan, he may authorize the property owner to remove such tree at the property owner's own expense and liability providing that any trees removed shall be replaced by street trees as approved by the Director.Any replacement shall be made based upon evaluation by the Director of the condition of the site to determine whether replacement is warranted. If a permit is granted for removal of a street tree all removal work shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the date of issuance of the permit and shall be under the general supervision of, and in accordance with rules { established by the Director.All tree stumps shall be removed to a depth specified by the Director. All removal permits shall be null and void after the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of issuance, unless extended by the Director or his designee. (C) In determining whether a tree may be removed and replaced the Director shall consider, among other things,the following: i 1. Whether the tree or trees pose a potential for safety problems despite a sound maintenance program; 2. Whether the roots from adjacent parkway trees are interfering with sewer lines servicing the abutting property to the extent that the property owner requires frequent repair of said sewer lines; 3. Whether the tree is dead,dying or incurably diseased; 4. Whether the tree is diseased and weakened by age,storm, fire or other injuries so as to pose a danger to persons, property, improvements or other trees; i 5. Whether the tree(s)is of an undesirable species; 6. Whether the tree poses a hardship to the adjacent property owner such as, but not limited to, the cracking or raising of a garage floor or, in the case of a handicapped person, special circumstances exist which cause the location of the tree to become a hindrance for vehicle, and handicapped,access; and 7. Whether removal is necessary for construction of a street widening or other public improvement project, or necessary street or public improvement repair work. (Prior code§ 8-8-11) 1 s i t I i i 3 { http://www.ci.tulare.ca.us/municipalcodes/Title-8/32/1 lO.html 6/13/2007 i i I SCOPE 6 This procedure is to apply to all tree removal in public roads in the City of Whitehorse. AUTHORITY LEVELS 9 Individual Tree Removals Technical staff should as far as possible deal with all tree related problems, but limiting their involvement to one of fact and professional technical opinion, recognising that making decisions requiring political or discretionary judgement is a role for management. 9.1 Non-Significant trees ParksWide Team Members and approved ParksWide Sub-Contractors, may,without further authorisation, remove trees that are Nonsignificant and are assessed as DEAD, NEARLY DEAD, STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND or HAZARDOUS. t Where a tree is assessed as being NONSIGNIFICANT and is INAPPROPRIATELY LOCATED removal may be authorised by the ParksWide Arborist or higher authority. r Inappropriate locations are to be assessed using the definition of inappropriate. 9.2 Significant trees The ParksWide Arborist or higher authority may authorise the removal of a tree ! identified as Significant in order to avoid unreasonable risk or damage where a tree is assessed as being HAZARDOUS. i The General Manager Human Services or higher authority may authorise the removal of a tree identified as Significant in order to avoid unreasonable risk or damage where a tree is assessed as being INAPPROPRIATELY LOCATED. i Where a tree is identified as DEAD or an IMMEDIATE HAZARD removal may be authorised by the ParksWide Arborist and undertaken immediately. t 10 Multiple Trees(in A Single Street)Or Whole Street Tree Removals These tree removals will be part of the Council capital works tree replacement program undertaken by Urban Design. t 10.1 Non-Significant trees The Manager Urban Design or higher authority may authorise the removal of trees identified as Nonsignificant. Ward Councillors will be notified prior to the removal of multiple trees or whole streets. 10.2 Significant trees The General Manager City Development or higher authority may authorise the removal of trees identified as Significant. Ward Councillors will be notified prior to the removal of multiple trees of whole streets. PROCEDURE 11 Individual Tree Removals Trees that are DEAD, NEARLY DEAD, STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND or HAZARDOUS can be removed immediately after they have been photographed. Where the removal of a healthy tree has been requested by a resident or group of resident or by a Council Officer(or a designated representative)the following procedure is to be followed* 11.1 Report The ParksWide Arborist(or a designated representative)is to inspect all trees requested for removal. If it is proposed to remove the tree the arborist is to prepare a standard report including photographs. The definitions and authority levels described above need to be considered when finalising the decision. 11.2 Approvals Approvals for removal of a NON-SIGNIFICANT or SIGNIFICANT SINGLE TREE in Council streets shall be authorised by the ParksWide Arborlst. Residents in the immediate area will be notified by letter and the tree marked with a dot of coloured t paint. Trees will be removed 7 days or more after notification if no objections are received and the planting process initiated. Where removal is not justifiable because a tree does not meet any of the appropriate criteria, and a responsible committee or resident has requested the tree removal, a standard format letter of refusal is to be sent by the ParksWide l Arborist. I f 11.3 Appeal a Where a resident or a group of residents appeals a decision made by the i ParksWide Arborist and the appeal is made in writing the matter will be refered to the Manager ParksWide. The Manager ParksWide will either determine the appeal or refer the matter to the General Manager Human Services for review. 1 When the matter is referred to the General Manager Human Services for review, . ParksWide must provide a brief'objective over-view' report and recommendation for action. When the appeal has been determined by the General Manager f Human Services the Manager ParksWide will write to the residents to advise them of the outcome. ; a 11.4 Costs of Tree Removal Where a healthy tree that does not comply with any of the Tree Removal Policy guidelines is removed for a vehicle crossing the property owner shall incur the following costs: • tree's removal cost: • replacement cost And • maintenance cost of the replacement tree for a period of two(2)years. 11.5 RequestlResponse Times Requests shall be actioned within the following time frames; • Imminent danger-immediate action • Identified as hazardous -2 days • Require removal,but not hazardous-as soon as practical • Stump removal-within 4 weeks of tree removal. • Tree replacements-the following planting season. 11,6 Records t All reports are to be maintained for a period of not less than(12)twelve months. 12 Multiple Tree Removals(10%Or More Of Trees Existing In A Street) Where the trees for removal have been requested by a resident or group of resident or by a Council Officer the following procedure is to be followed: 12.1 Report The Urban Design Unit is to prepare a report including photographs of the trees considered for removal. The unit will then prepare a planting proposal in accordance with clause 4.3 of the"Steet Tree Planting Procedure". The definitions and authority levels described above need to be considered when finalising the decision. 12.2 Approvals All removals of MULTIPLE NON-SIGNIFICANT TREES and MULTIPLE SIGNIFICANT TREES in Council streets shall be authorised by the General Manager City Development. Residents in the street will be notified by letter and the trees marked with a dot of coloured paint Trees will be removed 14 days or more after notification if no objections are received and the planting process initiated. 12.3 Costs of Tree Removal To be borne by Council. j v 12.4 Resident Notification I All residents are to be notified of the proposed tree removals and given the I opportunity to retain their existing tree if they desire unless the tree is hazardous. 12.5 Records All reports are to be maintained for a period of not less than (12)twelve months. 12.6 Staging i • Where less than ten(10)non hazardous trees in a street are proposed to be removed,the trees can all be removed at the one time subject to individual resident agreement; • Where ten'(10)or more trees in a street are proposed to be removed,the tree removals are to be staged over a number of years; The timeframes guide for staged tree removals are as follows: E =49trees the street Number o;er;ee over which to stage temoval program 1 year i 2 years 50 to 99 trees 3 years 100 or more trees 4 years or more i i I Trees will be removed in the following order during a staged tree removal program: When trees are to be Description of tree being removed removed. First Non-significant trees(worst condition first. Second Significant trees{worst condition first RESPONSIBILITY 13 General Manager City Development and General Manager Human Services RELATED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 14 Street Trees Policy Tree Planting Procedure Streetscape Strategy(2001) F i qq� f z I f 1 je 1 Tree Services: Redwood City Public Works Services Department Page 1 of 3 Home»Public Works»Trees»Tree Services Best Management Tree Services Practices FAQs - List of"Work Verified"Tree Care Companies - Master Tree List (PCI,103KB) Links - Redwood City's Pruning Standards Redwood City's Tree Pest Management Philosophy Tree Management Plan - Redwood City's Tree Removal Criteria - Tree Planting Programs and Maintenance Policies Tree Preservation - Tree Preservation and Sidewalk Repair Program Ordinances& - Controlling Aphids(Pdr,103KB) Permit Application - Sudden Oak Death (Pdf,,712KB) Objective i Preserve and protect the urban forest, both public and private, for the benefit of all. , Overview Trees significantly enhance the overaf( beauty of the environment and raise the r quality of life for all who live and work in the city. Two tree protection ordinances were established (for over thirty years), I to protect and preserve this natural asset. Proper pruning standards are also encouraged to maximize the health and beauty of the tree and minimize potential- problems. otentialproblems. A tree takes many years to grow and only minutes to cut down. Removal is the last resort option, when, no other reasonable alternative can correct a problem. The Public Works Department strives to plant more trees 4 then are removed each year. Ordinances The "Street Tree Ordinance" protects all city-owned trees-those se trees I growing within the public right-of-way. Trees growing in the public right-of-way (usually the area between the sidewalk and curb, and sometimes areas between the sidewalk and the home) cannot be planted, pruned, or removed without first securing a permit from the city. There is no fee for this permit. http://Www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/publicworks/trees/index.html 6/13/2007 Tree Services: Redwood City Public Works Services Department Page 2 of 3 g , i The second ordinance, Redwood City's "Tree Preservation Ordinance" protects trees on private property. Although they belong to the j property owners, trees have an impact on the quality of life of our I entire community. These trees grow in the City's urban forest and contribute as much, if not more, to the quality of life of a neighborhood than city owned street trees and park trees. This ordinance governs trees of any species that have grown to a size greater than 12 inches in diameter(38 inches in circumference)-measured at the largest point between six inches and 36 inches above ground. For trees of this size, a permit is required prior to pruning or removal. There is no fee for this permit. The City utilizes professional standards and criteria for making decisions on permit applications for both tree removal and pruning. See Redwood City's Tree Removal Criteria or Redwood City's Pruning Standards for more information. + Pruning Tree pruning permits are approved when the proposed work meets the accepted standards of workmanship. City programs follow two industry standards for pruning: 1. American National Standards Institute A-300 Pruning Standards 2. International Society of Arboriculture- Best Management Practices for Tree Pruning Both of these industry standards are supported by scientific research as the best methods to maintain a tree for safety and health. Permit conditions are written for pruning to comply with the accepted industry standards. Removal There are several considerations for tree removal approvals. The tree must be: 1. Dead 2. Dying 3. Structurally Unsound 4. Obstructing a permitted improvement such that it will be killed or become structurally unsound when the improvement is implemented. The removal criteria are confirmed by a site inspection. Tree removal requests associated with site improvements are reviewed and approved with the appropriate planning, building, or construction permit. The replanting of a minimum of one new tree for each tree removed is a normal condition of a tree removal permit. SCARCE CONTACrUS: hq://www.ci.redwood-city.ca.us/publieworks/trees/index.html 6/13/2007 City Services - Street Tree Removal-------- page 1 of 2 ui t ) tax f t. " .i �x� _.� `•, flu'..:�,; 0 Home®City services ® About Hayward CITY SERVICES - I ® City Government Street Tree Removal e City Services ® Community Photo Gallery <<BACK ONE PAGE m Departments Street Trees are removed at no cost to the property owner, provided the ® Employment removal meets certain criteria. Other removals are at the property ® Local Links owner's expense. Removal of a structurally sound tree must be i a Maps&GTS requested by the property owner only, not a renter or neighbor. { is Municipal Code - Fees Request for removal is evaluated based upon: ® Online Services e Webcasts a hazardous conditions such as internal rot or splits in significant limbs; ® Zoning Ordinance n presence of disease; a severe lean with uneven weight distribution; ■ uprooting condition Approved reasons for removing a tree: III for a major sewer line repair that requires tree removal to complete the repair; i ® multiple.conditions that cannot be corrected through trimming or root pruning; I ® if a tree is an imminent hazard,.City crews will remove the tree as soon as possible. Reasons for not automatically removing a tree: ■ if sidewalk is not being repaired, and tree can be effectively root pruned to minimize future damage; s tree roots in a sewer line rarely cause a break in a sewer line. Sewer lines usually fail due to age, improper installation or ground movement; ® damaged sidewalk, curb, or gutter is not an automatic justification for removal unless they are being replaced; then the tree may either be removed or retained,whatever is the most prudent approach; 1 ® possible alternative to tree removal is to curve the sidewalk around a tree. If a property owner wishes to remove a tree,the removal is: ® at the property owner's expense ® can only be done with City issued permit(no fee permit) a property owner responsible for all costs, including stump removal City removals are scheduled by Tree District.The average backlog is six months. 1 i Service Contacts: Landscape Division or 510-583-8906 <<BACK ONE PAGE http://www.hayward-ca.gov/webware/Default.aspx?Message=604&t=-1 6/13/2007 • - � CITY O of ,rl 'i t BURLINGAME ti�o�1t -1I 'QPORATED UR AN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Purpose Background Council Direction J Urban Forest Management Plan Easton Drive Street Tree List ■ Roadway/Tree Impact Policy Alternatives for Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive Purpose Present Council with a comprehensive Urban Forest Management Plan Develop procedures ensuring public safety and tree preservation Establish criteria for tree removal Establish species list for tree replacement Establish formal policy for dealing with roadway/tree conflicts . rou nt] -1 March 18 , 2004 — Letter requesting removal of the City owned Eucalyptus tree fronting 1800 Easton Drive because of traffic hazard , and impact to the roadway infrastructure October 10, 2004 — Mayne Tree Arborist Report January 3, 2005 — Appeal to the Beautification Commission for hearing at the February 3 , 2005 meeting January 13, 2005 — Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission Meeting February 3, 2005 — Beautification Commission Meeting February 7, 2005 — Beautification Commission upheld appeal and approved the removal of the Eucalyptus tree February 11th and February 14th , 2005 — Email and letter from Susan Lahey , 1719 Easton Drive, appealing the Commission 's decision approving the removal Backgra" nd _j February 15, 2005 — Daily Journal Article: "Trees Death Sentence Appealed" February 16, 2005 — Letter to Mayor Galligan from the Library Board of Trustees supporting removal March 7, 2005 — Council Meeting March 10, 2005 — Traffic Safety & Parking Commission Meeting J April, 2005 — TSPC sub-committee field meeting. April 15, 2005 — Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission Meeting May 12, 2005 — Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission Meeting J November, 2005 — TSPC sub-committee decided not to expend anymore staff resources on traffic counts or realignment design analysis until the Beautification Commission makes determination on reforestation plan Rvncltground April 6, 2006 — Beautification Commission Meeting October 5, 2006 - Beautification Commission Meeting November 2, 2006 — Beautification Commission Meeting December 4, 2006 — Council Meeting ■ January 16, 2007 — Council Meeting, Public Hearing January 27, 2007 — Council Goal Setting Session April 23, 2007 — Independent Arborists Report on Health of Tree May 7, 2007 — Council Meeting June 7, 2007 — Beautification Commission Meeting June 13, 2007 — Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission Meeting June 18, 2007 — Joint City Council/Beautification Commission Meeting June 18, 2007 — City Council Meeting June 28, 2007 — Beautification Commission Public Hearing August 2, 2007 — Beautification Commission Meeting August 9, 2007 — Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission Meeting. August 20, 2007 — Council Meeting ouncil Direction Staff to compile a complete Urban Forest Management plan which includes : Easton street tree list (Beautification Commission); and Criteria for roadway/tree impacts (Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission) Urb-, %,�n Forest, 1an n The Goal of the Plan is to manage the community's forest 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. Easton Drive Street I1 ree List TAZMANIAN BLUE GUM (primary existing tree on Easton ) EUCALYPTUS CITRIODORA (to be used as the replacement tree) T_ m. �,••��^ .-�imrc�'.-�,y.� f.gid s n '__-� A r r r r-�I, r i-m d J .J 1.0 ..0 J Local Street Standard travel lane width of 12 feet per lane or 24 feet for two lane road Lane width of 10 feet and 11 feet may be used under special limited circumstances Serves as direct access for homes The average daily traffic (ADT) volume of a local street is no more than 2,000 vehicles per day Collector Street Standard travel lane width of 12 feet wide per lane or 24 feet for two lane road Lane width of 10 feet and 11 feet may be used under special limited circumstance Serves to collect traffic from one or more local streets The ADT volume for a collector street is no more than 15,000 vehicles per day Arterial Street and Highway Serves as main thoroughfare to move large volume of vehicles through the city. Traffic from local and collector streets is fed into the arterial streets and highways. Lane configuration varies from two-lanes to four-lanes with and without on-street parking Can accommodate ADT volumes above 15,000 vehicles per day Freeway Multi-lane roadway corridor that facilitates large-scale vehicle movement between regional areas and metropolitan centers. ADT volumes easily exceeds 50,000 per day (Caltrans jurisdiction) Standards fnr Traffic Circulation Local street without on-street parking -, The minimum lane width will be 10 feet wide per lane of through-traffic Two-lane roadways will have a total minimum width of 20 feet Local street with on-street parking A parking lane width of 6 feet per lane will be used Total minimum roadway width will be 32 feet for a two-lane local street. (However, due to existing conditions of narrow road width and parking demand, the width could be reduced to no less than 30 feet.) Collector street without on-street parking The minimum lane width will be 11 feet wide per lane of through traffic Two-lane roadways shall have a total minimum width of 22 feet Collector street with on-street parking A parking lane width of 6 feet per lane will be used Total minimum roadway width will be 34 feet for a two-lane collector street assuming parking on both sides Local & Collector Streets `j`I J rI] Tree Irn .jacts � There shall be no horizontal encroachment into either a local or collector street that reduces the travel lane width to less than 10 feet, or 20 feet for 2 lane road There shall be no vertical displacement greater than 3-inches into the minimum travel lane width Any physical objects including tree roots and tree trunks that reduces sight visibility and safe-stopping distances (per Caltrans Design Manual) will be considered for removal , or for an alternative course of action Vlu � . I J J.�. �nirnu j V�JI � � e i �J 34nch knximurnV1---%..rt1ca1 Deflection? 10-ft Minimum Lane Width : Fire trucks Garbage trucks Ej No city uses a lane width of less than 10-feet (statewide survey) 3-inch Max Vertical Deflections: 5„ Traffic calming humps are 3" to 4" in height with long transition ramps 4 1 _ rt . 6 - Wheel stops are 4" to 4-1 /2" in 91 — height with sharp and abrupt transitions w We I survey Majority of cities do not have a written policy for roadway tree impacts Tree preservationist cities have written policies for tree removal as follows: Berkeley - If deemed hazardous and cannot be corrected by pruning - Location of tree with regards to streetlights, traffic signals and sight-distance - Damage to infrastructure Davis - A tree or plant that interferes with the use of street and endangers the life, health, safety or public property - A tree within 35 feet from an intersection Tulare - If deemed hazardous - Causes damage to existing infrastructure - For street widening or necessary public improvement or repair work Redwood City - Obstructing a permitted improvement H aywa rd - If deemed hazardous and cannot be corrected through trimming or root pruning t ernij- ri \/ Sto Tree Ove Installation of warninq signs Warning signs will be examined as a possible first-line safety measure j Signs will be evaluated for appropriateness, and to ensure that they are sanctioned signs that have state and federal departments of transportation approval Root barriers Use of root barriers will be examined on tree roots that begin to encroach into the roadway area, but have not yet encroached into the actual travel lane Root grinding Root grinding would be considered as a measure to reduce uplifting of the roadway asphalt or concrete sidewalk areas without adversely affecting the health and stability of the tree The Parks and Recreation Department will coordinate with the Public Works Department to carry out the grinding and asphalt/concrete repair as a part of normal operations. Tree Rerrrov�rl r�,�ernats,��s Removal of on-street parkina, Removal of on-street parking will be considered to accommodate tree growth and preserve public safety Field investigations will be conducted to evaluate the feasibility of this alternative, and findings will be presented to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) for public input If recommended by the TSPC and approved by Council, the Public Works Department will proceed with the parking removal Historical site designation If a location meets the definition or classification of an historical site and is designated as such, staff will work with the Beautification Commission to secure grant funding or private financing to make a physical change in the street to preserve historical trees 46 Proactive Tree Co dict #0 #W -0 -0 I\)] in jgeifjen - � Pe� gram Public Works and Parks staff will proactively identify potential tree root issues before they become traffic and public safety problems Staff will develop possible solutions to avoid tree root intrusion into the minimum roadway width . Tree roots and tree trunks that reduce roadway width below state standards will be noted for additional evaluation .e. 1 Process Outll* ne for Treek on RoJW61 t1th Field inspections will be conducted by Parks and Public Works staff Locations that are identified by the field inspections to be potential problems will be forwarded to the city arborist for consultation of appropriate measures A recommendation will then be made to the Beautification Commission and the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on the most effective and desirable measures of action. The commissions will make the final approval on a course of action Decisions of the commissions may be appealed to the City Council. Euteilyptus 7729 J JAO Easton D -r'ijja } +r I 3' , r r Alternntives For Epus;nlyptus Tree Assume the liability risk and let the tree remain as it is Let the tree remain but minimize liability by making street related improvements such as: Realign Easton Drive to state standards Realign Easton Drive on the west side of Cabrillo Avenue Install curb around root and signage Install signage only Respond to the liability issues by implementing a reforestation plan by replacing the tree NOI o idia N :ove a 3 =1 SNOIIS3no crVy C BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 8� �Oq9 0oa MTG. DATE 8/20/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: August 15, 2007 APPROVE FROM: Anthony Hardy BY Contact No.: 650-558-7202 SUBJECT: Citizen Survey Results RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and review the results from the Burlingame Citizen Satisfaction Survey. BACKGROUND: Purpose In April 2007, the Council approved the recommendation of the City Manager to conduct a citizen satisfaction survey through the National Research Center. The purpose of conducting the survey was to gauge the public opinion on several issues, such as the quality of life in Burlingame and the quality of the services that the City provides, so that staff and Council could use the results to improve service and set priorities for the future. Survey Administration The National Research Center worked closely with staff to customize the survey for our jurisdiction. Staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems, defined the jurisdiction boundaries and provided the appropriate letterhead and signatures for mailings. In early May, pre-survey notification postcards were mailed to a random sample of 1,200 households. These same households received the survey in the mail one week later. To promote a higher response rate from citizens, the selected households received a reminder letter and a new survey two weeks after the first one was sent. Completed surveys were received from 402 residents, which results in a response rate of 34%. This is within the average response rate range for citizen surveys. Once the results were received, they were weighted to reflect the demographic profile of all residents in the City of Burlingame. Several of the questions were rated on a 100-point scale, with 100 being "excellent", 67 being "good", 33 being"fair", and 0 being"poor" The margin of error for this survey is generally no greater than plus or minus four percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample. Results The National Research Center provided the City with a Report of Normative Comparisons. This report has been entered as Exhibit A. For each survey question, the National Research Center noted what proportion of citizens feel the City's services are excellent, good, fair or poor, and then calculated an average rating in each category. The Report of Normative Comparisons compares our average ratings with over 500 other cities that have conducted this survey, 36 of which are in California. Highlights Compared to the other 500 cities nationwide that conducted this survey, Burlingame is above the norm in 64 of the 74 categories. Burlingame is in the top quartile in 51 of the 74 categories. Some of Burlingame's highest marks are in the following areas: ■ Overall image/reputation of Burlingame: Citizens give Burlingame an average rating of 80 in this category. 47% of citizens rate the City's reputation as excellent and 46%rate it as good. This rating ranks 2nd out of the 103 cities that asked their citizens this question. ■ Overall Quality of City Services: 83% of citizens rate the overall quality of services as "excellent"or "good." Burlingame ranks in the 84th percentile out of 197 cities in this category. ■ How do you rate Burlingame as a place to live?: Citizens give an average rating of 84 on the 100-point scale to this question, with 56% of citizens responding"excellent" and 42%responding "good". 213 cities asked their citizens this question, and Burlingame holds the 11 th highest rating. ■ Ease of walking: Burlingame ranks 2nd out of the 125 cities that asked their citizens this question. ■ Shopping opportunities: 75% of citizens rate the amount and quality of shopping opportunities as "excellent" or"good."Burlingame ranks in the 84th percentile in this category. ■ Safety in the downtown area: 97% of citizens feel that they are safe in the downtown area during the night, which is the 6th highest rating out of more the 150 cities. 99% feel safe in the downtown area during the day, which is the 3rd highest rating out of 137 cities. ■ Overall appearance: Burlingame ranks in the 88th percentile out of 165 cities in terms of the perception of the overall appearance of the City. 85% of citizens rate the appearance as "excellent"or"good." ■ Fire Department: When asked about the quality of the City's fire and ambulance services, citizens gave an average rating of 84, which put the City in the 95th percentile in the normative comparison. ■ Library: 52% of citizens rate the quality of the Library's services as "excellent" and an additional 39% rate it as "good". This results in an average rating of 81, the 10th highest out of 175 cities. ■ Police Department: The average rating that citizens give to the quality of traffic enforcement services put the City in the top quartile out of 181 cities. ■ Parks & Recreation Department: 33%of citizens rate the quality of Burlingame's recreation programs as "excellent" and 53%rate them as "good." The average rating of 73 ranks 14th out of the 166 cities that asked their citizens this question, which puts Burlingame in the 92"d percentile. ■ Human Resources Department: 80% of citizens rate the knowledge, responsiveness and courtesy of City employees as "excellent" or"good." The average ratings in each of these areas are well above the norm. ■ Public Works Department: Burlingame ranks high in essential services such as the quality of drinking water and the quality of sewer services. The City's ratings are in the 85th and 74th percentile for these two services. ■ Community Development Department: The ratings that the City received for economic development rank 16th out of 131 cities. Burlingame is in the 88th percentile in this category. ■ Finance Department: 63% of citizens agree that they receive good value for the taxes they pay. This rating is in the 87th percentile out of 180 cities. ■ City Council: Under the ratings of Public Trust section, citizens had the opportunity to rate how they feel the City is being run. Citizens were asked if they are pleased with the overall direction that the City is taking, if the City welcomes citizen involvement, and if the City listens to citizens. Burlingame ranks in or above the 86th percentile in each of these three categories. Areas where citizens feel that the City needs improvement: ■ Street repair: 21% of citizens feel that the quality of this service is "poor" and 36% feel it is"fair". The average rating of 44 ranks 117th out of the 216 cities that asked this question. ■ Sidewalk maintenance: The quality of this service received an average rating of 44, which puts it in the 39th percentile when compared to the other 149 cities that asked this question. 24% of citizens consider the quality of this service to be "poor", and an additional 30% consider it to be "fair." • Storm Drainage: 24% of citizens feel that the quality of this service is "poor,"while 30% feel that it is "fair." The average rating of 43 put the city in the 28th percentile out of 171 cities. This was the city's lowest ranking in the survey. Special Policy Questions: As part of the survey, Burlingame included three special policy questions. These questions and the subsequent responses are found in Exhibit B. Conclusion It is important to note that all of the responses that were given by the citizens were based on their perceptions of the quality of the services that the City provides, and not on any standards that were provided to them. Burlingame displayed confidence in the quality of its services by conducting this survey. Knowing that it would be comparing itself to other cities that are equally confident in the quality of their services, the City still went ahead and solicited the service. The results confirm what staff and management believe is a reality, which is that on the whole, the City of Burlingame provides a high level of customer service. The low ratings in street repair, sidewalk maintenance and storm drainage repair are consistent with staff's assessment. Improvements in these services are dependent upon additional funding. Staff also recommends that the Council consider the possibility of conducting another survey by the National Research Center in the future. Many cities have found it useful to compare their results from year to year to measure the public's perception of the improvements that the City is making. Staff would recommend that the Council plan on revisiting the possibility of conducting a similar survey in three years. EXHIBITS: A. Report of Normative Comparisons B. Special Policy Questions BUDGET IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact involved with this recommendation. BURLINGAME i i 501 Primrose Road•Burlingame,CA 94010•T:(650)558-7200•F:(550)342-8386•wvrw.5urlingame.org The Cl"t y of Burh"n aam e C,afiffornia - 6-1 ." p EIT15 I 2 0 `' i I I - National Citizen SurveyTM i National Research Center, Inc. 3009 30 4 • BDuid , :.O 80301 T {3 _;r w ;303 45.�'k.tr� ';a:^' i i The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS Survey Background.......................................................................................... 1 AboutThe National Citizen survey'r" ................................................................................. 1 Understanding the Normative Comparisons .................................................... 2 ComparisonData ...............................................................................................................2 Useof the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor" Response scale....................................................3 Putting Evaluations onto a 100-Point Scale .......................................................................3 Interpretingthe Results......................................................................................................4 Comparisons..................................................................................................... 5 Appendix A: List of Jurisdictions Included in Normative Comparisons ......... 19 Appendix B: Frequently Asked Questions about the Citizen Survey Database30 r Q L :a a ti �v 1 4� Resort of Normative Comparisons 'r The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey t SURVEY BACKGROUND 3 About The National Citizen Surve IThe National Citizen Surveyr"' (The NCST") is a collaborative effort between National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 1 The survey and its administration are standardized to assure high quality survey methods and comparable results across The National Citizen Survey'"' jurisdictions. Participating households are selected at random and the household member who responds is selected without bias. Multiple mailings give each household more than one Chance to participate with self-addressed and postage paid envelopes. Results are statistically weighted to reflect the proper demographic composition of the entire community. The National Citizen Survey'' customized for this jurisdiction was developed in close cooperation with local jurisdiction staff. The City of Burlingame staff selected items from a menu of questions about services and community problems; they defined the jurisdiction boundaries NRC used for sampling; and they provided the appropriate y letterhead and signatures for mailings. City of Burlingame staff also determined local interest in a variety of add-on options to The National Citizen Survey'' Basic Service. I f T N W� �4 ssti f 1Z _ Rpt of Nonnative CompaAsons µ i s The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey UNDERSTANDING THE NORMATIVE COMPARISONS Comparison Data National Research Center, Inc. has collected citizen surveys conducted in over 500 ljurisdictions in the United States. Responses to thousands of survey questions dealing I with resident perceptions about the quality of community life and services provided by local government were recorded, analyzed and stored in an electronic database. i The jurisdictions in the database represent a wide geographic and population range as shown in the table below. Jurisdiction Characteristic Percent of Jurisdictions Region ................ ....... ............_............_......_............._.............---- .._..-.... __— ._..--.._...._..--.-_-.—.__._.._._..._ .. .......... ......................_.. ° West Coast' -- I West2 21% North Central Wese 12% North Central Ease 12% South Centrals 9% _...._.._....._.........6...-.......__ __..-.__.__ 25% South - Northeast West' 3%_ -Northeast East8 2% Population Less than 40,000 38°° C.5 ...................................................................._._._..........._....-..._...........--....._...._ ._.._...---......_....__..._�..__..... _._...- -.__...-._......._.. _ ..._...._......_....- C. 40,000 to 74,99921% _......--------.._—_...-..._ ---.........---.... ---... i 75,000 to 149,000 J. _—___�_ �?% -------- —�—.� �r 24% 150,000 or more W �n x Z y 'Alaska,Washington,Oregon,California,Hawaii r 2 Montana,Idaho,Wyoming,Colorado,Utah,Nevada,Arizona,New Mexico 3 North Dakota,South Dakota,Nebraska,Kansas,Iowa,Missouri,Minnesota "Illinois,Indiana,Ohio,Michigan,Wisconsin V 5 Oklahoma,Texas,Louisiana,Arkansas 6 West Virginia,Virginia,Kentucky,Tennessee,Mississippi,Alabama,Georgia,Florida,South Carolina,North Carolina,Maryland, Delaware,Washington DC New York,Pennsylvania,New Jersey Z 8 Connecticut,Rhode Island,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,Vermont,Maine I e+ ��� — Re:�ort oI I�Tonnative Com arisons - I I € The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Use ®f the "Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor' Response Scale The scale on which respondents are asked to record their opinions about service and community quality is excellent, good, fair or poor (EGFP). This scale has important advantages over other scale possibilities (very good to very bad; very satisfied to very dissatisfied; strongly agree to strongly disagree, as examples). EGFP is used by the plurality of jurisdictions conducting citizen surveys across the U.S. The advantage of familiarity is one we did not want to dismiss because elected officials, staff and residents already are acquainted with opinion surveys measured this way. EGFP also has the advantage of offering three positive options, rather than only two, over which a resident can offer an opinion. While symmetrical scales often are the right choice in other measurement tastes, we have found that ratings of almost every local government service in almost every jurisdiction tend, on average, to he positive (that is, above the scale midpoint). Therefore, to permit finer distinctions among positively rated services, EGFP offers three options .across which to spread those ratings. EGFP is more neutral because it requires no positive statement of service quality to judge (as agree-disagree scales require) and, finally, EGFP intends to measure absolute quality of service delivery or community quality (unlike satisfaction scales which ignore residents' perceptions of. quality in favor of their report on the acceptability of the level of service offered). Putting Evaluations ®_ntoa 100-Point Scale_ Although responses to many of the evaluative questions were made on a 4 point scale with 1 representing the best rating and 4 the worst, many of the results in this summary are reported on a common scale where 0 is the worst possible rating and 100 is the best possible rating. If everyone reported "excellent," then the result would be 100 on the 100-point scale. Likewise, if all respondents gave a "poor" rating, the result would be 0 on the 100-point scale. If the average rating for quality of life was "good," then the result would be 67 on a 100-point scale; "fair" would be 33 on the 100-point scale. The ,a 95 percent confidence interval around an average score on the 100-point scale is no greater than plus or minus 3 points based on all respondents. 4 E v T: f_^ v! l {Ii C l= Kurt of Normative Comparisons The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Interpreting the Results Comparisons are provided when similar questions are included in our database, and there are at least five other jurisdictions in which the question was asked. Where comparisons are available, three numbers are provided in the table. The first column is your jurisdiction's rating on the 100-point scale. The second column is the rank assigned to your jurisdiction's rating among jurisdictions where a similar question was asked. The third column is the number of jurisdictions that asked a similar question. Fourth, the rank is expressed as a percentile to indicate its distance from the top score. This rank (5th highest out of 25 jurisdictions' results, for example) translates to a percentile (the 80th percentile in this example). A percentile indicates the percent of d' d ere jurisdictions with identical or lower ratings. Therefore, a rating at the 80th percentile f would mean that your jurisdiction's rating is equal to or better than 80 percent of the ratings from other jurisdictions. Conversely, 20 percent of the jurisdictions where a similar question was asked had higher ratings. � Alongside the rankand percentile appears a comparison: "above the norm," "below the 11 „ 11 norm" or "similar to the norm." This evaluation of above, below„ "similar simi ar to„ comes from a statistical comparison of your jurisdiction's rating to the norm (the average' rating from all the comparison jurisdictions where a similar question was asked). Differences of no more than 3 points on the 100-point scale between your jurisdiction's ratings and the average based on the appropriate comparisons from the database are considered "statistically significant,” and thus are marked as "above” or "below" the norm. When differences between your jurisdiction's ratings and the national norms are less than 3 points, they are marked as "similar to" the norm. The data are represented visually in a chart that accompanies each table. Your jurisdiction's percentile for each compared item is marked with a black line on the chart. Y; z if M� t.' Report of N\ rruative Com arisons � 4 z The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey COMPARISONS Figure Fi 1: Quality of Life Ratings � 9 Y Percentile 100 90 >.i. 1 _fid 80 � � 70t 60 - A, 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 0 40 30 20 10 Burlingame as Your Burlingame as Burlingame as Burlingame as The overall a place to live neighborhood a place to raise a place to work a place to quality of life in as a place to children retire Burlingame live 4 Quality of Life Ratings City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm I How do you rate Burlingame as a place to live? 84 11 213 95%ile Above the norm .................................... How do you rate your neighborhood as a place to live? 77 15 145 ®0%ile Above the norm How do you rate Burlingame as a = place to raise -' children? 79 25 181 87%ile Above the norm YY How do you rate Burlingame as a _place to work? 66 12 ----105 v 89%ile —Above the norm M�. How do you rate Burlingame as a s` place to retire? 64 33 168 81%ile Above the norm How do you rate the overall quality of life . in Burlingame? 79 14 216 94%ile Above the norm 1= �P Report of;Normative Com arisons The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Figure 2: Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities Percentile 100 - 90 - W- 00 90W 80ppis �0 . r g 70 _ 60 50 tk 30 ' �F. N (6 T C , O C O E 7 N C 'C 'C O 'C _ (4 d E O ` �l 7 V '> O O O 7 0 O O C > N Zr) _ t Q > - VU) 0 O 0-00 Q N (6 O O uJ O O m CU CL ca O ra o E o Characteristics of the Community: General and Opportunities City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm s Sense of community 63 27 146 82%i1e Above the norm Overall appearance of Burlingame 71 20 165 88%ile Above the norm Opportunities to attend cultural activities 51 66 130 50%ile Similar to the norm Shopping s opportunities 67 22 129 84%ile Above the norm --._.............. . . . . __..------- ..................... _---- ----...— --..........._.....o...................--------.._...........–......_......................._..........._ Job opportunities 40 .53 –151 65/Dile Above the norm Educational opportunities 64 20 64 70%ile Above the norm Overall image/reputation of Burlingame 80 2 103 99%ile Above the norm c 7.5 N Z Report of Normative Comparisons i 6 i .,.i.,xr}q'. -T.. .-�Y-n..'..E'+'ti^"^5.',.. - _ _ APA'+"..ceLT�FWC4-J, '4G. ..3. "^,'::.M1M".8G6,/<5.u.p,�+"�'ACFY7v..u'Gnt,•kYlarW' L'R"cic'..�1, :.^S'glt0)."_..e2r"MR 3 The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Figure 3: Characteristics of the Community:Access and Mobility Percentile 100 - 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 - .......... 0090 807060 504030 10 &` t Ease of car travel in Ease of rail/subway travel in Ease of walking in Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Characteristics of the Community:Access and Mobility City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Ease of car travel in Burlingame 60 18 130 87%ile Above the norm � Ease of rail/subway travel in Burlingame 62 8 20 63%ile Above the norm Ease of walking w in Burlingame 77 2 125 99%ile Above the norm 7} t fy ^.S Report of Normative Comparisons 7 _ The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Figure 4: Ratings of Safety from Various Problems Percentile 100 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 08070605040302010 ' Violent crime(e.g., rape, Property crimes(e.g., burglary, Fire assault, robbery) theft) Ratings of Safety From Various Problems City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame E Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm } Violent crime (e.g., rape, assault, 90%ile Above the norm robbery) 84 15 138 Property crimes(e.g., burglary, theft) 71 20 136 86%°ile Above the norm vFire� 80 24 136 83%ile Above the norm z !V t1 Q �z .`y i, Report of Normative Comparisons m 1 ne City of Burlingame Citizen Survey D,IIIPMSOM3 # Figure 5: Ratings of Safety in Various Areas Percentile 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 03020 10 0 In your In your In Burlingame's In Burlingame's In Burlingame's In Burlingame's neighborhood neighborhood downtown area downtown area parks during parks after during the day after dark during the day after dark the day dark Ratings of Safety in Various Areas City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm In your neighborhood during the day 93 7 163 96%ile Above the norm In your ._._..._� neighborhood after dark 79 26 174 86%ile Above the norm In Burlingame's downtown area during the day 94 3 137 99%ile Above the norm In Burlingame's downtown area after dark 81 6 153 97%ile Above the norm In Burlingame's parks during the _r day 92 17 137 88%ile Above the norm In Burlingame's °a parks after dark 64 24 137 83%ile Above the norm z Report of Normative Comparisons 9 I . . The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Figure 6: Quality of Public Safety Services Percentile 100 60 Police services Fire services Ambulance/EMS Fire prevention Traffic and education enforcement Quality ofPublic Safety Services Number of Comparison City of Jurisdictions City of of Burlingame Burlingame for Burlingame Rating to Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Norm Police services 72 41 242 8396i|e norm Above the Fire services 84 11 203 9596i|e norm ________ Ambulance/emergency Above the medical services 84 7 161 96Y6i|a norm -----'---- Fire prevention and Above the education 73 12 118 91Y6i|e norm Above the Traffic enforcement 61 43 181 77Y6i|e norm z Report of Normative Conipartsons ` - The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Con%q:)an'sons Figure 7: Quality of Transportation Services Percentile 90 - WWI 4-4 Street repair Street cleaning Street lighting Sidewalk Traffic signal Amount of Bus/transit maintenance timing public parking services Quality of Transportation Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Street repair 44 117 216 46%ile Similar to the norm Street cleaning 56 67 156 57%ile Similar to the norm Street lighting 55 70 167 58%ile Similar to the norm Sidewalk maintenance 44 eu 1*9 39nmle Below the norm Traffic signal � timing 52 13 104 88%i|a Above the norm � Amount of � public parking 40 33 90 G4��i|e Above the norm -_-_____. �_ ___- Bun/tranait tA services 61 20 103 81%i|a Above the norm c Report of N-orniative CoMPME22! _ - � � 11 � s The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey i 4 I Figure 9: Quality of Utility Services Percentile 100 - 90 �W 80 - 70 - RMI-- 60 60 n 50 40 „ 30 Pip 20 � 0^ 10 0' ( Garbage Recycling Yard waste Storm drainage Drinking water Sewer services collection pick-up Quality of Utility Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rating Rank Comparison Percentile to Norm 1 Garbage collection 66 114 179 37%ile Similar to the norm _.... ._. __.____....._._.._ ..........._........_...__...._..-_...__...--.__...----.__............._..__...--_........_._----._......... __._........ Recycling _._ cling65 81 154 48%ile Similar to the norm _...._._........._.._._..__..._... —____ -— ....._........_...—_____-..._............_.......... _... --_ Yard waste pick-up 69 26 102 75%ile Above the norm Storm drainage 43 124 171 28%ile Below the norm Drinking water 67 21 133 85%ile Above the norm Sewer s; services 64 35 134 74%ile Above the norm :J T 7D r Report of Normative Com arisons 13 The City of Burlingame Citize=n Survey Figure 10: Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services Percentile 100 - 90 - 80 - 009080 my ... . u s 60 - k 40 .,. 30 - 20 - 10 . 02010 0 Land use, planning and Code enforcement Animal control Economic development zoning (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) t Quality of Planning and Code Enforcement Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Land use, planning and zoning _ 50 16 141 . 89%vile Above the norm Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc) 51 52 180 72%ile Above the norm— Animal control 62 22 151 86%ile Above the norm —- --——..........................._. ..-....................._. Economic development 57 16 131 88%ile Above the norm �s 71 -Z I:>- i.� F v ,rte m mm Report of Normative Comparisons ( 14 The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey - i3 S Figure 11: Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services s Percentile E i 100 90 - MONOWt ? � I 800 �,sL`i ` 60 `k s 50 ', � 40 - W SmIX v"pin 30 20 N. L f 10 0 Services to Services to Services to Public Public schools Cable j seniors youth low-income information television If people services Quality of Services to Special Populations and Other Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Services to seniors 65 19 138 87%ile Above the norm Services to youth 57 38 124 70%ile Above the norm Services to low-income { people .......- _- .---._........................._44 _......--__ 35 __.....:......—__102......-.........----- .._._.._66%ile --_—_......_.....Above__the..norm- - Public information services 62 27 151 83%ile Above the norm .................._............................._....._..............--------......................................................._--............_....._......_...__...._......_._..........................._....-........._..._...-- ._..._................................._..-.-_-................................................ ......................_.............. Public schools 67 23 116 81%ile Above the norm y Cable " television 55 15 93 85%ile Above the norm i_ i� �Y I C I\ f+— �Y Report of Normative Com arisons P ! 15 i The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey r. CZ Figure 12: Overall Quality of Services Percentile 100 - P 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 Services provided by the City Services provided by the Services provided by the State of Burlingame Federal Government Government Overall Quality of Services City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Services provided by the City of Burlingame 68 32 197 84%ile Above the norm Services provided by the Federal 1 Government 37 105 125 6%ile Below the norm Services Fj provided by the State Similar to the Government 44 67 127 48%ile norm Z 15 S� #u Report of Normative C22Mffr—VS02t- 16 — - ° . ' - -- --'---- - - The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Figure 13: Ratings of Contact with City Employees Percentile 31 20 Ratings of Contact with the City Employees City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm Responsiveness 70 43 168 75%ile Above the norm Courtesy 72 36 136 74%ile Above the norm Overall Impression 68 61 181 68%Uo Above the norm Ul of Normative i7 ! � The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey Figure 14: Ratings of Public Trust Percentile 100 80 70 60 ' 50 -' 40 30 - 20 - 10 020 10 ' 01 I receive good value for I am pleased with the The City of Burlingame The City of Burlingame the City of Burlingame overall direction that government welcomes government listens to taxes I pay the City of Bur citizen involveme citizens Ratings of Public Trust City of Number of City of Comparison of Burlingame Jurisdictions for Burlingame Burlingame Rating Rank Comparison Percentile Rating to Norm I receive good value for the City of Burlingame taxes I pay 67 24 180 87%ile Above the norm �I am pleased with the overall direction that the r' City of Bur 66 22 152 86%ile Above the norm_ The City of Burlingame government welcomes citizen involvement 69 24 164 86%ile Above the norm ._.._..._......._........ The City of Burlingame government listens + to citizens 62 19 142 87%ile Above the norm t y .Report of Normative Co The City of Burlingame Citizen Survey ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS Three additional questions were asked by the City of Burlingame. The results for these questions are displayed below. Policy Question#1 How much information, if any, do you get about local news from each of the following sources? A lot Some None Total Daily free newspaper 26% 49% 25% 100% Daily paid newspaper 22% 34% 43% 100% Web blogs 8% 22% 69% 100% __......._..............................................._...._........._............................._.._.............-------.................._.....__.._................................._......._..............._........_._...._...............................__..........._..........._-.....................I..................._...._. City of Burlingame Web site 6% 29% 65% 100% _ .. _........_..........._.._._............_........_.._.__..._._....__.-.....___......--------_-- .—...__.......................__..._.---...................._.......-.................. __.._..._—_.. _...........-- Internet 40% 32% 28% 100% City of Burlingame E-newsletter 7% 22% 71% 100% _................._._.____....._........._.._...._.__.....__._--_ City newsletter in water bill 6% 38% 56% 100% Policy Question #2 To what extent do you support or oppose the following: "The City should be involved in environmentally friendly ("green") measures, such as installing solar panels on City buildings, even if the cost exceeds the projected operational savings over the life? Strongly support 36% Somewhat support _ 38% --- Somewhat oppose 14% Strongly oppose 12% _.._..__._—____ __--......—_ -----......_.._—_—_v._...__... Total100% _.........--_.... ___. ---- -._.—_..-_...._......... Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. Report of Results IThe City of Burlingame Citizen Survey i Policy Question #3 i To what degree, if at all, is neighborhood traffic and unsafe driving a problem in Burlingame? Not a problem 17% ..............-_ Minor problem 35% r .... ....._...........__................-........._.__......._..............-................................-...-............._......_......_ ... .......................................__....................._.........._......._.......__......--................. Moderate problem 33% _._..._........._._._—.__.....___.....—-----..---._._.— ..................--- ...._.._ Major problem 15% -..... ---._..._---- _-_-.._. __................ Total 100% Note: "don't know" responses have been removed. i i I I i f I I i i I i i i 1 _Z i - i r _ 1 1 i ' i Report of Results 30 i �� cr'rY C BURUNGAME S TAFF "PORT AGENDA 8d ITEM # MTG. ~co q�AnTeo.+urge 0p0 DATE August 20,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY A� DATE: August 14, 2007 APPROVED ,t/ FROM: Anthony Hardy BY /(/A*/ Contact No.: 650-558-7202 SUBJECT: Endorsing the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the recommendation of the Green Ribbon Task Force, a Council subcommittee, to adopt the Resolution endorsing the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. BACKGROUND: Greenhouse gases (GHG), including the largest contributors, methane and carbon dioxide, trap the sun's heat in the atmosphere, causing temperatures to rise over time and the climate to change. Climate change can affect public health through increased smog and associated respiratory ailments. Environmental impacts include changes in water supply (due to a decline in snow pack levels or earlier spring runoff), coastal damage (due to rising sea levels), and alters vegetation and crop growing seasons and precipitation levels. These effects could be severe enough to detrimentally affect the health and economic well-being of California. Most human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) results from the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel and natural gas. Every gallon of gasoline burned emits 20 pounds of CO2. In addition to burning fossil fuels in cars and appliances like home heating systems, CO2 emissions are caused by using electricity, most of which in the United States is generated by burning fossil fuels. Methane (CH4) is 23 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2. The largest human-made source of CH4 is generated from decomposing organic materials in landfills (paper, wood, and food scraps). The following facts are from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: -The U.S. alone produces 25% of the world's GHG emissions. -6% of U.S. emissions are from landfill methane, primarily due to the biodegradation or decomposition of organic materials. -The transportation sector accounts for 32% of U.S. emissions of which almost 20% comes from cars and light trucks. According to the State's web page on global warming, California is the 12`h largest emitter of carbon in the world. To address this, Governor Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This landmark legislation mandates GHG reduction targets be achieved through regulatory and market mechanisms. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board to develop regulations and market mechanisms that will ultimately reduce California's GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. There is significant media attention focused on global warming and many cities around the world are adopting pledges and implementing programs. Seattle 'Mayor Greg Nickels, in February 2005, initiated a project to encourage U.S. cities to endorse the standards of the Kyoto Agreement that would have cities pledge to reduce carbon dioxide pollution in their cities by 2012 to at least 7 percent below the 1990 levels. The result of Mayor Nickels' project is the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement, which is included in Exhibit A The Agreement commits cities to strive to meet or exceed the Kyoto Protocol targets (7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012), through actions ranging from conducting global warming emissions inventories of City and community operations to urban forest restoration projects to public information campaigns. The Agreement asks that cities urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or exceed the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol. It also asks cities to urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which would establish a national emission trading system. As of August 2007, 648 mayors in the United States have signed this agreement, including several Peninsula cities. A summary of the cities in San Mateo County and a few nearby communities who have endorsed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement is included in Exhibit B. There is no fee to be a member of this Agreement. Signing onto this would qualify our City to be a part of the Mayors for Climate Protection (Cool Mayors) Program, which is an association of mayors in the United States that have committed their cities to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through ICLEI's Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCP) or the US Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. (ICLEI stands for the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, although they now go by the name `Local Governments for Sustainability') There are communities that are choosing different reduction goals and base years mostly due to the difficulty in finding relevant information as far back as 1990. Upon endorsing the recommended initiative, staff also recommends posting our efforts on the Sierra Club's "Cool Cities" Program website, which identifies cities that have adopted the U.S. Mayors' Agreement. They offer assistance and information related to three particular strategies to reduce global warming: green vehicle fleets, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. The City of Burlingame has recently formed the Green Ribbon Task Force, whose purpose is to promote sustainable measures in the city which will significantly reduce our contribution to global warming. The Green Ribbon Task Force sees the endorsement of the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement as one way for the City to commit to help solving the problem of global warming. EXHIBITS: (1) Exhibit A. U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement (2) Exhibit B. Summary of the Participation of Peninsula Cities (3) U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact for signing the U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement. It should be noted that future policies intended to promote sustainability may very well require city funding, but no monetary penalties will be assessed to the City for not complying with the terms of the Agreement. �xhI b �- ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities, communities and the federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international community's most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include average global sea level increases of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40 percent decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness; and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the past decade; and WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific community will cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world including: increased risk of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of smog; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address climate disruption, went into effect in the 141 countries that have ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the world's population, is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world's global warming pollutants; and WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and WHEREAS , many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed preference for the US to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means by which to remain competitive in the international marketplace , to mitigate financial risk and to promote sound investment decisions ; and WHEREAS , state and local governments throughout the United States are adopting emission reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming from Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike ; and WHEREAS , many cities throughout the nation, both large and small , are reducing global warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced energy bills , green space preservation, air quality improvements , reduced traffic congestion, improved transportation choices , and economic development and job creation through energy conservation and new energy technologies ; and WHEREAS , mayors from around the nation have signed the U . S . Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as amended at the 73rd Annual U . S . Conference of Mayors meeting, reads : The U. S . Mayors Climate Protection Agreement A . We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 , including efforts to : reduce the United States ' dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells , efficient motor vehicles , and biofuels ; B . We urge the U . S . Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes 1 ) clear timetables and emissions limits and 2 ) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries; and C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities such as: 1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan. . 2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities; 3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit; 4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in "green tags", advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology; 5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money; 6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use; 7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council ' s LEED program or a similar system; 8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles; launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel; 9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production; 1O. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community; 11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and 12.Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that The U.S. Conference of Mayors endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73rd annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting and urges mayors from around the nation to join this effort. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The U.S. Conference of Mayors will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations to track progress and implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 731d annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting. U.S. Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement City Have they endorsed the Climate Protection Agreement ? Atherton Yes Belmont Burlingame Daly Cit East Palo Alto Foster Cit Half Moon Ba Hillsborough Menlo Park Yes Millbrae Yes Pacifica Palo Alto Yes Portola Valley Yes Redwood City Yes San Bruno Yes San Carlos San Mateo Yes South SF Yes Woodside i RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ENDORSING THE U.S. MAYORS CLIMATE PROTECTION AGREEMENT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has previously adopted strong policy resolutions calling for cities, communities and the federal government to take actions to reduce global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the international community's most respected assemblage of scientists, has found that climate disruption is a reality and that human activities are largely responsible for increasing concentrations of global warming pollution; and WHEREAS, recent, well-documented impacts of climate disruption include average global sea level increases of four to eight inches during the 20th century; a 40 percent decline in Arctic sea-ice thickness; and nine of the ten hottest years on record occurring in the past decade; and WHEREAS, climate disruption of the magnitude now predicted by the scientific community will cause extremely costly disruption of human and natural systems throughout the world including: increased risk of floods or droughts; sea-level rises that interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures; more frequent and extreme heat waves; more frequent and greater concentrations of smog; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to address climate disruption, went into effect in the 141 countries that have ratified it to date; 38 of those countries are now legally required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on average 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and WHEREAS, the United States of America, with less than five percent of the world's population, is responsible for producing approximately 25 percent of the world's global warming pollutants; and WHEREAS, the Kyoto Protocol emissions reduction target for the U.S. would have been 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012; and WHEREAS, many leading US companies that have adopted greenhouse gas reduction programs to demonstrate corporate social responsibility have also publicly expressed preference for the US to adopt precise and mandatory emissions targets and timetables as a means by which to remain competitive in the international marketplace, to mitigate financial risk and to promote sound investment decisions; and 1 WHEREAS, state and local governments throughout the United States are adopting emission reduction targets and programs and that this leadership is bipartisan, coming from Republican and Democratic governors and mayors alike; and WHEREAS, many cities throughout the nation, both large and small, are reducing global warming pollutants through programs that provide economic and quality of life benefits such as reduced energy bills, green space preservation, air quality improvements, reduced traffic congestion, improved transportation choices, and economic development and job creation through energy conservation and new energy technologies; and WHEREAS, mayors from around the nation have signed the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement which, as amended at the 73`d Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, reads: The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement A. We urge the federal government and state governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the target of reducing global warming pollution levels to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, including efforts to: reduce the United States' dependence on fossil fuels and accelerate the development of clean, economical energy resources and fuel-efficient technologies such as conservation, methane recovery for energy generation, waste to energy, wind and solar energy, fuel cells, efficient motor vehicles, and biofuels; B. We urge the U.S. Congress to pass bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation that includes 1) clear timetables and emissions limits and 2) a flexible, market-based system of tradable allowances among emitting industries; and C. We will strive to meet or exceed Kyoto Protocol targets for reducing global warming pollution by taking actions in our own operations and communities such as: 1. Inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, set reduction targets and create an action plan. 2. Adopt and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities; 3. Promote transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit; 4. Increase the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in"green tags", advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology; 2 5. Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money; 6. Purchase only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use; 7. Practice and promote sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program or a similar system; 8. Increase the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reduce the number of vehicles;launch an employee education program including anti-idling messages; convert diesel vehicles to bio-diesel; 9. Evaluate opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recover wastewater treatment methane for energy production; 10. Increase recycling rates in City operations and in the community; 11. Maintain healthy urban forests; promote tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2; and 12. Help educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the City Council of the City of Burlingame endorses the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73`d annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting and urges councils and mayors from around the nation to join this effort. 2. The City of Burlingame will work in conjunction with ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability and other appropriate organizations to track progress and implementation of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement as amended by the 73`d annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting. 3. The City of Burlingame will work as both an organization and a community to seek ways to contribute to this progress. MAYOR I,MARY ELLEN KEARNEY,Deputy 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 _ 3 day of , 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 4 CITYAGENDA °� ITEM# 8@ BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE August 20,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: August 10, 2007 APPROVE FROM: Ana Silva (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Beautification Commission and Parks & Recreation Commission Vacancies RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill one impending vacancy on the Beautification Commission and three impending vacancies on the Parks & Recreation Commission. The recommended due date is September 10, 2007. This will allow enough time for interviews and an orientation for new Commission members. BACKGROUND Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The current commissioners will be invited to reapply if they wish to serve again. In addition, all past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancies. The following Commission Members' terms will expire as detailed below: Beautification Commissioner Term Expiration Terms Served Jeanne Carney October 7, 2007 2 Parks & Recreation Commissioner Term Expiration Terms Served Karen Dittman October 7, 2007 3 Edward Larios October 7, 2007 4 Carol Muller October 7, 2007 3 CITY N STAFF REPORT BUMJNGAMEJ AGENDA ITEM# 9a m MTG. DATE 8/20/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: August 20, 2007 APPROVED ,,/ FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BYZ SUBJECT: Approval of Labor Agreements with American Federation State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Locals 829 and 2190 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the tentative agreement between AFSCME Locals 829 and 2190 and the City of Burlingame into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for each of these units. The comprehensive tentative agreement is attached to this report as Exhibit A. BACKGROUND: AFSCME Local 829 represents the City's non-exempt administrative, library, and recreation personnel. AFSCME Local 2190 represents employees in the public works and parks maintenance classifications. Both labor agreements expired on June 30, 2007 after a two-year term. The City and AFSCME have been meeting since March to negotiate the terms of a new agreement. The City reached tentative agreement with both AFSCME units on July 24, 2007, and AFSCME Locals 2190 and 829 ratified the agreement on July 31 and August 1, respectively. The major components of the tentative agreement are as follows: Term: 4 years; July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011. Salary: 2.0% increase retroactive to the first pay period in July 2007; 2.0% increase effective the first pay period in July 2008; 3.0% increase effective the first pay period in July 2009; and 3.0% increase effective the first pay period in July 20010 Retirement: Implement the 2.5% at 55 retirement formula effective no later than March 31, 2008 Retiree Medical: AFSCME Locals 829 and 2190 agreed to a reduction in the retiree medical benefit for future employees. Employees hired after implementation of the 2.5% at 55 retirement formula will receive 100% of the lowest cost single coverage after 10 years of service; 75% of the lowest cost employee plus one dependent coverage after 15 years of service; and 100% of the lowest cost employee plus one dependent coverage after 20 years of service with the City of Burlingame. Other changes agreed to in negotiations are included in the attached Exhibit A. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 829 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)Local 829 have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS,the City and AFSCME have reached agreement on certain changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and Memorandum of Understanding between the City and AFSCME; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and in the best interest of the public and the employees represented by AFSCME,- NOW, FSCME;NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The changes in existing salary of the employees represented by AFSCME as contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the terms contained in Exhibit A and incorporate them into the Memorandum of Understanding between AFSCME Local 829 and the City of Burlingame. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council held on the 206'day of August, 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES LOCAL 2190 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees(AFSCME)Local 2190 have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS,the City and AFSCME have reached agreement on certain changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and Memorandum of Understanding between the City and AFSCME; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and in the best interest of the public and the employees represented by AFSCME; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The changes in existing salary of the employees represented by AFSCME as contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the terms contained in Exhibit A and incorporate them into the Memorandum of Understanding between AFSCME Local 2190 and the City of Burlingame. MAYOR 1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a special meeting of the City Council held on the 20a'day of August, 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK Exhibit A City of Burlingame and AFSCME 829 and 2190 Comprehensive Tentative Agreement 1. Term: 4 years (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2011) 2. Salary: Effective the first pay period in July, 2007: 2.0% increase Effective the first pay period in July, 2008: 2.0% increase Effective the first pay period in July, 2009: 3.0% increase Effective the first pay period in July, 20010: 3.0% increase The concept to pay to 3rd in the survey market will be eliminated when agreement is reached with BAMM and Teamsters Local 856 to eliminate the aforementioned concept. 3. Retirement: 2.5% at 55 formula will be implemented effective no later than March 31, 2008. The City agrees to reopen the MOU if the 2.5% at 55 formula does not become effective by March 31, 2008 due to failure to reach agreement with all miscellaneous employee labor organizations. 4. Retiree Medical: Current employees: Employees hired prior to the effective date of the 2.5% at 55 retirement formula who retire with a minimum of five years of service with the City will receive the current retiree medical benefit, up to a maximum of the Kaiser family premium rate. New employees hired on or after the effective date of 2.5% at 55: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 9P year Minimum monthly amount as governed by the Ca1PERS of service Health System. 10 years to the 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through end of the 14th Ca1PERS approved medical providers for employee only. year of service 15 years to the 75%of the lowest medical premium provided through end of the 19th Ca1PERS approved medical providers for employee+1 year of service dependent. 20 years of 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through service or more Ca1PERS approved medical providers for employee+1 de endent. Exhibit A 5. Bilingual Pay: The Human Resources department will investigate and determine the applicability of bilingual pay to Tree Crew, Irrigation Specialist, and Associate Engineer. 6. Vision Plan: The cost of repair of glasses will be included as a covered item. 7. Vacation: The vacation accrual rate at 25 years of service will increase to 24 days per year(addition of 1 day). S. Contract rights: a. Family Medical Leave Act: Administrative Policy will be revised to provide more information on employee leave rights. b. Sick leave: The Sick Leave Statement form will not require the doctor's name to be reported on the form. c. Dental & Vision Claims: Human Resources will provide employees with a written explanation of any claim denial. d. Budget process: The City will hold a labor briefing regarding the budget process following the initial Council Budget Strategy Setting Session(late February/early March of each year). e. Reclassification policy: Administrative Policy will be revised to insure employee receives timely notification of status of request. f. Fitness Room: Human Resources will meet with individuals regarding their requests to use City fitness room at the Corp Yard. Occupational Proposals—Local 829 1. Effective the first year of the agreement, City will increase the Parking Enforcement Officer, Parking Systems Technician, and Police Records Clerk uniform allowance by $50. 2. Registration, Certification and Premium Pay: a. Bilingual Designation: Human Resources will be responsible for determining the criteria and appropriateness of bilingual service provider designations. b. Building Inspection Certification and Pay— The City shall provide certification pay for building inspection certificates as follows: Building Inspector Certification $100 per month Combination Inspector Certification $100 per month Plans Examiner Certification $100 per month c. Certification Pay Maximum — The maximum combined certification compensation for the bilingual and building inspection certifications listed above shall not exceed $300 per month for any individual. Exhibit A Occupational Proposals—Local 2190 1. Class B Licensure: Accommodation: The City may temporarily reassign an employee to other duties for a maximum of six (6) months if the employee has: 1) not passed a required exam for a Class B license; 2)been unable to maintain or re-qualify for the license due to medical reasons; or 3)temporarily lost use of the license for six(6) months or less. If an employee has been unable to maintain or re-qualify for a Class B license due to medical reasons, accommodation will be in accordance with the requirements of the ADA and/or other applicable leave provisions. 2. Certification Pay Employees who earn and maintain department approved and endorsed certifications, and who are required to use such certifications in the course of business, are eligible for certification/premium pay as follows: Class B Drivers License $100 per month Water Distribution Operator,Grade 2 $100 per month -Water Distribution Operator,Grade 3 $100 per month Water Treatment T 1 Certification $100 per month Collection System Grade II $100 per month Collection System Grade III $100 per month HVAC Certification Type I&II $100 per month Qualified Applicator Certification $100 per month Line Clearance Certification $100 per month Bilingual Service Certification* $100 per month Agricultural Pest Control Advisor Certification 5%premium pay Playground Inspector Certification 5%premium pay Backflow Prevention Device Certification 5%premium pay *The City shall provide bilingual certification pay to employees designated as bilingual service providers. The designated employee must pass a fluency certification as a condition of receiving the certification pay. Maximum combined compensation for the above listed certifications/premiums shall not exceed $300 per month for any individual. Large Crew Premium Pay A lead worker assigned the responsibility of directing large crews working multiple assignments in more than one location shall receive premium pay in the amount of$100 per month. "Large Crew" is defined as six(6) or more permanent workers assigned to the lead worker on a regular basis. 3. Lead Worker compensation will be adjusted retroactive to the first pay period in July as follows: Exhibit A Current Top Step New Top Step Position Monthly Base Pay Monthly Base Pay Prior to July 1,2007 2%Wage Increase Parks Maintenance Lead 5862 5723 (after incumbent Worker retires) Parks Landscape Lead 5579 5723 Worker Tree Lead Worker 5687 5723 Street& Sewer Lead 5579 5723 Worker CCTV Lead Worker 5579 5723 Traffic Paint Sign Lead 5579 5723 Worker Water Lead Worker 5579 5723 Pump Station Lead 5689 5723 Worker Facilities Lead Worker 5723 5723 City Proposals 1. Maintenance of Membership Employees shall be entitled to have dues deducted by filling out, signing and filing with the City an authorization form provided by the City. Any employee who signs such an authorization shall not revoke such authorization except during the following time periods: a) His/her first thirty (30) calendar days of employment; b) The first thirty (30) calendar days following approval of this Memorandum by City Council: c) The thirty (30) calendar day period between ninety (90) calendar days and sixty (60) calendar days preceding the expiration of this Memorandum of Understanding. Revocation during said period shall be by a written, signed statement furnished to the City. 2. Physician's Certificate When absence is for more than four (4) workdays, or whenever management personnel have a bona fide question about the propriety of a request for sick leave, Exhibit A the employee shall file a physician's certificate with the appropriate management personnel stating the cause and reasons for the absence. 3. Sick Leave Monitoring and Restriction Sick leave monitoring will begin when an employee has used more than one-half('/z) of his/her annual sick leave accrual in a 12-month period. If an employee has triggered sick leave monitoring and has been counseled regarding inappropriate use of sick leave, the employee will be placed on restricted sick leave for a period of six (6) months. During this period of restricted sick leave, the employee will be required to call in for each day that the employee is expected to report to work. The employee will also be required to submit a physician's certification covering the period of absence. 4. Family Sick Leave An employee shall be able to use up to six (6) days sick leave with pay per calendar year when illness of a member of the employee's immediate family necessitates such absence. The definition of "immediate family" shall be as set forth in Section 13.3 herein. The birth of a baby, hospital visits, bringing the baby home is covered under this section. 5. Family Medical Leave The City will provide Family Medical Leave of up to 12 weeks per 12-month period in accordance with the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and California Family Rights Act (CFRA) when serious illness of the employee or a member of the employee's immediate family necessitates such absence. The definition of "immediate family" shall be as set forth in Section 13.3 herein. Family Medical Leave will be administered in accordance with Administrative Procedure 4.25.1, attached hereto as Exhibit"F". 6. Modified Dutv The City will attempt to provide modified duty assignments for employees who are unable to perform regular job duties due to injury or illness. Modified duty assignments will be determined in accordance with the employee's medical restrictions and the needs of the City. 7, Bereavement Leave In the event of a death in an employee's immediate family, absence from duty shall be allowed not to exceed three (3) days. In the event of the death of a relative, not a member of the immediate family, absence from duty shall be allowed not to exceed one (1) day. Such absences shall not be charged to sick leave. For the purposes of this Section, "immediate family" means father, mother, step father, step mother, husband, wife, domestic partner, son, daughter, step son, step daughter, sister, brother, grandparent, mother-in-law, or father-in-law of the employee. Exhibit A In addition, upon approval of the department head, the City will allow the employee to use two (2) days of sick leave, vacation leave or other accrued leave. 8. Mileage Reimbursement An employee who is required to provide transportation for the performance of his/her job shall be compensated per IRS mileage reimbursement guidelines. It is understood that such reimbursement does not apply to commuting by employees to or from their residence. 9. Medical Plans The City maintains the ability to modify the language in this section in order to coordinate with the changes in the retiree medical benefit. BUDGET IMPACT: The fiscal year 2007-2008 budget included funding for the salary and benefit cost increases associated with the new agreements. The projected costs are as follows: • Salary increase costs: $204,275 • Retirement plan cost increase: $61,800 ATTACHMENTS: Resolution for AFSCME Local 829 Agreement Resolution for AFSCME Local 2190 Agreement Exhibit A—Comprehensive Tentative Agreement Agenda Item # 9b Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: August 20, 2007 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 8, 2007 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH 4LEAF, INC. FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 1 - CITY PROJECT 81800 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for a professional services contract with 4leaf, Inc. in the amount of $197,853 to provide construction management services for California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project Phase 1. DISCUSSION: Staff received four proposals from qualified firms in July, 2007 for construction management services for the project and all firms were interviewed. 4leaf, Inc. received the highest ranking from the interview panel due to their extensive experience in the field of construction management for public work projects and successful performance on similar work for other agencies. Their project approach demonstrated that they are well suited to address and resolve any construction difficulties and conflicts during the construction. The scope of work includes full-time construction inspection and construction management services involving quality assurance, construction documentation, construction scheduling and completion of as-built drawings. The fee of $197,853 represents 9.3% of the project construction cost of $2,131,180 which is within industry standards for this type of work. The construction will begin in September 2007 and is expected to be completed in May 2008. BUDGET IMPACT: Construction management $197,853 Contingency (15%) 29,647 Total $227,500 There are sufficient funds available in the 2007/2008 Capital Improvement Project Budget. EXHIBITS: Resolution,Agreement with Scope of services Don T.Chang P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c:City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH 4LEAF, INC. FOR THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 1 CITY PROJECT NO. 81800 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 Direc[ory\Author, By NameVoanne Louie\REOLUTIONAGREEMENT.WPD AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE AREA SEWER IMPROVEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROJECT, PHASE 1 CITY PROJECT NO. 81800 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2007, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and 4LEAF, INC. engaged in providing PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT services herein called the "Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is considering conducting undertaking activities for the professional construction management services for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Area Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project, Phase 1. B. The City desires to engage a professional engineering consultant to provide Construction Management and Inspection engineering services because of Consultant's experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A. C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide all services as set forth in Exhibit A of this agreement. 2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement with completion of the program by May 30, 2008. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license. Page 1 of 7 4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. 5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant. 6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed $197,853.00; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task. Billing shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form. 7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. 8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this Agreement shall be Gene A. Barry. 9. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. Page 2 of 7 10. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To City: Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: 4LEAF, Inc. 2110 Rheem Drive, Suite A Pleasanton, CA 94588 or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to City. 11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable Page 3 of 7 steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. 13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment& Housing Act. 14. Insurance. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: Two million dollars ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury and property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO "Occurrence"Form CG 0001. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than Two million dollars ($2,000,000) sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. iv. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor Page 4 of 7 shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. B. General and Automobile Liability Policies: i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. Page 5 of 7 E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. F. Verification of Coverage. Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, he Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, that may at any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which may be occasioned by a willful or negligent act or omissions of the Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. 16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that parry may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo or Santa Clara. 18. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15) days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. Page 6 of 7 19. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. 20. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed $7,500 in total. 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame By George Bagdon Director of Public Works Print Name: 4LEAF, Inc. Title ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk - Doris J. Mortensen City Attorney- Larry Anderson SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\81800 Cal,oak grove sewer\Consultant correspond&payment\consultantagreementnew07.wpd Page 7 of 7 tyk(51T . Final Cost Estimate for Construction Management Services for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project Phase 1 City of Burlingame,CA Task Subtask Description Staff Staff Title Qty Units Unit Rate Total Cost Assumptions 1 Project Startup la Perform detailed review of plans and specifications Gene Bary Project Manager/Engineer 4 hrs $115 $460 Not intended as a constructability review John Jordan Construction Manager/ 8 his $105 $840 Not intended as a constructability review Inspector Joe Brosnan Assistant Construction 8 his $105 $840 Not intended as a constructability review Manager/Inspector Ib Coordinate with EPC Consultants to identify Public John Jordan Construction Manager/ 8 hrs $105 $840 Information items(e.g.information hotline,flyers,public Inspector outreach,etc.) Ic Attend pre-construction meeting with the City,BKF,EPC Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 4 hrs sits $460 Assumes 4 his for pre-construction meeting. Includes Consultants,Surveyor,Contractor,Underground Utiltity 1 hr for travel time to meeting from Pleasanton to representatives,and other stafl Burlingame.Per conversation w/Donal Chang,the City will be responsible for facilitating and developing agenda for meeting. EPC Consultants will be responsible for meeting minutes. John Jordan Construction Manager/ 4 hrs $105 $420 Inspector Id Review,log,and distribute pre-construction submittals and John Jordan Construction Manager/ 16 hrs $105 $1,680 RFIs from Contractor to applicable partes. Inspector Tark I Subtotal: $5,540 2 Construction Management 2a Perform full-time Construction Management/Inspection Dutieslohn Jordan Construction Manager/ 1,100 hrs $105 $115,500 Per conversation w/Donald Chang,assumed 1,100 (regular time). Inspector hours. Perform full-tithe Construction Management/Inspection Dutieslohn Jordan Construction Manager/ 75 hrs $158 $11,813 Per conversation w/Donald Chang,assumed 2 hrs/day (overtime). Inspector for OT at 25%of 150 working days. 2b Perform part-time Construction Management/Inspection Dutie Joe Brosnan Assistant Construction 330 hrs $105 $34,650 Per conversation w/Donald Chang,assumed 2nd as necessary(regular time). Manager/Inspector inspector would be needed at 20%of assumed 150 working days. Also includes 3 hrs/week to cover inspections during weekly construction management meetings. 2c QA review of daily field reports and weekly status reports. Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 90 hrs $115 $10,350 Assumes 0.5 hrs/day(@150 days)for QA of daily field reports and 0.5 hrs/week(@30 weeks)for Qe of weekly summary reports. Task Subtotal: $172,313 Page 1 of 2 Final Cost Estimate for Construction Management Services for the California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue Sewer Improvement and Rehabilitation Project Phase 1 City of Burlingame,CA Task Subtask Description Staff Staff Title Qty Units Unit Rate Total Cost Assumptions 3 Project Closeout 3a Develop final punch lists,perforin final walk throughs w/ John Jordan Construction Manager/ 40 his $105 $4,200 Contractor,and review and approve final Contractor invoice, Inspector etc. 3b Prepare Final Completion Report. Report to be certified by Gene Barry Project Manager/Engineer 60 hrs $115 $6,900 California registered Civil Engineer. John Jordan Construction Manager/ 60 his $105 $6,300 Inspector Kelly Jasso Project Assistant 40 his 40 $1,600 3c Reproduction of Final Completion Report. Subconsultant — 1 LS 1,000 $1,000 Assumes reproduction costs for distribution of 5 copies of report. Task 3 Submral: $20,000 Total Estimated Costs: $197,853 Note: (a)Does not include budget for addressing any contaminated soil that may be encountered during the project. In the event contaminated soils are encountered,separate cost estimates will be developed and submitted to the City. (b)Per discussions w/Donald Chang at the City,assumed 1,100 hours for main CM/Inspector. In the event the project duration for field activities exceeds the 1,100 hours,a change order will be submitted and CM and inspection hours will be billed on a T&M basis.Overtime hours for Construction Management and Inspection duties will be billed at 1.5 times the hourly rate. Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item # 9c N Meeting BURLIN 1 N I STAFF REPORT Date: August 20, 2007 SUBMITTED APPROVED BY rf � � TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 9, 2007 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO SHAW PIPELINE INC. FOR THE TROUSDALE DRIVE TRANSMISSION PIPELINE, CITY PROJECT NO. 80910 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution awarding a contract to SHAW PIPELINE INC for the construction of the Trousdale Drive Transmission Pipeline Project in the amount of $734,655. BACKGROUND: The City's water system master plan has identified the existing transmission main and pump station connecting the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) turnout to Mills Tank as being undersized and unable to meet fire flow demands and peak flows for consumers. The master plan recommends that a new Trousdale Pump Station and larger transmission main be installed to provide sufficient hydraulic capacity to meet these demands. This project is the second of three phases of work involving the construction of a new 6500 foot transmission main from the SFPUC water connection at Magnolia Avenue to Mills Tank, as well as the reconstruction of the Trousdale Pump Station. DISCUSSION: The project bids were opened on August 9, 2007. A total of twelve bids were received ranging from $734,655 to $1,725,175. Shaw Pipeline Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder with a bid of $734,655, being 55 % lower than the engineer's estimate of $1 ,663,300. Shaw Pipeline Inc. successfully completed phase 1 of this pipeline earlier this year. Staff believes that Shaw's familiarity with this project as well as the large number of bidder's, resulted in the bid being significantly lower than the engineer's estimate. Construction is estimated to begin in late summer. BUDGET IMPACT: Construction contract $734,655 Construction management & inspection 134,000 Staff administration and oversight 50,000 Contingency (10%) 73,466 Total $992,121 SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910Transmission Main Staff Report-Construction Contract.doc Funds are available in the 2007/2008 Water System CIP for this project. EXHIBITS:Resoluti , Bid Summary Philip MonaghaP.E. Senior Civil En ineer c: City Clerk,City Attorney, Shaw Pipeline Inc. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910Transmission Main Staff Report-Construction Contract.doc RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE TROUSDALE DRIVE TRANSMISSION PIPELINE TO SHAW PIPELINE INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 80910 WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for proposals for the - CITY PROJECT 80910 - CONTRACT FOR THE TROUSDALE DRIVE TRANSMISSION PIPELINE WHEREAS, on AUGUST 9, 2007, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, SHAW PIPELINE INC., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of$734,655. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of SHAW PIPELINE INC., for said project in the amount of $734,655, and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor 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 S:\A Public Works Directory\Author, By Name\Joanne Louie\ResolutnAward.awd.doc CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA BID SUMMARY Trousdale Pipeline&PRV Station CITY PROJECT NO.80910 Bid Opening Date:August 9,2007 Shaw Pipeline,Inc Bay pacific Pipeline ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE San Francisco,CA Novato,CA BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM OUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price 1 Install 16"DIP 2765 LF $500 $1,382,500.00 $227.00 $627,655.00 $250.00 $691,250.00 2 COF check dam/pipe 3 EA $5,400 $16,200.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $6,000.00 3 Isolation Valve Assembly 3 EA $15,000 $45,000.00 $7,500.00 $22,500.00 $7,500.00 $22,500.00 4 Trousdale Dr.PRV 1 EA $136,900 $136,900.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $30,000 $30,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 6 Disinfectin and Flushing 1 LS $6,700 $6,700.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 7 Testion and Inspection 1 LS $16,000 $16,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 8 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $30,000 $30,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $30.000.00 BID TOTAL $1,663,500.00 5734,666.00 $844,760.00 BIDS 3-4-6 Darcy&hardy Const McGuire&Hester Mitchell Eng San Francisco,CA Oakland,CA San Francisco,CA BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM OUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price 1 Install 16"DIP 2765 LF $271.00 $749,315.00 $272.00 $752,080.00 $270.00 $746,550.00 2 CDF check dam/pipe 3 EA $7,000.00 $21,000.00 $3,500.00 $10,500.00 $4,000.00 $12,000.00 3 Isolation Valve Assembly 3 EA $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $8,000.00 $24,000.00 4 Trousdale Dr.PRV 1 EA $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $41,000.00 $41,000.00 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 6 Disinfectin and flushing 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,700.00 $4,700.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 7 Testion and Inspection 1 LS $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $23,500.00 $23,500.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 8 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $29,000.00 $29,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 BID TOTAL $926,815.00 $930,780.00 $966,060.00 BIDS 6-7.8 Ranger Pipeline KJ Woods precision Eng. San Francisco,CA San Francisco,CA San Francisco,CA BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM OUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price 1 Install 16"DIP 2765 LF $340.00 $940,100.00 $331.00 $915,215.00 $320.00 $884,800.00 2 CDF check dam/pipe 3 EA $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $8,000,00 $24,000.00 $6,000.00 $18,000.00 3 Isolation Valve Assembly 3 EA $8,000.00 $24.000.00 $9,000,00 $27,000.00 $6,000.00 $18,000.00 4 Trousdale Dr.PRV 1 EA $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 6 Disinfectin and flushing 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 7 Testion and Inspection 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $200.00 $200.00 8 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $40,785.00 $40,785.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 BID TOTAL $1,028,100.00 51,068,000.00 57,086,000.00 BIDS 9"10-11 JMB Const. J&B,Inc Pacific Underground,Inc. South San Francisco,CA Livermore,CA San Jose,Ca. BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM OUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price 1 Install 16"DIP 2765 LF $348.00 $962,220.00 $431.00 $1,191,715.00 $475.00 $1,313,375.00 2 CDF check dam/pipe 3 EA $10,000.00 $30,000.00 $23,400.00 $70,200.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 3 Isolation Valve Assembly 3 EA $9,000.00 $27,000.00 $11,895.00 $35,685.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 4 Trousdale Dr.PRV 1 EA $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $70,382.00 $70,382.00 $115,000.00 $115,000.00 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $67,000.00 $67,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 6 Disinfectin and flushing 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $21,631.00 $21,631.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 7 Testion and Inspection 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $58,223.00 $58,223.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 8 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $115,000.00 $115,000.00 $91,560.00 $91,560.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 BID TOTAL $1,274,220.00 $1,606,396.00 $1,638,376.00 BID 12 Mdutain Cascade,Inc Livermore,CA BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total ITEM OUANITY Price Price 1 Install 16'DIP 2765 LF $545.00 $1,506,925.00 2 CDF check dam/pipe 3 EA $12,000.00 $36,000.00 3 Isolation Valve Assembly 3 EA $9,750.00 $29,250.00 4 Trousdale Dr.PRV 1 EA $50,000.00 $50,000.00 5 Traffic Control 1 LS $22,000.00 $22,000.00 6 Disinfectin and flushing 1 LS $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7 Testion and Inspection 1 LS $17,000.00 $17,000.00 8 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS $52,000.00 $52,000.00 BID TOTAL $1,726,175.00 AiIT � STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9d ago MTG. �aa,Eo JUNE6 DATE August 20,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL su B DATE: July 26,2007 APPROVED FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian BY SUBJECT: Appointment to Peninsula Library System Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council appoint Library Trustee Nancy Brock to the PLS System Advisory Board for a 2 year term.Nancy has volunteered for this county-wide position on the Board. This position requires City Council approval. BACKGROUND: The Peninsula Library System Advisory Board is the citizen board that advises the library system on policy and advocacy issues. The Board has a representative from each library jurisdiction in PLS. The major work of the Board centers on an"Issues Breakfast"held in the spring each year. The issues breakfast is held for library supporters. The breakfast features a keynote speaker such as a legislator. Past speakers have included Assemblyman Gene Mullin and State Librarian Susan Hildreth. Katie McCormack, Library Trustee, has served two consecutive terms on the SAB, or 4 years; one term as president of the Board. We thank her very much for her loyal and thoughtful service on the Board. BUDGETIMPACT: There is no budget impact on the City for this appointment. 9k%=JWD AGENDA ITEM NO: 9e STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: Auqust 20,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: f DATE: August 20, 2007 APPROVED BY: FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director— (650) 558 . 255 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT— FOCUS Program Priority Development Area Designation Application Submitted by C/CAG RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution supporting C/CAC's submission of an application for Priority Development Area Designation under the FOCUS Program, for properties lying within one-quarter mile of the EI Camino Real Corridor within the County of San Mateo. BACKGROUND: The FOCUS Program (short for Focusing Our Vision) is a regional planning initiative that encourages future growth near transit and in existing communities that surround the San Francisco Bay, enhancing existing neighborhoods and providing housing and transportation choices for all residents. FOCUS is spearheaded by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), in partnership with congestion management agencies and local governments throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The regional agencies staffs are working with cities, counties, and other stakeholders to plan collaboratively where growth can be accommodated (priority development areas) and identify areas needing protection (priority conservation areas) within the next few years in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. As part of the FOCUS initiative, nominations are now being accepted to designate priority conservation areas in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Local governments are encouraged to participate in this process and to collaborate with other entities on the nomination of areas. C/CAG has taken the lead to submit an application for all properties located within one-quarter mile of the EI Camino Real Corridor within the County of San Mateo. Areas selected for identification as Priority Development Areas may be eligible for incentive funding for either planning or capital projects located near existing or planned fixed transit (or comparable bus service) and that are planning for more housing, such as the area in northern Burlingame, located along EI Camino Real near Trousdale Drive, within close proximity to the Millbrae BART facility. Though the direction for future planning in the Downtown Burlingame Study Area has not yet been determined, portions of this area could be included within the Priority Development Area supported by C/CAG. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachments: 0 City Council Resolution — Support of C/CAG Application to FOCUS Program RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, SUPPORTING C/CAG'S SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION FOR PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA DESIGNATION UNDER THE FOCUS PROGRAM,FOR PROPERTIES LYING WITHIN ONE-QUARTER MILE OF THE EL CAMINO REAL CORRIDOR WITHIN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO WHEREAS,the Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG)and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission(MTC)in coordination with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD)and Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC);collectively,the"Regional Agencies",are undertaking a regional planning initiative called FOCUS;and WHEREAS,FOCUS program goals support a future regional development pattern that is compact and connected;and WHEREAS,the Regional Agencies seek local government partners to create a specific and shared concept of where growth can be accommodated(Priority Development Area)and what areas need protection(Priority Conservation Area)in the region;and WHEREAS,a Priority Development Area must meet all of the following criteria: (a)within an existing community,(b)near existing or planned fixed transit(or served by comparable bus service),and(c)is planned,or is planning,for more housing;and WHEREAS,local governments and congestion management agencies in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area are eligible to apply for designation of an area within their community as a Priority Development Area;and WHEREAS,the Regional Agencies are committed to securing incentives and providing technical assistance to designated Priority Development Areas so that positive change can be achieved in communities working to advance focused growth. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT,in conjunction with the Cities of Menlo Park,Redwood City, San Carlos,Belmont,San Mateo,Millbrae,San Bruno,South San Francisco,Colma, Daly City,and the County of San Mateo,the City of Burlingame authorizes submission of an application to designate the EI Camino Real Corridor within the City of Burlingame as a part of a Priority Development Area comprised of areas included within each of the other jurisdictions and authorizes C/CAG to serve as the lead applicant. Mayor 1 RESOLUTION NO. I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20'" day of August, 2007 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 Agenda Item # 9f Meeting BURLI 0 1 STAFF REPORT Date: A ust 20 2007 y SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JULY 241 2007 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ATTENDANCE AT OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attendance of the Public Works Management Analyst at the George Butler Associates (GBA) Master Series User Development Conference in Kansas City, Missouri from October 1 to 3, 2007. BACKGROUND: The City has implemented the Sewer, Facilities, Equipment, Water and Storm Work Order modules of the GBA computerized asset management system. GBA Master Series has requested that the City of Burlingame Management Analyst present a case study to other users attending the conference. In addition, he would receive training on new regulatory reporting requirements and be able to share this information with other City staff. The GBA Asset Management System has provided several benefits to the Corporation Yard. For example, the sewer preventative maintenance crews now receive pre- scheduled work orders from the system. They can print maps with utility information and supervisors can easily retrieve information from the database and print detailed reports on a monthly basis. EXHIBITS: Letter from GBA requesting City of Burlingame present a case study Conference Flyer BUDGET IMPACT: The three day cost for the training is $1 ,300 including registration fees, food, lodging, and transportation. Funds are available in the Sewer and Water Division budgets. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Vaccoon Out-of-State Trainiing .doc AL r4ingboms GBA Master Series, Inc. 10561 Barkley,Suite 500 Overland Park,KS 66212 June 20,2007 P.913.341.3105 Mr. Gordon Gottsche, Management Analyst City of Burlingame 1361 N. Carolan Ave F.913.341.3128 Hillsborough, CA 94010 www.gbams.com SUBJECT: GBA Master Series 2007 ACT Conference Dear Mr. Gottsche: We really appreciated you speaking at our 2006 conference as well as during our 2002 conference. I know that the attendees really got a lot out of your talk regarding Sewer Overflows and hope that you got as much out of everyone else's talk. We would like to extend an invitation for you and Rob Mallick to attend this year's conference as speakers. This year our conference is on October 1-3, 2007 in Kansas City, Missouri. We have some excellent tracks planned and we would love for you and Rob to take part in it. Please let us know as soon as possible if you will be able to attend and speak. You can find more information about our conference at http://www.gbams.com/act home.htm . Sincerely, :, GBA MASTER SERIES, INC. Donald E. Pinkston, Jr. President CnffwnrA ♦ Ctorviroc A Cn1lifinnc gbaMS Annual Conference &Training Pagel of 2 ACT AKWA21 C V-A r-4 October 1 -3, 2007 Kai ABOUT ACT SCHEDULE OF TRAINING & TRAVEL REGISTRATION PARTICIPATION EVENTS EDUCATION INFORMATION �5 C-V ¢3 Sunday, September 30 Registration: 5:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. 6:00 - 8:00 p.m. Orientation Reception Monday, October 1 Registration: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 7:00 - 8:00 Breakfast 8:00 - 9:00 Opening Ceremony 9:00 - 12:00 Training and Conference Sessions 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 5:00 Training and Conference Sessions 5:00 - 7:00 Reception Tuesday, October 2 Registration: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 7:00 - 8:00 Breakfast 8:00 - 12:00 Training and Conference Sessions 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 5:00 Training and Conference Sessions Taste of Kansas City Networking Event Wednesday, October 3 Registration: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 7:00 - 8:00 Breakfast 8:00 - 12:00 Training and Conference Sessions 12:00 - 1:00 Lunch 1:00 - 4:00 Training and Conference Sessions 4:00 - 7:00 Closing Ceremony and Reception www_gbams.com 800.492.2468 act gbams.corn http://www.gbams.com/act—dailysched.htm 7/16/2007 gbaMS Annual Conference &Training Page 1 of 1 ACT 1,11 N �U,2i C7,D K-C , jW October 1 -3, 2007 Kai ABOUT ACT SCHEDULE OF TRAINING & TRAVEL REGISTRATION PARTICIPATION EVENTS EDUCATION INFORMATION " Advance Rates (good until August 15th) Advance Standard $650 Advance Priority User with $550 Support Package Advance Priority User Group $475 each Rate Advance MBA Ally Firms $600 Advance One-Day Pass $250 Networking Event $80 per person Guest Registration $100 per person Standard Rates (good after August 15th) Advance Standard $700 Advance Priority User with $600 Support Package Advance Priority User Group $525 each Rate Advance MBA Ally Firms $650 Advance One-Day Pass $300 Networking Event $80 per person Guest Registration $100 per person All w,fww—gba s_com 800.412.2468 act ,gbams com http://www.gbams.com/act_rates.htm 7/16/2007 gbaMS Annual Conference & Training Page 1 of 1 ACTr 0, solow-ft, il"e. K 'i W � October 1 -3, 2007 Kai ABOUT ACT SCHEDULE OF TRAINING & TRAVEL REGISTRATION PARTICIPATION EVENTS EDUCATION INFORMATION s 41 s" What's Included The fees include access to all conference sessions and all applicable conference materials. Your fees also inclu lunch each day, as well as beverages and snacks during breaks. The fees do not include dinner, but they do ii hors d'oeuvres and beverages. If you have any questions, send an e-mail to act@gbams.com. Discounts and Incentives As an incentive to register early, we offer discounted registration fees for those who register before August 1! early registration entitles you to a free conference shirt! Registration fees are discounted for users who subscribe to our Annual Support and Maintenance Program (th Rate). If you're unsure of your subscription status, send us an e-mail. We also offer a discount to organizati than three people (the Group Rate). New this year...we're offering discounts on registration for attendees who deliver presentations. For each pre! deliver, you'll receive a $50 refund! See the Participation section for details. Additional Options Another new option this year is the Guest Registration. We realize that many of you bring along a spouse or c attend. We're glad to include them in our meals, breaks and receptions. www^.gbams.com 800,442.2468 actcDgbams.corn http://www.gbams.com/act_regdetails.htm 7/16/2007 GSA - Domestic Per Diem Rates Page 1 of 1 U.S. General Services Administration HOME BUILDINGS PRODUCTS SERVICES TECHNOLOGY POLICY t Per Diem Home>Policy>Travel Management>Per Diem>Per Diem Rates Overview Missouri - FY 07 FAQ Per Diem Rates (October 1,2006 through September 30,2007) Meals and Cities not appearing below may be located within a county for which rates are listed. Incidental Expense To determine what county a city is located in,visit the National Association of Counties Breakdown (NACO)website(a non-federal website). Factors Influencing €.._-...�... �...._...� _..._._..._ _........_... .. _ _..... __ ._. �m � Lodging Rates NOTE: If neither the city nor the county is listed,the location is a standard CONUS FY 07 Per Diem destination with a rate of$60.00 for lodging and$39.00 for meals and incidental Highlights expenses(M&IE). Fire Safe Hotels Per Diem Files State Tax Rates&Exemption Forms (Current& Archived) Properties.at.Per Diem...(Fed_R....o. .oms.) View a state map with highlighted areas showing where rates listed below apply. Standard CONUS rates apply elsewhere. Select another State Primary Destination County t4.:i$ .f r Columbia Boone 60 39 99 29.25 (October 1 -March 29) Columbia(Eff. Mar 30) Boone 72 39 111 29.25 (March 30-September 30) Kansas City Jackson/ 96 49 145 36.75 Clay/Cass And Platte Osage Beach/St. Camden/ 70 49 119 36.75 Robert/Ft. Miller/Pulaski Leonardwood Springfield Greene 70 39 109 29.25 St. Louis St. Louis/St. 103 59 162 44.25 Louis City And St. Charles Printer Friendly format Help I Sitemap I Accessibility Aids I Linking I Privacy and Security Also of Interest: Whitehouse.gov I USA.gov I E-Gov.gov I ExpectMore.gov I Other Suggested Sites http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?queryYear=2007&contentType=GSA_... 7/23/2007 $3,737,599.37 Ck. No. 26724- 27374 Excludes Library Checks 26926-26968 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Payroll for July 2007 $2,658,038.33 Ck. No. 169083- 169356 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION D CD O'Q m � CL op M m m � m oQ`� S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS Y CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-03-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 167, 055 . 05 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 17,610 .91 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 4,459.63 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 1 , 170 . 00 WATER FUND 526 12, 439.27 SEWER FUND 527 14, 501 .00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 8, 004 .67 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 162 .37 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1 ,376.61 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2, 240. 14 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 4,450 . 00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 11 , 069.80 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $244 , 539.45 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL : THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 13 INCLUSIVE , AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 27234 THROUGH 27374 INCLUSIVE, TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $244, 539.45 , 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 08-03-2007 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 12 FUND RECAP 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 28,375.09 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 1,272.29 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 11,782.01 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 9,250.00 WATER FUND 526 314,956.50 SEWER FUND 527 1,030.20 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 37.10 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 23.22 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,294.27 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 44.78 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 3,885.01 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $372,950.47 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 27234 THROUGH 27374 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $372,950.47, 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 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-03-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 195,430.14 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 17,610.91 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 5,731.92 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 11,782.01 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 10,420.00 WATER FUND 526 327,395.77 SEWER FUND 527 15,531.20 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 8,041.77 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 185.59 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 3,670.88 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2,240.14 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 44.78 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 8,335.01 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 11,069.80 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $617,489.92 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 27234 THROUGH 27374 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $617,489.92, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../-.. FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27360 ANDREW SUTTON 27726 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,080.00 101 36630 27361 STEPHEN HSU 27727 3,595.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,595.00 526 36730 27362 KEVIN CLEMO 27728 200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 68010 220 1781 27363 JOSEPHINE PARK 27729 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 27364 PACIFIC STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 27730 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 27365 A&A LANDSCAPE INC. 27731 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 27366 JEFF OBERTELLI 27732 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,080.00 101 36630 27367 KIMBERLY STATTON 27733 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,080.00 101 36630 27368 AMBER BROSNAN 27735 58.00 MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 101 36330 000 1890 27369 MR. & MRS. KELLEY 27736 107.00 MISCELLANEOUS 107.00 101 36330 000 1370 27370 MICHELLE HALL 27737 49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 49.00 101 36330 000 1372 27371 MR/MRS SCHMIDT 27738 61.00 MISCELLANEOUS 61.00 101 36330 000 1331 27372 MR/MRS. RONG 27739 57.00 MISCELLANEOUS 57.00 101 36330 000 1372 27373 MARIANA & IVAYLO TANKOV 27740 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 27374 JENNIFER RICCOMI 27741 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 TOTAL $617,489.92 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27344 DAVID GONZALEZ 27372 391.88 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 181.88 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 101 68010 220 1646 27345 COMMERCIAL OFFICE INTERIORS 27396 2,472.12 MISCELLANEOUS 2,472.12 101 64400 400 27346 MORRIS GREENBERG 27481 2,937.25 MISCELLANEOUS 2,937.25 101 65100 010 27347 MICHAEL DEMENT 27509 165.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 165.00 101 68010 220 1646 27348 SCOTT WILLIAMS 27538 2,872.98 MISCELLANEOUS 2,872.98 101 65100 010 27349 KEVIN GARDINER AND ASSOCIATES 27560 7,139.21 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 7,139.21 530 65400 210 27350 PROMOTIONAL ADVANTAGE 27563 4,450.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 4,450.00 730 69593 120 6020 27351 EPC CONSULTANTS 27676 1,170.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,170.00 327 81800 220 27352 AT&T MOBILITY 27713 49.24 COMMUNICATIONS 49.24 101 64250 160 27353 AT&T MOBILITY 27715 141.58 COMMUNICATIONS 141.58 101 65300 160 27354 AT&T MOBILITY 27716 33.05 COMMUNICATIONS 33.05 101 64100 160 27355 AT&T MOBILITY 27717 282.91 COMMUNICATIONS 282.91 101 66100 160 27356 AT&T MOBILITY 27722 42.79 COMMUNICATIONS 42.79 530 65400 160 27357 CPCA 27723 675.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 675.00 101 65100 260 27358 AT&T MOBILITY 27724 705.02 COMMUNICATIONS 705.02 201 65200 160 27359 AT&T MOBILITY 27725 110.30 COMMUNICATIONS 110.30 201 65200 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27329 YOUNG MOORE 25581 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1890 27330 NICHOLAS BELLAFATTO 25625 440.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 440.00 101 68010 220 1331 27331 OMBUDSMAN SERVICES OF SAN MATEO 25692 1 ,054.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,054.00 101 64560 220 27332 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 25729 210. 12 TRAINING EXPENSE 210. 12 101 68020 260 2200 27333 LARSON CONSULTING 25732 AP 961 .25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 961 .25 527 66520 210 27334 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153.22 RENTS & LEASES 153.22 526 69020 180 27335 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 27336 PRISTINE AUTO DETAIL 26046 50.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 50.00 101 65100 200 27337 IMPACT SCIENCES 26099 AP 1 , 160.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 1 , 160.00 101 22590 27338 USPS-HASLER 26134 5,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000.00 101 15500 27339 DANCE FORCE 26351 1 ,741 .50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,741 .50 101 68010 220 1646 27340 SAMCAT 26393 2,000.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,000.00 101 64560 240 27341 ANDREW JORDAN 26410 1 ,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36630 27342 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 400. 10 OFFICE EXPENSE 276.07 101 64400 110 TRAINING EXPENSE 124.03 620 66700 260 27343 BUREAU VERITAS 26854 AP 22, 121 .57 MISCELLANEOUS 22, 121 .57 101 22515 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27314 SYLVIE HALE 24242 58.00 MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 101 36330 000 1890 27315 MAYBELLE PINSON 24419 281.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 281.25 101 68010 220 1644 27316 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 78.00 UNION DUES 78.00 130 21080 27317 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024 27318 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 600.00 MISCELLANEOUS 600.00 130 20024 27319 C.L.E.A. 24523 585.00 MISCELLANEOUS 585.00 130 20026 27320 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 490.00 UNION DUES 490.00 130 21091 27321 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092 27322 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 AP 6,494.51 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,494.51 326 80950 210 27323 AETNA 24760 3,824.87 MISCELLANEOUS 396.00 130 20028 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,428.87 130 20022 27324 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 6,437.55 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 6,437.55 130 20014 27325 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 5,094.89 MISCELLANEOUS 960.95 130 20025 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,133.94 130 20021 27326 COYOTES LACROSSE CLUB 24967 938.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 938.60 101 68010 220 1372 27327 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES 25013 5,358.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,358.00 101 68010 220 1349 27328 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 9.89 OFFICE EXPENSE 9.89 101 65100 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27299 LEGAL AID SOCIETY 23149 2,223.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,223.00 101 64560 220 27300 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 AP 5,287.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,287.50 326 80910 210 27301 OFFICE MAX 23306 331.89 OFFICE EXPENSE 70.60 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 261.29 101 68010 110 1101 27302 AIRGAS 23307 93.66 SUPPLIES 93.66 620 15000 27303 SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY INSTITUTE 23409 12,018.00 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 12,018.00 527 66530 270 27304 KORALEEN ENTERPRISES 23510 2,183.03 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,183.03 526 69020 120 27305 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 162.37 MISC. SUPPLIES 162.37 619 64460 120 27306 AT&T/MCI 23728 8,513.58 COMMUNICATIONS 18.85 101 64250 160 COMMUNICATIONS 18.55 101 68020 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 8,476.18 896 20281 27307 PENINSULA HARLEY DAVIDSON 23795 34.10 SUPPLIES 34.10 620 15000 27308 SAFE HARBOR 23811 7,496.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,496.00 101 64560 220 27309 JOHN PHILIPOPOULOS 23821 6,775.30 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,775.30 101 68010 220 1372 27310 DAVE CREAMER 23876 660.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 660.00 101 68010 220 1644 27311 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 AP 1,293.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,293.00 101 23620 27312 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 794.63 MISC. SUPPLIES 708.67 101 68010 120 1111 MISC. SUPPLIES 85.96 101 68010 120 1114 27313 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 1,026.79 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,026.79 101 64400 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27284 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,066.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,033.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 2,033.00 527 66520 180 27285 DANIEL STRAMBI 20134 1,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,080.00 101 36630 27286 GE CAPITAL 20216 379.75 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1100 27287 RACQUET SMITH 20339 3,600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,600.00 101 68010 220 1782 27288 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 AP 4,500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,500.00 327 75170 210 27289 SPRINT PCS 20724 953.48 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 953.48 101 65100 220 27290 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 1,680.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,680.00 101 68010 220 1331 27291 GEORGE BAGDON 21174 2,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,500.00 101 66210 031 27292 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 97.82 MISC. SUPPLIES 97.82 101 66100 120 27293 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 1,110.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,110.40 101 68020 120 2200 27294 VB GOLF LLC 21948 88.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 88.50 101 68010 220 1784 27295 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 199.37 SUPPLIES 199.37 620 15000 27296 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 3,205.42 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,205.42 526 69020 120 27297 SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY 22351 1,614.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,614.00 101 64560 220 27298 CARL DEQUANT 22842 200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 68010 220 1781 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27268 ADAMSON POLICE PRODUCTS 14414 4,656.50 POLICE--SUPPLIES 41656.50 101 65100 126 27269 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 60.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 60.00 101 64540 150 27270 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 43.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.90 101 65100 120 27271 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 165.61 SMALL TOOLS 165.61 620 66700 130 27272 COMMUNITY GATEPATH 16575 4,502.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,502.00 101 64560 220 27273 SHELTER NETWORK 17107 4,843.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,843.00 101 64560 220 27274 ROMIC ENVIRONMENTAL 17453 810.46 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 810.46 101 66210 222 27275 CALIFORNIA PNEUMATIC TOOL CO 17741 519.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 519.60 526 69020 120 27276 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 1,727.68 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,727.68 621 64450 200 27277 S M COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 18838 400.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 400.00 201 65200 240 27278 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 547.41 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 547.41 101 68010 220 1646 27279 GARY PARTEE 19249 2,888.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 2,888.00 101 22520 27280 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 73.45 MISC. SUPPLIES 73.45 620 66700 120 27281 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 AP 3,685.61 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,685.61 730 69593 210 27282 ALL FENCE COMPANY, INC. 19710 450.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 450.00 527 66520 120 27283 KATHY KARAS 19812 360.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 101 68010 220 1644 \ l CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27256 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 1,702.19 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 201 22585 OFFICE EXPENSE 5.77 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.06 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 350.82 201 65200 120 MISCELLANEOUS 212.93 201 65200 144 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 246.65 201 65200 190 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 100.00 201 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 66.96 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 605.00 201 65200 260 27257 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 1,537.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 48.71 101 65100 120 COMMUNICATIONS 243.52 101 65100 160 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 356.03 101 65100 200 TRAINING EXPENSE 868.72 101 65100 260 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 20.41 101 65100 292 27258 FORTE PRESS CORP. 13759 449.24 MISC. SUPPLIES 449.24 530 65400 120 27259 CALL-PRIMROSE CENTER 13918 5,006.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,006.00 101 64560 220 27260 CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE 13919 1,396.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,396.00 101 64560 220 27261 HUMAN INVESTMENT PROJECT 13922 1,863.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,863.00 101 64560 220 27262 MISSION HOSPICE 13923 1,863.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,863.00 101 64560 220 27263 PARCA/PROJECT REACH 13924 1,944.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,944.00 101 64560 220 27264 SAMARITAN HOUSE & 13925 7,417.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,417.00 101 64560 220 27265 COMMUNITY OVERCOMING RELATIONSHI 13926 3,180.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,180.00 101 64560 220 27266 YFA CRISIS INTERVENTION AND 13927 2,187.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,187.00 101 64560 220 27267 PROJECT FOCYS 13980 3,554.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,554.00 101 64560 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27243 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 1,039.46 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,039.46 101 66210 226 27244 KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 02665 AP 4,750.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,750.00 327 81500 210 27245 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 342.56 SUPPLIES 342.56 620 15000 27246 P. G. & E. 03054 20,094.78 GAS & ELECTRIC 20,094.78 101 66100 170 27247 AT&T 03080 77.52 COMMUNICATIONS 77.52 101 65100 160 27248 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 AP 314,805.40 WATER PURCHASES 314,805.40 526 69020 171 27249 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 AP 1,962.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,962.75 101 65150 220 27250 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC. 09112 668.86 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 668.86 101 68010 190 1787 27251 POM INC. 09248 373.43 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 373.43 530 65400 200 27252 LIFE ASSIST 09392 107.25 MISCELLANEOUS -1.00 201 23611 SUPPLIES 108.25 201 65200 112 27253 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 21,591.54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21,591.54 101 65100 220 27254 3 T EQUIPMENT CO. 10077 343.83 SUPPLIES 343.83 620 15000 27255 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 1,434.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,434.87 201 65200 111 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 08/03/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27234 * STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 11707 AP 676.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 10.94 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 311.79 101 67500 120 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 219.44 101 67500 125 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 102.35 101 67500 129 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 8.44 101 67500 190 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 16.49 101 67500 200 MISCELLANEOUS 6.55 101 67500 235 27235 * CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALI 22424 AP 2,794.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,160.57 101 23611 BANKING SERVICE FEES 1.20 101 64250 120 MISCELLANEOUS 1,021.28 201 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 151.10 526 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 68.95 527 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 37.10 530 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 23.22 619 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 113.44 620 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 17.74 625 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 199.40 730 23611 27236 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 AP 2,458.88 VEHICLE MAINT. 207.93 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 43.08 201 65200 203 SUPPLIES 1,888.57 620 15000 SMALL TOOLS 292.26 620 66700 130 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 27.04 625 65213 203 27237 BURLINGAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY 01535 3,143.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,143.00 101 64560 220 27238 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 155.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 155.00 101 68020 240 2200 27239 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 397.40 MISCELLANEOUS 397.40 101 68020 192 2200 27240 FEDEX 02160 48.03 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 48.03 101 65100 200 27241 BRADLEY D. FLOYD 02171 5,473.40 MISCELLANEOUS 5,473.40 101 65100 010 27242 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 2,593.62 MISCELLANEOUS 2,593.62 896 20282 CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-27-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 15 FUND RECAP - 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 191,790.09 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 6,818.30 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 2,601.64 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 3,508.12 WATER FUND 526 10,085.31 SEWER FUND 527 1,292.50 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,166.84 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 461.86 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 19,771.32 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 5,728.34 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 296.09 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 250.00 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 179,742.58 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $423,512.99 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 15 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 27075 THROUGH 27233 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $423,512.99, 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 07-27-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 14 FUND RECAP 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 38,548.61 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 4,785.40 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 494.13 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 17,217.04 WATER FUND 526 24,961.97 SEWER FUND 527 12,341.73 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 990.42 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 533.33 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 7,432.32 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 6,162.01 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 283.60 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 34,103.25 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1,289.12 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,045.80 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 4,325.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 52,853.47 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $207,367.20 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 14 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 27075 THROUGH 27233 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $207,367.20, 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 07-27-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 230,338.70 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 6,818.30 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 7,387.04 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 494.13 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 20,725.16 WATER FUND 526 35,047.28 SEWER FUND 527 13,634.23 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 2,157.26 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 995.19 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 27,203.64 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 11,890.35 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 283.60 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 34,399.34 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1,539.12 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 180,788.38 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 4,325.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 52,853.47 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $630,880.19 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 13 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 27075 THROUGH 27233 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $630,880.19, 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 12 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 27233 MARILYN ALDEN 27721 47.00 MISCELLANEOUS 47.00 101 36330 000 1646 TOTAL $630,880.19 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27217 KATE BIAGINI 27700 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 27218 BRADLEY MATTEONI 27701 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 27219 ANNA MAES 27702 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.00 101 36330 000 1521 27220 THOR AUDIO SOLUTIONS 27703 2,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,400.00 101 68010 220 1950 27221 WILLIAM MEEKER 27704 AP 784.86 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 784.86 101 64400 250 27222 JESSICA LIU-WONG 27705 1,670.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 747.00 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 923.25 101 68010 220 1645 27223 ERIC NYLANDER 27706 AP 900.00 MISCELLANEOUS 900.00 731 22554 27224 STEPHANIE LEE 27707 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 27225 EMILIO GUTIERREZ 27708 141.00 MISCELLANEOUS 141.00 101 36330 000 1372 27226 KAREN OMRAN 27709 76.00 MISCELLANEOUS 76.00 101 36330 000 1372 27227 JONATHAN TUMASOVA 27710 141.00 MISCELLANEOUS 141.00 101 36330 000 1372 27228 HENRY NG 27711 10.00 MISCELLANEOUS 10.00 101 36330 000 1890 27229 MELLO TRANSMISSION CO 27712 AP 3,930.96 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 3,930.96 201 65200 203 27230 SUZANNE MALIK 27718 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 36330 000 1370 27231 PATRICIA CATOMER 27719 204.00 MISCELLANEOUS 204.00 101 36330 000 1370 27232 LAURELLE GUTIERREZ-LUNDQUIST 27720 58.00 MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 101 36330 000 1890 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27201 ROSEMARIE SCHUBERT 27361 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.00 101 36330 000 1521 27202 KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES 27428 AP 140.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 140.00 101 68020 210 2300 27203 DEKRA LITE 27479 AP 1,289.12 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,289.12 730 69593 120 6030 27204 SEANA MAGALONG 27569 141.00 MISCELLANEOUS 141.00 101 36330 000 1372 27205 ROSEMARY RAYBURN 27688 21.00 MISCELLANEOUS 21.00 101 36330 000 1660 27206 SANDY WONG 27689 38.00 MISCELLANEOUS 38.00 101 36330 000 1660 27207 MARTIN ALEXANDER 27690 91.00 MISCELLANEOUS 91.00 101 36330 000 1372 27208 ISABEL WONG 27691 57.00 MISCELLANEOUS 57.00 101 36330 000 1372 27209 ERIKA RAINS 27692 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.00 101 36330 000 1521 27210 BEVERLY J. BUHS 27693 44.00 MISCELLANEOUS 44.00 101 36330 000 1521 27211 JOAN BRUNA 27694 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.00 101 36330 000 1521 27212 MOISES SPILLER 27695 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 27213 LIANA GOH 27696 6.00 MISCELLANEOUS 6.00 101 36330 000 1782 27214 MYLA PUYAT 27697 40.00 MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 101 36330 000 1660 27215 AGNIESZKA KOSIOREK 27698 40.00 MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 101 36330 000 1660 27216 DEBBIE CRISP 27699 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 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27186 DATABANK IMX 26176 AP 7,029.78 MISCELLANEOUS 7,029.78 101 22518 27187 EDWARD R BACON CO 26515 AP 3,727.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 811.88 101 66210 120 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,915.80 527 66520 800 27188 PROFORCE LAW ENFORCEMENT 26570 AP 5,934.05 PRISONER EXPENSE 5,934.05 101 65100 291 27189 PRINTING INNOVATIONS 26591 510.94 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 510.94 618 64520 210 27190 ROBERT BRAND 26651 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 27191 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 133.72 OFFICE EXPENSE 35.26 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 10.43 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 15.73 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 72.30 101 66210 120 27192 TASER INTERNATIONAL 26855 350.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 350.00 101 65100 200 27193 ANA RECINOS MBA 26956 580.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 580.00 101 64420 210 27194 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 26977 AP 124.15 UTILITY EXPENSE 124.15 896 20281 27195 SELMAN BREITMAN LLP 26984 657.73 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 657.73 618 64520 210 27196 AVERY ASSOCIATES 27007 9,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,000.00 526 69020 210 27197 CONNIE T. WONG 27287 33.00 MISCELLANEOUS 33.00 101 36330 000 1660 27198 MARY T BANNON 27312 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.00 101 36330 000 1521 27199 HJW GEOSPATIAL INC 27318 AP 790.81 MISC. SUPPLIES 790.81 101 64400 120 27200 NATIONAL CITIZEN SURVEY 27351 4,200.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,200.00 101 65150 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27172 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 AP 581.66 OFFICE EXPENSE 300.19 101 65100 110 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 281.47 101 65100 292 27173 HORTUS LANDSCAPING 25268 150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 150.00 101 22520 27174 KELLIE MEYERS 25339 291.00 MISCELLANEOUS 291.00 101 36330 000 1423 27175 OFFICE DEPOT 25488 102.87 OFFICE EXPENSE 102.87 101 64540 110 27176 VIRGINIA THOMSON 25541 22.00 MISCELLANEOUS 22.00 101 36330 000 1521 27177 RON NOVELLI 25609 356.50 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 356.50 130 20060 27178 JENNIFER BARTLETT 25665 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 36330 000 1370 27179 CYNTHIA STRONG 25705 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 27180 LIONEL RECIO 25751 40.00 MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 101 36330 000 1645 27181 LYNDA POULTON 25772 155.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 155.00 130 20060 27182 MARTIN DILLON 25774 125.37 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 125.37 130 20060 27183 ED BARTON 25850 311.43 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 311.43 130 20060 27184 GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 26096 1,648.80 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 461.87 101 65150 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 461.87 101 65100 200 VEHICLE MAINT. 263.20 201 65200 202 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 461.86 530 65400 200 27185 ARLENE RESIDE 26163 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 7 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27157 JESUS NAVA 24204 665.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 665.00 101 64250 250 27158 J&L CONSTRUCTION,INC. 24256 2,120.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,120.00 619 64460 804 5110 27159 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 4,370.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,370.00 130 20016 27160 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 169.65 MISCELLANEOUS 169.65 618 64520 234 27161 BURLINGAME ROTARY 24566 200.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 200.00 101 64150 240 27162 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 24647 784.31 MISCELLANEOUS 784.31 101 22515 27163 SUSAN KOHN 24701 37.00 MISCELLANEOUS 37.00 101 36330 000 1660 27164 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 AP 89.55 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 89.55 201 65200 220 27165 PREMIER INVESTIGATIONS 24828 2,190.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,190.00 101 65100 210 27166 TOM DONNELLY 24830 650.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 650.00 201 65200 260 27167 CMTA 24971 350.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 350.00 101 64250 260 27168 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 188.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 116.10 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12.58 101 65150 220 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 12.58 101 65100 292 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 47.14 201 65200 220 27169 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 556.52 OFFICE EXPENSE 556.52 201 65200 110 27170 MICHAEL VONADA 25235 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 27171 JAKE PELK 25236 378.85 MISCELLANEOUS 378.85 731 22554 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27146 PACE CONSULTING 23457 AP 3,100.00 COMMUNICATIONS 400.00 101 65100 160 COMMUNICATIONS 200.00 101 65150 160 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 533.33 101 65100 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 533.34 101 65150 200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 101 65150 220 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 533.33 530 65400 200 27147 LEGALINK LOS ANGELES 23480 AP 1,602.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,602.25 618 64520 210 27148 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 AP 21,617.46 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 17,217.04 326 81690 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,400.42 526 69020 220 27149 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 282.05 MISC. SUPPLIES 220.54 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 61.51 619 64460 120 5250 27150 SHRM 23632 145.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 145.00 101 64420 240 27151 FREEMAN-DESIGNS 23653 AP 1,715.00 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 343.00 101 68010 140 1370 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 171.50 101 68010 140 1423 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 101 68010 220 1423 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.50 101 68010 220 1370 27152 CITY OF HALF MOON BAY 23862 AP 145.80 MISCELLANEOUS 145.80 731 22587 27153 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 AP 384.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 384.00 101 64420 210 27154 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 AP 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 27155 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 6,412.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 264.54 101 68010 120 1114 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 355.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 249.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 755.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,702.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,087.00 619 64460 220 5110 27156 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 AP 36.36 COMMUNICATIONS 36.36 101 65300 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME N A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27132 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 232.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 52.21 101 65300 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 180.76 101 64400 120 27133 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 AP 1,075.00 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 1,075.00 101 64420 210 27134 MONICA EHLERS 21627 701.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 701.25 101 68010 220 1661 27135 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 AP 8,080.49 MISCELLANEOUS 8,080.49 101 37010 27136 HILLSIDE DRILLING 21840 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 27137 NORTH AMERICAN SPORTS MANAGEMENT 22382 AP 920.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 920.00 101 68010 220 1785 27138 QUENVOLDS SAFETY SHOEMOBILES 22479 2,239.45 TRAINING EXPENSE 952.07 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 335.31 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 952.07 527 66520 260 27139 TURF STAR 22682 195.65 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 195.65 101 68020 200 2200 27140 JONES AND MAYER 22818 288.00 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 288.00 101 64350 210 27141 ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 22851 10,843.00 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 10,843.00 618 64520 225 27142 MIKE COFFEY 23009 628.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 628.00 130 20015 27143 BOB MALLAMO 23173 229.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 229.00 130 20015 27144 OFFICE MAX 23306 164.41 OFFICE EXPENSE 88.32 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 76.09 621 64450 110 27145 STEVEN PORTER 23405 543.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 543.00 130 20060 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27118 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 AP 573.58 OFFICE EXPENSE 60. 11 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 7.34 101 64200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.34 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.34 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.33 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 382.87 201 65200 111 OFFICE EXPENSE 101 .25 621 64450 110 27119 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 AP 1 ,750.26 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1 ,750.26 528 66600 210 27120 THE MERCURY NEWS 19610 AP 236.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 236.25 528 66600 120 27121 DON DORNELL 19617 AP 380.00 MISCELLANEOUS 380.00 101 65200 031 27122 CANTERBURY INTERNATIONAL 19721 AP 2,445.93 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,445.93 101 66210 120 27123 CHI HUA HUNG 19912 4,555.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,555.00 101 22546 27124 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 220.00 COMMUNICATIONS 220.00 621 64450 160 27125 RACQUET SMITH 20339 5,990.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,990.40 101 68010 220 1782 27126 R. POTTS, INC. 20348 AP 2,503.50 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT . 21503.50 101 68020 190 2200 27127 CWEA - CALIFORNIA WATER 20631 220.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 220.00 527 66520 240 27128 JEFF DOWD 20779 9,949. 10 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,949. 10 101 68010 220 1372 27129 PACIFIC COAST TRANE SERVICE. 20818 781 .00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 781 .00 619 64460 210 5120 27130 ON CAMERA PRODUCTIONS 21177 AP 4,325 .00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,325.00 738 64580 220 27131 SPARTAN TOOL LLC 21329 120.43 MISC. SUPPLIES 120.43 527 66520 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27104 DEPT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES 17117 AP 11.00 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 11.00 101 66210 222 27105 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 2,370.78 OFFICE EXPENSE 2,370.78 101 64250 110 27106 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 AP 494.13 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 494.13 320 81740 210 27107 C/CAG 17725 132,262.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 132,262.00 101 64560 220 27108 JEFF HIPPS 17803 5,768.10 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,768.10 101 68010 220 1372 27109 KELLEHER & ASSOCIATES 18239 AP 5,830.07 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,830.07 618 64520 210 27110 DAMON CARLUCCI 18418 76.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 76.50 101 68010 220 1646 27111 O'BRIEN & SONS CONSTRUCTION 18437 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 27112 RICH SCIUTTO 18572 234.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 234.00 101 68010 220 1372 27113 BAY AREA PAVING CO 18790 AP 19,987.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,987.00 526 69020 220 27114 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 AP 246.40 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 246.40 101 64420 121 27115 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 AP 1,852.26 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 376.18 101 66210 140 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 277.55 201 65200 220 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 368.01 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 376.17 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 170.75 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 283.60 620 66700 140 27116 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 185.12 MISC. SUPPLIES 185.12 326 80910 120 27117 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 4,095.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,095.00 101 64420 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27089 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 889.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 889.00 101 65100 220 27090 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 179,363.73 MISCELLANEOUS 179,363.73 731 22587 27091 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 AP 461.92 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 461.92 101 64350 210 27092 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 AP 14.01 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.01 619 64460 120 5250 27093 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 AP 856.00 PRISONER EXPENSE 856.00 101 65100 291 27094 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 7,590.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 90.00 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 7,500.00 618 64520 601 27095 ANA FITZGERALD 09975 450.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 101 68010 220 1647 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 270.00 101 68010 220 1646 27096 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 670.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 300.00 101 65100 110 COMMUNICATIONS 120.00 101 65100 160 MISC. SUPPLIES 250.00 730 69530 120 27097 3M COMPANY 13848 AP 117.95 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 117.95 101 66210 222 27098 DEWEY PEST CONTROL 14338 AP 8,057.00 RAT CONTROL PROGRAM 8,057.00 527 66520 218 27099 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY 14358 3,323.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,323.00 326 80910 220 27100 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 AP 206.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 206.54 526 69020 120 27101 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 109.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 109.00 101 64420 121 27102 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 1,250.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,250.00 101 68010 220 1787 27103 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 AP 114.96 TRAINING EXPENSE 114.96 527 66520 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 07/27/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27075 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATIO 01074 AP 877.80 MISCELLANEOUS -65.84 527 23611 TRAINING EXPENSE 943.64 527 66520 260 27076 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 275.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 275.00 101 68010 240 1100 27077 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 AP 34,002.00 COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 33,702.00 621 64450 220 27078 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 1,189.25 SMALL TOOLS 1,084.78 201 65200 130 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 104.47 201 65200 140 27079 GENE EVANS 02149 168.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 168.75 101 68010 220 1644 27080 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 785.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 271.24 619 64460 120 SMALL TOOLS 514.73 619 64460 130 27081 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 477.90 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 477.90 101 66210 226 27082 KW LIGHTING DISCOUNTERS 02645 1,102.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,102.20 619 64460 120 5250 27083 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 459.12 MISC. SUPPLIES 459.12 619 64460 120 27084 P. G. & E. 03054 AP 52,523.62 UTILITY EXPENSE 52,523.62 896 20280 27085 AT&T 03080 AP 361.52 COMMUNICATIONS 155.82 101 67500 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 205.70 896 20281 27086 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 1,291.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,291.50 101 68010 220 1372 27087 SANDRA POBE 03175 465.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 465.00 101 68010 220 1646 27088 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 198.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 198.00 619 64460 120 5240 CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-19-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 67,112.79 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 503.00 WATER FUND 526 16,975.11 SEWER FUND 527 925,670.01 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 166.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 1,002.96 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 55.97 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2,979.90 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 435.00 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,014,900.74 (o(-IIL '] `5-70.00> Vv I D 'Xv I r c <-100.00� VOID <iLf, 3(3.990>V01� a-,v-)q, x.00 Vo►D ��r�,� z1I707 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 26969 THROUGH 27074 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,014,900.74, 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 07-19-2007 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 47,957.81 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 9,611.90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 3,026.09 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 154,741.05 WATER FUND 526 4,959.51 SEWER FUND 527 154.00 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 105.00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 10,365.33 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 21,516.97 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 19,909.46 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 48,407.50 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2,182.75 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 720.91 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 88,222.24 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 25,523.21 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1,108.71 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $438,512.44 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 26969 THROUGH 27074 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $438,512.44, 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 07-19-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 115,070.60 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 10,114.90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 3,026.09 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 154,741.05 WATER FUND 526 21,934.62 SEWER FUND 527 925,824.01 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 105.00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 10,531.33 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 21,516.97 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 20,912.42 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 48,463.47 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 5,162.65 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 720.91 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 88,222.24 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 25,523.21 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1,543.71 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,453,413.18 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 26969 THROUGH 27074 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,453,413.18, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27064 MICHAEL'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 27227 AP 5,295.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 620.00 101 68010 120 1423 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,907.00 101 68010 220 1423 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,768.00 101 68010 220 1370 27065 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27305 AP 42.32 COMMUNICATIONS 42.32 101 65100 160 27066 BLACK DIAMOND PAVING 27352 AP 21,150.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 21,150.00 618 64520 210 27067 KEVIN GARDINER AND ASSOCIATES 27560 AP 8,286.33 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 8,286.33 530 65400 210 27068 LOOMIS 27594 AP 2,579.00 BANKING SERVICE FEES 500.00 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,079.00 530 65400 120 27069 JOHN ODDEN 27642 8,262.50 MISCELLANEOUS 8,262.50 101 22546 27070 BOND BLACKTOP INC 27656 AP 10,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,000.00 101 66210 220 27071 RACHEL FOXHOVEN 27684 1,200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 101 68010 220 1646 27072 CARUSO TAM 27685 223.00 MISCELLANEOUS 223.00 526 36730 27073 JAMES HENDERSON 27686 139.76 MISCELLANEOUS 139.76 101 31510 27074 WRISTBAND RESOURCES INC 27687 AP 313.50 MISCELLANEOUS -24.39 101 23611 MISC. SUPPLIES 337.89 101 68010 120 1370 TOTAL $1,453,413.18 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27049 NEOPOST 24987 2,979.90 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 2,979.90 621 64450 200 27050 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES 25013 5,586.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,586.00 101 68010 220 1349 27051 JAMES MURPHY 25080 850.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 850.00 101 68010 220 1661 27052 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 3,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,000.00 101 68010 220 1646 27053 GINA BALDRIDGE 25092 360.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 360.00 101 68010 120 1330 27054 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 12.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 12.00 201 65200 110 27055 MERCY MARTIN 25270 1,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00 101 68010 220 1661 27056 OFFICE DEPOT 25488 AP 165.05 OFFICE EXPENSE 165.05 101 64200 110 27057 COPWARE INC. 25846 450.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00 101 65100 220 27058 PETER BASSFORD 26116 3,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 101 68010 220 1349 27059 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 63.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.70 526 69020 120 27060 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 147.65 OFFICE EXPENSE 44.64 101 65300 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 74.26 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 28.75 526 69020 120 27061 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27019 AP 1,108.71 UTILITY EXPENSE 1,108.71 896 20281 27062 SAN FRANCISCO FENCERS CLUB 27032 193.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 193.60 101 68010 220 1762 27063 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27040 AP 32.07 COMMUNICATIONS 32.07 101 65100 160 VEHICLE MAINT. 9.95 201 65200 __2 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 499.89 201 65200 203 TRAINING EXPENSE 267.35 201 65200 260 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 154.00 527 66520 240 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 16.12 618 64520 210 MISCELLANEOUS 350.85 618 64520 604 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.47 619 64460 120 5130 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 229.00 619 64460 250 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 27.24 620 66700 190 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 169.00 620 66700 210 OFFICE EXPENSE 11151.85 621 64450 110 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 578.29 621 64450 200 MISC. SUPPLIES 214.45 730 69593 120 6030 MISC. SUPPLIES 506.46 730 69533 120 MISCELLANEOUS 29.21 731 22554 MISCELLANEOUS 35.49 731 22542 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27048 I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 AP 26,672.48 OFFICE EXPENSE 98.44 101 68020 110 2200 OFFICE EXPENSE 173.19 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 14.63 101 67500 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 279.33 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 60.56 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 92.74 101 67500 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 56.23 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,350.10 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.47 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 320.07 101 68010 120 1890 MISC. SUPPLIES 52.35 101 68010 120 1787 MISC. SUPPLIES 230.00 101 64400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 855.69 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 213.33 101 68010 120 1893 MISC. SUPPLIES 778.58 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,566.92 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 767.79 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 333.03 101 68010 120 1891 MISC. SUPPLIES 547.81 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 35.50 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 188.32 101 65100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 24.95 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,674.25 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.13 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,427.52 101 68010 120 1950 MISC. SUPPLIES 761.37 101 64420 120 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 148.03 101 64420 121 LIBRARY--PERIODICALS 192.00 101 67500 122 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 278.63 101 68010 140 1893 COMMUNICATIONS 55.90 101 65100 160 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 85.88 101 67500 190 MISCELLANEOUS 1,080.00 101 68020 192 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 90.82 101 68020 200 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 133.00 101 68010 220 1370 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 608.95 101 68010 220 1950 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 561.00 101 68010 220 1423 MISCELLANEOUS 112.45 101 67500 235 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 295.00 101 64100 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 167.30 101 64250 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 18.15 101 64150 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 28.95 101 64420 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 215.00 101 65100 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 65.00 101 65150 260 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 76.76 101 64100 290 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 50.00 101 65100 292 OFFICE EXPENSE 19.95 201 65500 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 771.48 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 32.56 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,407.59 201 65200 120 SMALL TOOLS 786.97 201 65200 130 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 152.19 201 65200 190 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27039 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 430.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5160 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5150 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5170 27040 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 AP 17,742.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 902.00 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 619 64460 220 5121 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,892.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,873.00 619 64460 220 5120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 989.00 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,246.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 206.00 619 64460 220 5121 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,101.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 247.00 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,140.00 619 64460 220 5110 27041 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 AP 159.11 COMMUNICATIONS 159.11 619 64460 160 27042 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 AP 5,721.81 SUPPLIES 5,721.81 620 15000 27043 QUILL 24090 AP 425.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 425.08 621 64450 110 27044 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 AP 675.00 MISCELLANEOUS 675.00 526 69020 233 27045 SUSAN MCKEE 24442 350.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 350.00 101 68010 220 1661 27046 GRETCHEN LOTT 24452 663.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 663.00 101 68010 220 1661 27047 DIAMOND SECURITY SOLUTIONS 24659 AP 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 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27025 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00 MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031 27026 OFFICE MAX 23306 AP 140.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 140.99 101 64250 110 27027 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 126.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 126.54 619 64460 120 5120 27028 DATASAFE 23410 AP 165.65 OFFICE EXPENSE 56.15 101 66100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 109.50 101 64350 120 27029 RECALL- TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT 23411 108.23 MISCELLANEOUS 108.23 101 22518 27030 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 AP 1,292.46 MISC. SUPPLIES 331.95 101 66210 120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 707.58 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 252.93 619 64460 210 5230 27031 KAREN SCHEIKOWITZ 23507 553.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 553.60 101 68010 220 1661 27032 PETERSON 23633 AP 1,160.40 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,160.40 620 66700 200 27033 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 AP 94.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 94.78 619 64460 120 27034 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 AP 105.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 105.00 528 66600 210 27035 AT&T/MCI 23728 AP 27.68 COMMUNICATIONS 0.15 101 68020 160 MISC. SUPPLIES 27.53 621 64450 120 27036 BRENDA JENSEN 23813 3,888.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,888.00 101 68010 220 1330 27037 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 446.42 MISC. SUPPLIES 446.42 619 64460 120 5190 27038 BRIAN ROCHE 23865 4,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,500.00 101 22546 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 27012 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 AP 1,000.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,000.00 526 69020 260 27013 CHRISSY HOLMES 21723 216.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 216.00 101 68010 220 1644 27014 HILLSIDE DRILLING 21840 AP 154,741.05 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 154,741.05 327 81700 210 27015 IEDA 21981 3,530.41 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,530.41 101 64420 210 27016 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 2,557.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,263.38 526 69020 120 MISCELLANEOUS 293.82 526 69020 233 27017 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 AP 2,460.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,320.00 201 35220 000 7100 MISCELLANEOUS 11140.00 201 35221 000 7100 27018 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 AP 23,770.57 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,043.47 736 64572 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,727.10 736 64571 220 27019 TURF STAR 22682 AP 18,000.28 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 18,000.28 620 66700 800 27020 MARTIN AND CHAPMAN 22731 19.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 19.99 101 64540 110 27021 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 435.00 UTILITY EXPENSE 435.00 896 20281 27022 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 AP 760.00 MISCELLANEOUS 760.00 526 69020 233 27023 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 1,041.41 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 166.00 101 65150 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 459.14 101 65100 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 250.27 201 65200 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 166.00 530 65400 140 27024 FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUT 23012 AP 8,094.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 6,210.00 101 64400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 690.00 101 65300 120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 504.00 101 64350 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 690.00 201 65200 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26996 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 AP 40.86 MISC. SUPPLIES 40.86 619 64460 120 5260 26997 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 AP 21,474.53 SUPPLIES 21,474.53 620 15000 26998 TEAM CLEAN 15827 AP 220.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 220.00 201 65200 220 26999 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BO 16587 707,443.78 LOAN PRINCIPAL PAYMENT 433,684.04 527 66530 761 INTEREST PAYMENT 273,759.74 527 66530 762 27000 BROADWAY BUSINESS 16849 AP 112.50 MISCELLANEOUS 112.50 731 22555 27001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16919 AP 1,265.58 SUPPLIES 1,265.58 620 15000 27002 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 AP 320.78 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 320.78 101 65100 200 27003 SHAW PIPELINE INC 17959 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 27004 TOOLS EXPRESS 18027 425.43 TRAINING EXPENSE 425.43 101 68020 260 2200 27005 RICHARD HAMBLIN 18210 30.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.00 101 68010 220 1788 27006 THE MERCURY NEWS 19610 AP 239.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 239.96 101 66100 120 27007 CAL-LINE EQUIPMENT INC 19697 310.61 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 310.61 101 68020 200 2200 27008 MONICA OLSEN 19832 288.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 288.00 101 68010 220 1661 27009 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 AP 1,752.64 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,752.64 736 64570 220 27010 LARRY ANDERSON 20716 215.00 MISCELLANEOUS 215.00 101 64350 031 27011 JEFF DOWD 20779 4,634.70 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,634.70 101 68010 220 1372 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26983 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 AP 251.44 MISC. SUPPLIES 18.67 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 61.95 619 64460 120 5150 MISC. SUPPLIES 106.89 619 64460 120 5250 MISC. SUPPLIES 27.82 619 64460 120 5170 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 36.11 620 66700 190 26984 STATE OF CA/CONSERVATION DEPT 09073 AP 4,323.79 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 4,323.79 731 22520 26985 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 AP 1,453.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,453.00 101 65100 220 26986 STERICYCLE, INC. 09439 234.00 PRISONER EXPENSE 234.00 101 65100 291 26987 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 AP 1,330.13 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 359.21 101 68020 200 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 340.98 101 68020 200 2300 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT, 4.47 201 65200 203 MISC. SUPPLIES 625.47 526 69020 120 26988 MARGARET KRAMER 09612 1,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00 101 68010 220 1661 26989 OLE'S 09626 112.87 SUPPLIES 112.87 620 15000 26990 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 AP 97.59 VEHICLE MAINT. 97.59 201 65200 202 26991 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES 09722 AP 1,919.09 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,919.09 320 81160 210 26992 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 19,571.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 19,080.00 101 65150 200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 491.00 201 65200 220 26993 SAN MATEO LOCK WORKS 14643 AP 180.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 180.00 101 65100 292 26994 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 AP 69.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 69.00 101 64420 121 26995 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 AP 222.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 222.00 101 68010 220 1787 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 07/19/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26969 BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. 01500 AP 50,246.51 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 50,246.51 731 22563 26970 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 135.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 135.00 101 68020 250 2200 26971 WESTERN POWER AND EQUIPMENT 01857 AP 495.65 SUPPLIES 495.65 620 15000 26972 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 AP 676.56 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 676.56 201 65200 200 26973 VEOLIA WATER 02110 218,216.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 218,216.00 527 66530 220 26974 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 234.06 MISCELLANEOUS 234.06 101 68020 192 2200 26975 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 AP 359.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 113.93 619 64460 120 SMALL TOOLS 245.47 619 64460 130 26976 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 AP 179.78 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 179.78 101 66210 226 26977 P. G. & E. 03054 AP 1,862.47 GAS & ELECTRIC 1,587.16 101 68010 170 1286 GAS & ELECTRIC 265.08 201 65200 170 GAS & ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170 26978 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 1,372.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,372.00 101 68010 220 1372 26979 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL 03380 15,251.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 15,251.50 526 69020 210 26980 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 AP 33,474.74 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 33,474.74 731 22562 26981 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 AP 1,107.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,107.00 320 76350 220 26982 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 AP 350.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 350.00 101 65100 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-13-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 19 FUND RECAP - 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 39,524.88 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 2,640.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 1,000.00 WATER FUND 526 5,658.66 SEWER FUND 527 218,616.00 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 6,322.55 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 462,148.00 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,358.80 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,088.10 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 20,198.00 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $758,554.99 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 19 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 26724 THROUGH 26925 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $758,554.99, 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 07-13-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 18 FUND RECAP 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 100,351.00 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 49,962.59 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4,020.00 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 129,132.53 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 39,534.20 WATER FUND 526 14,516.16 SEWER FUND 527 9,515.15 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 8,365.64 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 43.05 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 7,020.52 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 26,871.20 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 4,541.07 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,004.88 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 3,294.16 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 13,859.88 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 575.64 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 8,876.92 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $421,484.59 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 18 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 26724 THROUGH 26925 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $421,484.59, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-13-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 17 FUND RECAP 07-08 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 139,875.88 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 2,640.00 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 49,962.59 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 5,020.00 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 129,132.53 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 39,534.20 WATER FUND 526 20,174.82 SEWER FUND 527 228,131.15 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 8,365.64 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 6,365.60 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 469,168.52 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 26,871.20 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 5,899.87 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2,092.98 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 3,294.16 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 13,859.88 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 575.64 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 20,198.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 8,876.92 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,180,039.58 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 17 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 26724 THROUGH 26925 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,180,039.58, 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 16 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26922 BILLY DEMARTINI 27680 325.00 MISCELLANEOUS 325.00 101 37010 26923 JAMIE GOMEZ 27681 282.00 MISCELLANEOUS 282.00 101 36330 000 1372 26924 YUK CHING YANG FUNG 27682 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1762 26925 MARIA FERNANDEZ 27683 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1890 TOTAL $1,180,039.58 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 15 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26907 LISA MARIE PLEASANCE 27664 123.00 MISCELLANEOUS 123.00 101 36330 000 1372 26908 SHIRLEY TANG 27665 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 101 36330 000 1762 26909 AGAPI BURKHARDT 27666 112.00 MISCELLANEOUS 112.00 101 36330 000 1331 26910 ROBERT ANTHONY FLOWERDAY 27667 411.00 MISCELLANEOUS 179.00 101 36330 000 1370 MISCELLANEOUS 232.00 101 36330 000 1423 26911 JULIA H. COOK 27668 310.00 MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 36330 000 1782 MISCELLANEOUS 120.00 101 36330 000 1890 26912 DARLENE RUTKOWSKI 27669 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 26913 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO MENTAL HEALT 27670 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 26914 RAMIRO ALVAREZ 27671 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 26915 NEW LIFE COMMUNITY CHURCH 27672 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 26916 LATRICE LOTT 27673 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1216 26917 ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION 27674 2,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 64560 220 26918 DAVID HODSKINS 27675 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 26919 RABAT 27677 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 26920 WORKSMART PROMOTIONS 27678 AP 149.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 149.00 526 69020 120 26921 FORMS + SURFACES 27679 AP 953.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 953.68 101 66210 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 14 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26891 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26899 AP 66.85 COMMUNICATIONS 66.85 101 64150 160 26892 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26900 AP 53.01 COMMUNICATIONS 53.01 101 64250 160 26893 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26901 AP 138.52 TRAINING EXPENSE 138.52 101 65300 260 26894 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26910 AP 263.53 COMMUNICATIONS 263.53 101 66100 160 26895 OCT ACADEMY 27131 290.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 290.00 526 69020 260 26896 CARPET SYSTEMS 27137 AP 16,574.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 585.00 619 64460 210 5130 MISCELLANEOUS 15,989.00 619 64460 804 5120 26897 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF SAN 27283 AP 224.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 224.14 527 66520 120 26898 FLEETPRIDE 27393 AP 138.02 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 138.02 625 65213 203 26899 PROMOTIONAL ADVANTAGE 27563 AP 11,708.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 11,708.40 730 69593 120 6020 26900 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27565 AP 164.69 COMMUNICATIONS 164.69 201 65200 160 26901 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27595 AP 65.31 COMMUNICATIONS 65.31 101 65100 160 26902 SAN CARLOS AUTO CENTER 27659 AP 443.00 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 443.00 625 65213 203 26903 THE STUDIO 27660 AP 203.45 MISC. SUPPLIES 203.45 201 65200 120 26904 ACME SECURITY 27661 AP 593.54 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 593.54 619 64460 210 5270 26905 MAGGIE POLLOCK 27662 702.00 MISCELLANEOUS 702.00 101 36330 000 1370 26906 STEPHANIE WONG 27663 70.00 MISCELLANEOUS 70.00 101 36330 000 1349 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26876 SAN FRANCISCO SHAKESPEARE FESTIV 26194 7,384.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,755.00 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 629.00 101 68010 220 1644 26877 J.P. COOKE CO. 26207 AP 404.33 SMALL TOOLS 404.33 101 65300 130 26878 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 AP 715.15 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 715.15 621 64450 220 26879 TERRY NAGEL 26521 AP 115.97 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 115.97 101 64100 250 26880 R.A. METAL PRODUCTS, INC 26527 AP 416.76 MISCELLANEOUS 416.76 526 69020 233 26881 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES 26528 AP 5,269.61 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,269.61 101 68020 800 2200 26882 SAFETY ACADEMY FOR CONSTRUCTION 26544 AP 795.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 265.00 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 530.00 527 66520 260 26883 LAKE TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS 26590 AP 958.63 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 958.63 101 66210 222 26884 PRINTING INNOVATIONS 26591 AP 69.95 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 69.95 101 64150 210 26885 UNITED SITE SERVICES INC 26684 AP 1,331.02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,331.02 101 68010 220 1950 26886 WEF MEMBERSHIP 26809 AP 192.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 192.00 527 66520 240 26887 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 AP 117.73 MISC. SUPPLIES 117.73 101 66210 120 26888 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26896 AP 106.76 COMMUNICATIONS 106.76 201 65200 160 26889 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26897 AP 844.30 COMMUNICATIONS 844.30 201 65200 160 26890 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26898 AP 33.11 COMMUNICATIONS 33.11 101 64100 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26861 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 AP 918.85 OFFICE EXPENSE 918.85 201 65200 110 26862 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 AP 55.84 OFFICE EXPENSE 55.84 101 65100 110 26863 JOSEPH BOJUES 25335 131.00 MISCELLANEOUS 131.00 101 36330 000 1372 26864 CRW SYSTEMS INC 25337 1,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,000.00 320 81300 210 26865 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 160.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 526 69020 190 26866 JOSEPH PADUA 25509 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 22593 26867 ECS IMAGING INC. 25690 3,697.67 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,232.56 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,232.56 101 65150 220 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,232.55 530 65400 120 26868 MR. CANNIFFE 25758 44.00 MISCELLANEOUS 44.00 101 36330 000 1372 26869 LAURA LIGHTHOUSE 25765 343.20 MISCELLANEOUS 212.20 101 36330 000 1372 MISCELLANEOUS 80.00 101 36330 000 1780 MISCELLANEOUS 51.00 101 36330 000 1890 26870 KEVIN SULLIVAN 25975 51.00 MISCELLANEOUS 51.00 101 36330 000 1890 26871 MIKE BROWN 25988 AP 274.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 274.00 526 69020 260 26872 PRISTINE AUTO DETAIL 26046 AP 25.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 25.00 101 65100 200 26873 VALLEY POWER SYSTEMS INC. 26059 AP 877.43 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 877.43 625 65213 203 26874 LANCE BAYER 26156 AP 975.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 975.00 101 64350 210 26875 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26161 AP 43.05 COMMUNICATIONS 43.05 530 65400 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26846 ALERT-ALL 24392 AP 757.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 757.75 201 65200 120 26847 METCALF & EDDY INC 24445 AP 103,324.53 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 103,324.53 326 80910 210 26848 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY 24535 AP 155.65 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 155.65 619 64460 210 5130 26849 CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AGENCY 24561 39,375.00 INSURANCE PREMIUMS 39,375.00 618 64520 602 26850 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 AP 1,245.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,245.50 326 80950 210 26851 CENTER HARDWARE 24656 AP 151.94 MISC. SUPPLIES 151.94 619 64460 120 26852 R.S. DIEKMAN AND ASSOC. 24681 AP 1,615.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,615.00 101 68020 190 2200 26853 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 AP 8,675.88 MISC. SUPPLIES 8,675.88 526 69020 120 26854 THE LIGHTHOUSE 24840 AP 361.50 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 50.49 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 311.01 625 65213 203 26855 EXCEL FITNESS SOLUTIONS 24854 AP 170.95 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 170.95 201 65200 200 26856 DENNIS MOORE 24888 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1890 26857 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 AP 4,979.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 4,979.50 527 66520 120 26858 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 609.37 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23.08 101 65150 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 414.94 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171.35 201 65200 220 26859 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 AP 504.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 202.50 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 301.50 101 68010 220 1644 26860 RUTH REIMCHE 25143 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26833 AT&T 23661 AP 29.73 COMMUNICATIONS 29.73 621 64450 160 26834 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 AP 27.06 TRAINING EXPENSE 27.06 527 66520 260 26835 AT&T/MCI 23728 AP 8,895.69 COMMUNICATIONS 18.77 101 64250 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 8,876.92 896 20281 26836 MATT VAUGHN 23787 AP 637.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 637.00 101 68010 220 1372 26837 KEITH MARTIN 23788 AP 167.38 TRAINING EXPENSE 40.00 101 66210 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 72.18 526 69020 120 TRAINING EXPENSE 39.30 526 69020 260 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 12.00 527 66520 240 SUPPLIES 3.90 620 15000 26838 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 AP 2,073.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,073.00 101 23620 26839 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 AP 2,025.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 372.67 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 788.42 101 68010 120 1111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 74.08 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 394.06 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 396.67 619 64460 220 5240 26840 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 AP 282.25 COMMUNICATIONS 282.25 101 68020 160 2300 26841 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 AP 378.88 TRAINING EXPENSE 378.88 620 66700 260 26842 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 AP 372.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 372.00 320 80520 210 26843 BAVCO 24002 AP 243.07 MISCELLANEOUS 243.07 526 69020 233 26844 PACIFIC SURFACING 24026 662.39 MISCELLANEOUS 662.39 526 22502 26845 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 AP 2,475.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,475.00 101 66210 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26819 TURF STAR 22682 AP 65.32 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 65.32 101 68020 200 2200 26820 RACHEL REED 22749 51.00 MISCELLANEOUS 51.00 101 36330 000 1890 26821 JONES AND MAYER 22818 AP 48.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 48.00 101 65100 210 26822 CARL DEQUANT 22842 AP 1,140.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,140.75 101 68010 220 1372 26823 ALLIED IRON CO. 22855 AP 11.96 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 11.96 201 65200 203 26824 SAN MATEO COUNTY PROBATION DEPAR 22943 7,109.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,109.00 101 65100 220 26825 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 AP 24,562.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,325.00 326 79400 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 19,237.50 326 80910 210 26826 OFFICE MAX 23306 AP 1,264.84 OFFICE EXPENSE 421.43 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 512.86 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 330.55 101 66100 110 26827 AIRGAS 23307 AP 4,549.57 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 4,549.57 201 65200 200 26828 SCAPES, INC. 23326 AP 2,500.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 2,500.00 201 65200 190 26829 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 AP 197.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 93.60 619 64460 120 5250 MISC. SUPPLIES 104.36 619 64460 120 26830 ICE CENTER OF SAN MATEO 23512 AP 582.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 582.40 101 68010 220 1762 26831 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 AP 171.40 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 121.64 201 65200 203 MISC. SUPPLIES 49.76 619 64460 120 5240 26832 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 AP 39,305.62 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 39,305.62 327 81800 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 26804 FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. 20967 AP 103.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 103.92 101 65100 220 26805 CEB 21210 AP 219.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 219.50 101 64350 120 26806 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 AP 152.47 SMALL TOOLS 152.47 526 69020 130 26807 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 AP 750.48 MISC. SUPPLIES 750.48 101 68020 120 2200 26808 MISSION VALLEY FORD 21675 AP 66.83 SUPPLIES 66.83 620 15000 26809 ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC. 21749 5,090.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,090.00 530 65400 220 26810 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 AP 170.83 SUPPLIES 170.83 620 15000 26811 JCC , INC. 22157 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 26812 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 AP 880.88 MISC. SUPPLIES 673.75 526 69020 120 SMALL TOOLS 207.13 526 69020 130 26813 LAUREN ORTIZ 22208 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1762 26814 Z.A.P. MANUFACTURING 22249 AP 2,300.51 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 2,300.51 101 66210 222 26815 POWER MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 22349 2,950.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,950.00 101 65100 220 26816 ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CON 22387 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 26817 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 AP 400.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 400.00 620 66700 210 26818 PENINSULA T.V. 22442 20,198.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20,198.00 738 64580 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26789 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 AP 1,179.51 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 808.22 101 68010 220 1349 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 37.40 526 69020 140 MISC. SUPPLIES 333.89 527 66520 120 26790 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 AP 228.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 228.58 327 81800 120 26791 PRIORITY 1 19239 AP 57.59 SUPPLIES 57.59 620 15000 26792 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 AP 159.20 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 142.22 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 16.98 625 65213 203 26793 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 AP 5,404.64 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,404.64 528 66600 210 26794 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 AP 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 26795 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,866.00 RENTS & LEASES 1,866.00 526 69020 180 26796 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 AP 260.00 COMMUNICATIONS 260.00 621 64450 160 26797 RACQUET SMITH 20339 AP 8,236.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,236.80 101 68010 220 1782 26798 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 2,309.29 SUPPLIES 2,309.29 620 15000 26799 SPRINT PCS 20724 AP 1,133.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 707.71 101 65100 220 MISCELLANEOUS 425.64 731 22554 26800 JEFF DOWD 20779 AP 199.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.50 101 68010 220 1785 26801 JIM CANNIZZARO 20808 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 26802 PACIFIC COAST TRANE SERVICE 20818 AP 1,307.81 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,307.81 619 64460 210 5150 26803 SPORTS CHOICE 20845 AP 815.69 MISC. SUPPLIES 815.69 101 68010 120 1891 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26774 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 AP 1,396.36 SMALL TOOLS 1,396.36 620 66700 130 26775 MASATOSHI MORITA 16464 AP 196.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 196.80 101 68010 220 1762 26776 COMMUNITY GATEPATH 16575 AP 12,951.24 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,951.24 101 68010 220 1330 26777 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 AP 190.69 SUPPLIES 190.69 620 15000 26778 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 AP 659.84 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 659.84 101 68020 140 2200 26779 COLORPRINT 17497 AP 371.30 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 190.52 101 66210 220 MISC. SUPPLIES 180.78 526 69020 120 26780 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE 17546 AP 185.90 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 185.90 625 65213 203 26781 LEE & ASSOCIATES 17568 AP 975.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 975.00 201 65200 260 26782 JEFF HIPPS 17803 AP 6,762.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,762.60 101 68010 220 1646 26783 GOODWAY TECHNOLOGIES CORP 18370 AP 1,587.50 MISCELLANEOUS -123.96 526 23611 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,711.46 526 69020 120 26784 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 18419 2,640.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,640.00 130 20018 26785 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 644.80 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 644.80 101 64420 210 26786 LEHIGH SAFETY SHOE CO 18755 AP 335.32 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 335.32 101 68020 140 2300 26787 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 AP 2,344.52 MISCELLANEOUS 2,344.52 618 64520 604 26788 BAY ALARM 18854 AP 279.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 279.00 619 64460 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26762 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 AP 1,945.51 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,016.63 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 928.88 625 65213 203 26763 SHAFFER'S AUTO SERVICE CENTER 11324 AP 436.01 VEHICLE MAINT. 436.01 201 65200 202 26764 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 AP 3,935.35 OFFICE EXPENSE 1.00 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.81 201 65200 111 SUPPLIES 149.36 201 65200 112 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,112.45 201 65200 120 FIRE--SUPPLIES 150.00 201 65200 127 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 35.73 201 65200 140 RADIO MAINT. 7.50 201 65200 205 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 200.00 201 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 73.50 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,045.00 201 65200 260 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 731 22554 26765 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 AP 1,546.16 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,546.16 527 66520 120 26766 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 AP 396.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 396.00 619 64460 210 5240 26767 PAIGE COMPANY 14138 AP 327.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 327.08 101 64200 110 26768 RECHARGE'EM 14523 AP 286.86 OFFICE EXPENSE 286.86 201 65200 110 26769 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 AP 1,853.35 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 449.13 527 66520 230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,404.22 619 64460 210 5250 26770 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 AP 1,586.81 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,586.81 101 65100 220 26771 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 AP 2,472.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,472.00 101 68010 220 1787 26772 JAMES E. EDWARDS 16065 AP 500.00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 500.00 620 66700 800 26773 MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 16148 AP 3,811.16 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,811.16 618 64520 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT * Denotes Hand Written Checks 26753 NOEL L. MILLER, INC, 09499 AP 260.00 SUPPLIES 260.00 620 15000 26754 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 428,555.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 5,088.00 101 64560 240 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 194.00 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 500.00 618 64520 601 INSURANCE PREMIUMS 422,773.00 618 64520 602 26755 BERNARD EDWARDS 09548 AP 1,800.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,800.00 101 68010 220 1762 26756 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 AP 3,382.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 91.62 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 541.14 101 68010 120 1950 MISC. SUPPLIES 183.91 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.96 101 66210 120 SMALL TOOLS 613.48 101 68020 130 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 98.03 101 68020 190 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 230.31 101 68010 190 1787 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 132.47 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 281.78 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,091.65 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 8.64 619 64460 120 SMALL TOOLS 45.29 619 64460 130 26757 CRAIG W. REED 09881 AP 1,862.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,862.00 101 68010 220 1787 26758 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 AP 39.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 39.78 201 65200 111 26759 CAL-STEAM 10557 AP 1,269.99 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 105.40 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 174.78 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 32.11 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 144.63 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 281.45 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 531.62 619 64460 120 5180 26760 PIP PRINTING 10620 AP 920.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 920.13 526 69020 120 26761 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 AP 725.97 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 725.97 101 64350 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26745 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 AP 5,880.92 MISC. SUPPLIES 113.09 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.17 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 637.08 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 423.27 101 68010 120 1893 MISC. SUPPLIES 113.54 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 324.81 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 66.81 101 68010 120 1950 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 246.24 101 68020 140 2200 RENTS & LEASES 470.00 101 68020 180 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 280.00 101 68010 220 1647 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 575.00 101 68010 220 1950 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 248.00 101 68010 220 1660 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 195.00 101 68010 220 1648 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 234.00 101 68010 220 1784 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 326.81 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 68010 220 1521 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 165.00 101 68010 240 1100 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 15.00 101 68020 240 2100 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 60.00 101 68020 240 2300 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 36.86 101 68020 250 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.24 730 69583 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 500.00 730 69593 120 6030 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80.00 730 69593 220 6010 26746 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 AP 398.29 MISC. SUPPLIES 398.29 101 64350 120 26747 BARTLETT'S AUTO BODY 09079 AP 392.94 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 392.94 625 65213 203 26748 JULIE COHN 09122 AP 855.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 855.00 101 68010 220 1646 26749 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 AP 122.62 MISC. SUPPLIES 122.62 526 69020 120 26750 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 AP 189.44 SMALL TOOLS 189.44 101 65300 130 26751 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 27,261.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24,109.00 201 65200 220 26752 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 09459 AP 560.74 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 560.74 101 68020 190 2200 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26737 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 AP 239.04 SMALL TOOLS 239.04 619 64460 130 26738 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 AP 622.83 MISC. SUPPLIES 195.11 101 66210 120 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 55.25 101 68020 190 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.63 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 13.89 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 284.95 619 64460 120 SMALL TOOLS 31.00 619 64460 130 26739 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 AP 2,211.56 MISC. SUPPLIES 673.32 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,538.24 730 69560 120 2300 26740 P. G. & E. 03054 AP 20,105.01 GAS & ELECTRIC 20,094.78 101 66100 170 GAS & ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170 26741 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 AP 1,810.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,810.00 619 64460 210 5130 26742 LEE BUFFINGTON TAX COLLECTOR 03465 1,180.27 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,180.27 526 69020 220 26743 TESTAMERICA SEQUOIA ANALYTICAL 03536 AP 2,961.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,961.00 528 66600 210 26744 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 AP 3,648.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,648.00 320 76350 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 07/13/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 26724 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 AP 189.74 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 50.83 101 68020 190 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 25.86 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 113.05 619 64460 120 5180 26725 BURLINGAME INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 01501 AP 1,519.72 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,519.72 101 68010 190 1106 26726 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,514.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,514.92 101 64560 220 26727 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 AP 13.17 OFFICE EXPENSE 13.17 101 68010 110 1370 26728 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 AP 130.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 130.00 101 68010 240 1100 26729 COMPUTER TECHNICIANS, INC., 01987 1,088.10 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,088.10 621 64450 200 26730 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 AP 8,371.62 SMALL TOOLS 2,124.51 201 65200 130 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 298.77 201 65200 140 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 5,948.34 201 65200 200 26731 VEOLIA WATER 02110 218,616.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 218,616.00 527 66530 220 26732 FEDEX 02160 AP 238.90 OFFICE EXPENSE 27.20 101 65300 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.55 101 64350 120 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 25.31 101 64420 121 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 170.84 618 64520 210 26733 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 AP 99.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 87.28 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 12.69 619 64460 120 5120 26734 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 AP 1,376.41 MISC. SUPPLIES 595.37 101 66210 120 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 781.04 101 66210 226 26735 PENINSULA BATTERIES 02625 AP 165.50 SUPPLIES 165.50 620 15000 26736 KW LIGHTING DISCOUNTERS 02645 AP 1,380.26 MISC. SUPPLIES 447.61 619 64460 120 5250 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 932.65 619 64460 210 5250 BURL NOAME City Librarian's Report July 17, 2007 Summer Programs Thrive! This is our biggest summer yet for programming. Highlights of the program include: • June 12th- The Dad & Me event was well attended by Dads and children alike. The Puppet Art Theater Co. performed to an audience of 50 • June 19th- Family Fun Night #1, featuring "Crosspulse Rhythm Dud' playing to an enthusiastic crowd of 95. • June 23rd, Wizard Rock Concert: Remus Lupins with 35 attendees. • June 26th, Family Fun Night #2, Songs & Tales of the sea, with 109 in attendance The Family Fun Nights continue through July on Tuesday evenings at 7 PM. Class Visits at an All Time high! Class visits to Burlingame and Hillsborough classrooms were at an all time high for June with 109 classes visited reaching 2,500 children. In this way each class gets a few minutes with one of our librarians and an introduction to our summer activities. The personal touch really helps bring the children in. Harry Potter Pre-Release Party! There is considerable excitement in the community, as well as the entire staff about our Harry Potter Pre-release party on Friday, July 20th. Costumed staff will lead a number of activities including crafts, song, and a special presentation of the magic of"Magic Dan." Refreshments will be served and the entire library will be the home of Harry and his friends. At 11:45, the entire group, led by Police Chief Jack van Etten, will proceed over to Books, Inc., to purchase books. We already have over 170 signed up for this event. All are welcome! 480 Primrose Road Burlingame•California 940Eo-4o83 1 Phone(650)558-7474-Fax(650)342-6295- ww.burlingame.org/library Adult Summer Reading Program Launches Our first ever adult reading program has launched successfully. Eight programs are planned and several have already been held. Those already held include: • June 18th, CSI: San Mateo County. Live program • June 21St, Movie Night: Dial M for Murder • June 28th, Movie Night: National Treasure • July 5th, Movie Night: Cold Case Files • July 12th, Movie Night: Wait Until Dark There will be several other programs, including: July 18th, Best Selling mystery authors Cara Black and Cornelia Read July 19th, Movie Night: Young Sherlock Holmes July 26th, Movie Night: Raiders of the Lost Ark Burlingame Historical Images on Display. The Library continues to host an exhibit of paintings and photographs of Burlingame during the months of June and July 2007 in celebration of the Centennial Year from the Studio Shop and the Art Attack galleries in Burlingame. "One Book, One Community." The program list for the October reading initiative is now complete. Nearly 60 programs are being planned for the One Book program this year featuring Isabel Allende. Programs will feature Chilean history and culture; California Gold Rush; the Chinese during the Gold Rush; the role of women in the Gold Rush; wine-tasting and food demonstrations; and a host of other events. I wrote a grant proposal for the project to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation. We also have a grant proposal in to the Target Corporation pending. Trusteeships Appointed. I am personally very pleased that Pat Toft and Katie McCormack were reappointed to the Library Board of Trustees for another 3 year term. Congratulations! American Library Association Conference The City Librarian attended the ALA Conference in Washington in late June. It was a very valuable conference in many ways. I am enclosing a copy of something that I thought was quite useful from one of the program sessions, entitled "Libraries Transform Communities." I have enclosed a copy for your review. 2 Among the keynote speakers who were the most memorable was Ken Burns, the author/filmmaker, whose newest effort will be on the history of World War II, which will be forthcoming this fall. Also of note was Robert Kennedy Jr., who is an environmental activist and attorney. He discussed the importance of the environmental movement and of the role of librarians in bringing information to the public. He signed his book "Crime against Nature" at the event. He is also the author of a book on saving the Hudson River and a children's picture book on St. Francis of Assisi, illustrated by former Burlingame resident Dennis Nolan. The City Librarian also attended an event featuring Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair and the New Yorker, discussing her latest book "The Diana Chronicles." Spanish Language Collection Celebrated! The De La Rosa Company has given the library a gift of$ 5,000.00 to purchase much-needed Spanish language books for children. The books will be showcased during a special bilingual program on Tuesday, July 10th at 7 PM. Performer Juan Sanchez, Finance Director Jesus Nava and members of the De La Rosa organization will be on hand to welcome the collection to the library. Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian July 9, 2007 3 Revolving Account Funds (Includes unrealized gains) As of 6/30/2007 7/11/2007 Page 1 6/30/2007 Account Balance ASSETS Cash and Bank Accounts Amazon.com 1,092.19 Children's Reading Club(designated) 805.79 Children's Spanish Collection 2,474.17 Davenport(Elizabeth)Fund 140.00 Friends of the Library 4,144.77 Gifts to Staff 200.00 Land's End 112.96 Large Print Books 26.69 Manini(David)Fund 1,813.00 Moose(Gladys)Fund 100.00 Postcard Sales 389.22 Staff Education-LSTA 1,092.00 Staff Recognition 785.70 Stone Mem. Lecture Fund(dsgn.) 491.85 Volunteer Program(designated) 973.05 Writers Club 150.00 TOTAL Cash and Bank Accounts 14,791.39 TOTAL ASSETS 14,791.39 LIABILITIES 0.00 OVERALL TOTAL 14,791.39 BURL i h-Alit _ Board of Trustees Minutes June 19, 2007 I. Call to Order Secretary Griffith called the meeting to order at 5:30pm. IL Roll Call Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith, Katie McCormack Trustee Absent: Pat Toft Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C (McCormack/Brock) ' IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved as written the minutes for the May 15; 2007 meeting. M/S/C (McCormack/Brock) V. _Correspondence and Attachments A. May 2007 Statistics The Trustees reviewed the statistics which continue to show a decrease in circulation at the main library and an increase at the Easton Library. VI. From the Floor - No one from the public attended. VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlight of Report I Library Centennial October 19, 2009- The City Librarian suggested forming a joint committee composed of two Library Trustees and two Foundation board members to oversee and help produce the library centennial events. 2. Harry Potter Evening - On July 20, 2007, the Library will open its doors at 10:00pm for a special Harry Potter event. The evening will begin with a variety of activities for children and culminate with parents and children walking to Books, Inc. to pick up pre-purchased copies of the final Harry Potter book. 480 Primrose Road• Burlingame• California 94010-4083 Phone (65o) 558-7474Fax (650) 342-6295•www.burlingame.ory/library 3. "Big Box" Programming - Peninsula Library System has applied for a grant from The California State Library to bring "big" name programs to selected venues throughout the Bay Area. 4. Children and Adult Summer Programs - The traditional "Family Fun Nights", which have been well attended in the past, begin on June 19th. Murder, Mystery and Mayhem is the theme for the adult Movie nights. Bill Lewellen of the San Mateo County Forensic Lab was the featured speaker at the first adult event held June 18th. 5. Appointment of Trustees - The City Council reappointed Katie McCormack and Pat Toft to serve for an additional 3 year term on the Library Board of Trustees. B. Foundation Report The Foundation board is in the process of looking for a new data base program. VIII. New Business A. Burlingame Historical Mural The City Librarian advised the Trustees that the Silicon Valley Foundation rejected the joint request of the Burlingame Library and the Burlingame Historical Society to fund a $10,000 restoration of the Burlingame Historical Mural. B. Library Cafe Concept The Trustees reviewed the preliminary drawing and commentary prepared by Group 4 for a terrace cafe in the library. The Library Foundation originally proposed the idea of a cafe and upon reviewing the information from Group 4, has requested the City Librarian to contact libraries that have cafes and obtain information on management and cost effectiveness. The Trustees wanted to look into other areas in the library that might be conducive to a cafe. C. Unattended Children's Policy The Trustees approved the Unattended Children's Policy as amended. M/S/C (McCormack/Griffith) The policy will not be posted but will personally be given by a staff person to the parent of the disruptive child. IX. Announcements A. System Advisory Board Trustee McCormack, who has served two terms as the Library's representative to the System Advisory Board, gave a brief summary of the responsibilities that the position would entail and how the Board serves the Peninsula Library System. Her term has been completed and the City Council will need to appoint a new board member. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 June 19,2007 B. Directional Signs - The City Librarian advised the Trustees that new directional signage will be placed in the appropriate places when specific collections such as biographies are moved in the Spring. C. Change of September Meeting Date - The Trustees have requested that the September meeting date be placed on the July agenda in order that a change in the scheduled date could be made. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. M/S/C (Griffith/McCormack) The next meeting will be held on July 17, 2007 at 5:30pm in the Library Conference Room. Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 June 19, 2007 MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, June 21,2007 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 Commissioners Absent: Comaroto Staff Present: Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz; Account Clerk III Joleen Butler; Others Present: None MINUTES The Minutes of the May 19,2007 regular meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS—None OLD BUSINESS A. Policy for Use of Private Barbecues in City Parks —Director Schwartz reported that, at the June meeting, Council approved the BBQ Policy as recommended by the Commission. B. Arsenic Update— Schwartz relayed that the lead abatement phase of the toxic cleanup at Burlingame High School should be finished by the end of June. The arsenic cleanup will then begin in July. C. Update on Centennial Celebration — Schwartz reported that the June 2nd Centennial Parade and Vintage Baseball Game went well and has received several accolades. Merchandise is still for sale at the Recreation Center and City Hall. Upcoming events include the October 6 Community Picnic and the October 7 Scavenger Hunt. Commissioner Hesselgren mentioned that she had spoken with several citizens who were unaware of the events being planned. She thought the advertising of the events could be more extensive. D. Art in the Park Recap— Schwartz reported that this year's event saw 16 more vendor booths than last year. A few more changes from previous years were: Sponsor booths were interspersed among the vendor booths to avoid a "Sponsor Row" type feel; a new Kids Area which was located on the baseball outfield;the music stage was placed on the horseshoe pit area instead of in the center of the booth area. Commissioner Hesselgren noted that people seemed to really enjoy the music and the Kids Corral area and that the Youth Advisory Committee did a wonderful job on the Kids Corral. Schwartz mentioned that there are still a few changes to be made in future years. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes June 21, 2007—Page 2 NEW BUSINESS A. Status of Summer Meetings- MOTION by Larios (seconded by made Muller): The July meeting of the Commission will not be held. The Commission will meet again on August 16,2007. MOTION PASSED 5-0. B. Athletic Field Use Policies- Schwartz handed out the current version of the Field Use Policy. He pointed out the following items: 1)the number in a group was lowered based upon the discussion at the last commission meeting; 2) groups must have more than one team in their organization; 3) at least 50%of membership must be Burlingame residents; 4)initial applicants must go before the Parks &Recreation Commission. Discussion on the topic included: Insurance issues when using the fields; field allocation and priorities; process to validate user groups; how policy pertains to school fields; provision to allow leagues not based in Burlingame but have a Burlingame team and no competing or similar activity. MOTION by Hesselgren (seconded by Larios): Commission approves the Field Use Policy with the following change: addition of a Provision to allow leagues not based in Burlingame but have a Burlingame team and no competing or similar activity. MOTION PASSED 5-0. C. Park Amenities—Discussion of Future Vision—Item tabled until August meeting so Commissioner Castner-Paine could be in attendance. REPORTS/HANDOUTS A. Staff Reports 1. Monthly Report dated June 21,2007—attached 2. 2006-07 Revenue Report—attached B. Commissioners 1. Commissioner Larios mentioned the use of the outdoor restrooms at Murray field being used by the soccer participants as a locker room of sorts causing quite a mess. 2. Larios mentioned that he read in the paper that the School District passed their budget and is requesting money from the City of Burlingame Recreation programs to supplement the maintenance of all the Districts fields. He asked staff if this is true and how much money has been requested. Schwartz responded that the City and District liaison committee is looking at the impacts of a $55,000 contribution. There was a brief discussion focusing on the Commissioners' concerns regarding the ever-increasing requests from the District on the City's resources and the impacts on the participants. The Commissioners agreed that Larios and Dittman would send a letter to Council expressing the Commissions concerns. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes June 21,2007—Page 3 3. Commissioner Castner-Paine, arriving late due to a conflict with a meeting of the Safeway group where she is also a member, inquired as to the Park Amenities item on the agenda. Chairperson Dittman informed her that the item was tabled until the August meeting to ensure Castner-Paine could participate in the discussion. 4. Commissioner Shanus reported that he and Schwartz are trying to set up a meeting with representatives of Our Lady of Angles School to explore more joint programming opportunities. 5. Shanus also mentioned that the new multi-sport scoreboard, donated by the Electrical Workers Union, at Bayside#3 is installed and working. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday, August 16,2007 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joleen Butler Burlingame Parks &Recreation City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation De t. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 S"LrINGAME phone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650) 696-7216 recreationAburlingame.org Date: June 21,2007 To: Parks&Recreation Commissioners City Council From: Randy Schwartz Re: Monthly Report Parks Division 1. Special events preparation in which the Parks Division assisted. a. Centennial Parade/Vintage base ball game b. Cancer Survivor's picnic c. Art in the Park d. Burlingame Youth Baseball tournaments e. Billie Sue Softball tournament f. Junior Fire Marshall picnic 2. Contract tree pruning concluded for this fiscal year. Timberline Tree Service will be performing the contract work assignments during fiscal year 2007-08. 3. Final County Health approval received for the Methane Gas Alarm system at the new Bayside Park Restroom building. 4. Tree Crew completed its seasonal tree planting. 5. Tree Crew member is visiting the sites of recently planted trees;he is pruning, restaking,watering as needed. Recreation Division Preschool 1. Village Park Preschool had their 3rd Annual "Parent's Night Out"Fundraiser on June 1. Approximately 50 families attended and our pledges/gifts to date are at approximately$8500. 2. The Playschool Villagers graduation took place on Friday,June 8. 24 students graduated in the 2007 class. Teens/Youth Programs 3. Burlingame Summer basketball league for 5"'through 8th graders started with 145 kids enrolled. 4. BIS Ice Cream Social sports awards had 160 kids(for kids that participated in at least 2 sports during the year at BIS) Adult Sports 5. Jim Murray Women's Soccer league started with 6 teams 6. Adult Softball ended this month with 53 teams Senior Citizens Programs 7. Trip to Jersey Boys had 20 participants Family Programs&Miscellaneous 8. Centennial Parade and Vintage Base Ball game were held on June 2nd 9. Art in the Park featured 121 artists(16 more than 2006),improved food&music areas and a new kids' activities area sponsored by the Youth Activities Committee 10. SUMMER PROGRAMS ARE UNDERWAY,with a wide variety of camps, classes&misc activities Upcoming Events 1. Murray Field will be closed beginning June 25 and reopen August 6 for field maintenance 2. Burlingame Night at the Giants—June 29 3. Music in the Park—Sundays in July 4. Both the Colt and American Legion playoffs and tournaments will be held in July in Washington Park 5. Movies in the Park: July 21, Aug 25, Sept 22—8:OOpm shows 6. Centennial Events: Community Picnic—October 6h,- Scavenger Hunt—October 7th CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLING�AM'1E UNAPPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California July 23, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Deal called the July 23, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, and Terrones. Commissioner Cauchi participated via telephone conference call from 12915 Fairway Drive, Truckee, California for Item 5. Commissioners Absent: Commissioners Osterling, Vistica and Cauchi. Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planner, Erica Strohmeier; City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson Chair Deal indicated that he would need to recuse himself on item 9. He also indicated that since only four Commissioners were present at the meeting, the applicants for the two Design Review Study matters (Items 9 and 10) may wish to request a delay until more Commissioners are present. III. MINUTES July 9, 2007 Minutes — Commissioner Brownrigg requested the following correction (addition) to the comments made regarding the project at 1537 Drake Avenue (on Page 3 of the Minutes): "Commissioner Brownrigg noted that this, and the next item, are the end of a long and, at times, contentious process. He still regrets that the large parcel was divided into three parcels, since Burlingame values a diverse housing stock, which includes various lot sizes. That said, compromises were made on size and setbacks, and this is a reasonable outcome." Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the July 9, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the correction noted by Commissioner Brownrigg. Passed 4-0-3 (Commissioners Osterling, Vistica and Cauchi absent) IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, indicated that she was proud of Commission at the July 9, 2007 when they made the decision to deny the project at 2516 Hale Drive without prejudice. It was a prime example of when Design Standards worked. The project wasn't consistent with neighborhood. Denial without prejudice was the proper move. This is the best Planning Commission that has served. 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23,2007 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1141 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TRELLIS(RON AND CAROLINE CANNOBIO,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Planner Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commission comments: • Who built the new trellis on the property and when. • Why wasn't a building permit obtained for the trellis? • Provide details regarding the complaint received regarding the property. • Clarification of how the applicant intends to address the Building Code required two-foot correction. Does the deck also need to be moved back two feet? • How long has a trellis been on the property in this location? • At the time the original trellis was built,was a building permit required? • How high is the deck above grade? This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:14 p.m. 2. ORDINANCES TO AMEND THE CONDOMINIUM REGULATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE — PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE a. AMEND CHAPTER 26.30 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS)TO ADD PROVISIONS TO ADDRESS TW AND ECN ZONING DISTRICTS b. AMEND CHAPTER 26.32 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION REGULATIONS)TO ADD PROVISIONS TO ADDRESS TW AND ECN ZONING DISTRICTS City Planner Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission comments: • With respect to utility metering,the Commission may waive the requirement for separate metering of units. • Page 5 of the annotated comments; change reference to Planning Department to Community Development Department,and capitalize throughout the document. • Page 3, definitions; be clear that all items that serve a recreational purpose are included in the calculation of open space. • The proposed ordinance clearly demonstrates that an effort to increase density will decrease greenery. • The proposed ordinance does not include a discussion regarding no reduction in the existing number of dwelling units. This should be discussed as a separate matter by the Commission. • Affordable housing sometimes requires smaller unit sizes;this should not be overlooked. • Tenants-in-Common(TIC);the State Department of Real Estate doesn't regulate TICs closely. The City/County of San Francisco has lost a court challenge regarding regulation of TICs. It is a question for the Department of Real Estate;but there is no way to address the issue currently. TICs are usually more affordable units;they are another way for people to become property owners. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 3. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TROUSDALE WEST (TW) AND EL CAMINO NORTH (ECN) ZONING DISTRICTS TO ESTABLISH CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS — PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE City Planner Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. There were no Commission comments. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar- Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Deal asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 4. 446 MARIN DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, PARKING VARIANCE 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 Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (Commissioners Osterling, Vistica and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE,SUITE 101,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION (BOREL PRIVATE BANK AND TRUST, APPLICANT; AND CORTINA INVESTMENTS, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN (Commissioner David Cauchi participated in the Public Hearing on this item by telephone conference call from 12915 Fairway Drive, Truckee, California.) Commissioner Auran recused himself due to a conflict of interest. Reference staff report dated July 23, 2007, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five (5) conditions were suggested for consideration. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Emmy Allgood, 160 Bovet Road, San Mateo, California represented the applicant. There were no Commission comments. There were no public comments. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the financial institution shall be limited to 4,841 SF rentable (4,303 SF usable) in Suite 101 at 1440 Chapin Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 12, 2007. 2. that the financial institution may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; with a maximum of 20 persons on site at any one time which includes fifteen (15) full-time employees and customers; and the maximum of persons on site shall not be increased (from 20) without an amendment to this permit; 3. that the owner of the property shall file a report with the Community Development Director by March 1 of each year declaring how many managers, employees, and independent contractors have been working at the site over the previous calendar year; 4. that any changes in operation,floor area, use, or number of employees,which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; and 5. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Commissioner Brownrigg noted that this is a benign use. Chapin Avenue has become the de-facto financial/real estate district in Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Osteding and Vistica absent, Commissioner Auran recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. 6. 857 PALOMA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR GARAGE EXEMPT FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN THE REAR 40%OF THE LOT AND GREATER THAN 28 FEET IN LENGTH FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DAVID ARANA,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER, AND MIKE PIZZOLON, DESIGNER) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 23, 2007, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Mike Pizzolon, 752 Sycamore Avenue, San Bruno, represented the applicant. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 Commission comments: Consider bringing the garage forward from the rear property line a bit more, could have room for a tree. Could provide a canopy to shield the neighboring fences. Install a barge rafter on the front of the garage to improve the visual appearance where overhangs have been eliminated. Check with Chief Building Official to determine if this is acceptable. Public comments: David Arana (property owner), 857 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, indicated that he had considered moving the garage forward, but the elevation at the rear of the property slopes up by roughly ten feet. He didn't think that it would improve his view. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 7:51 p.m. Commissioner 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 and date stamped July 9, 2007,site plan, garage plan and garage elevations, and date stamped May 16,2007, house floor plans, and shall not exceed an overall height of 12'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a maximum plate height of 8'-6"measured from adjacent grade to top of plate;with the exception that the applicant may move the garage forward on the lot by up to two feet in order to provide additional area for landscaping within the rear yard, and a "barge rafter" shall be installed on the front of the garage to offset the lack of an overhang on the side, if deemed acceptable by the City's Building Official. 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 29, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's Mar 30, 2007 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 2, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that the accessory structure shall only be used as a one-car garage and storage area; shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes or as a second dwelling unit; all storage areas in the detached garage shall not include additional utility services and/or a toilet or be used as accessory living space without an amendment to this special permit; 4. that the only plumbing in the accessory structure shall be for a utility sink and that any waste line to the accessory structure shall be limited to a maximum 2 inches in diameter and the waste line and number and type of fixtures, including a washer and dryer, shall not be increased in size without an amendment to this permit; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A uran. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3 (Commissioners Oster ing, Vistica and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:53 p.m. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 7. 1401 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND AMENDMENT TO —� CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (NIDAL NAZZAL, APPLICANT; JOE CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNER;AND WILLIAM SCOTT ELLSWORTH,ARCHITECT) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 23, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted that the applicant was not present at this point in the meeting. Chair Deal suggested, and the rest of the Commission concurred, that the item would be deferred until later on the agenda to provide the applicant more time to arrive at the meeting. 8. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD,ZONED RR—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING IN THE DRAINAGE RIGHT-OF-WAY(ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR,APPLICANT;AND N.E.TOUSSAINT &ASSOCIATION, PROPERTY OWNER) (22 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 23, 2007, with attachments. Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Commission comments: • It was noted that a letter from the original Civil Engineer who designed the site allowed the current applicant to use the existing plans. However, the area at entry to site is slightly different; the plans show some sort of separation between the rental car area and where the ambulance are parked. • The K-Rail barriers with one-way ramps were noted as a mitigation to allow Red-Legged frogs to access the wetland area on the property. It was noted that this mitigation from the prior permit has proved successful in that the frog population has dramatically increased. Derek Watts and Adam Rudd, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, 820 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, represented the applicant. They agreed to provide a fence to separate the rental car parking from the ambulance parking, if needed. It was noted that a building permit and a Conditional Use Permit may be required fora fence at this location. There were no public comments. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed at 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 11, 2007, site plan, parking plan, and drainage plan; that 180 parking spaces shall be used for auto storage only for Enterprise rental fleet vehicles at the north end of the site without amendment to this use permit; 2. that the site shall be used for long term overflow parking for rental fleet vehicles for up to 180 vehicles to be brought to and from the site by Enterprise employees only;that no customers shall ever visit the 1616 Rollins Road drainage right-of-way site; 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 11, 2007 and May 17, 2007 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 14, 2007 memo shall be met; 4. that all runoff and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 5. that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis, and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall,to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site; 6. that drainage from paved surfaces, including parking lots, driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters,then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to, and once during, the rainy season (October 15 —April 1); 7. that all vehicles to be stored on-site for long term overflow parking for rental fleet vehicles shall not be moved during the peak traffic hours, and shall only be moved during off-peak traffic hours from 9:OOa.m. to 4:00 p.m. on both the weekdays and weekends; 8. that a K-rail barrier shall be installed along the top of the drainage ditch. This barrier shall include 13 one-way ramps to allow the movement of frogs back into the drainage ditch, should they be trapped in the parking area; 9. that if required for any improvements,the applicant shall amend the California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits for any operational or physical changes made for these uses in this drainage area, and if those permits are not issued and maintained these uses shall cease; 10. that the property owner shall provide access easement rights to the City of Burlingame for maintenance with the drainage easement. The City of Burlingame shall be held harmless for any property damage which might occur as a result of flooding within the drainage easement adjacent spur track right-of-way. The property owner shall repair, to City standards, the 21 inch drain line and extend it to the drainage channel; 11. that the improvements over the drainage channel shall not compromise the surface drainage flow to the drainage ditch at the rear of 1616 Rollins Road and shall not compromise the holding capacity of the basin during flooding; 12. that no fencing shall obstruct existing flow of water into and through the easement from the adjacent parcels and from Rollins Road; 13. that all the vehicles shall be relocated during any flood situations and shall be the responsibility and liability of the property owner; and 14. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3 (Commissioners Osterling, Vistica and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:09 p.m. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1226 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,AND PARKING VARIANCE FORA NEW, FOUR- STORY 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT (1226 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) (108 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Deal asked the applicant if he would like to postpone both the 1226 EI Camnio Real and 1509 EI Camino Real projects because not all Commissioners were available for comments. Pat Fellowes, applicant, stated that he would like to move forward with the Commission discussion of the projects and not postpone them. Chair Deal recused himself from this item since he lives within 500-feet of the site, and left the dais. Secretary Terrones assumed responsibilities as acting Chair. City Attorney Anderson indicated that, due to a lack of a quorum, a subcommittee of the remaining three(3) members of the Planning Commission would provide comments relative to this item. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Terrones opened the public comment period at 8:15 p.m. Patrick Fellowes and Sherry Chow, 1008 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the project. They described the access to parking across easements. The same curb cuts as exist today will be retained. Commission comments: • Simulated true divided lite windows will be required on the project; call this out on the plans. • The project is an ideal candidate for a roof garden. The open space on the site appears to be an afterthought. A roof garden should be considered. • The entryway is anemic for the size of the building. • Cautioned about using more trees near EI Camino Real due to site lines. • Concern about a reduction in number of dwelling units below what currently exists. • Prepare a streetscape simulation and possibly shadow analysis (shadow analysis only required if deemed necessary by the Community Development Director). • A concern was raised regarding the massing of project; prepare a visual simulation. • The pedestrian level design is fairly lifeless; have severe concerns about massive four-story building. Massing could affect environmental scoping. Perhaps scale back on some of the units to provide different massing on the building. Rear elevation massing is broken up; the same should be done at the front. Bring visual elements down in height. • The open space at the rear is merely a token. Include restrooms, water supply, gas line and other amenities that will encourage use by residents rather than a fountain. • It may be beneficial to have other Commissioners present to comment on the design. • A direction/style needs to be chosen. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame, indicated that she lives one block from EI Camino Real. People don't use the front facing balconies on apartment buildings facing EI Camino Real. Encouraged placing balconies further back on property so that they are more useable. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed at 8:32 p.m. No action could be taken since the Planning Commission lacked a quorum. Chair Deal returned to the dais. 10. 1509 EL CAMINO REAL,ZONED R-2 AND R-3—ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM R-2 TO R-3, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR TWO BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW, THREE-STORY 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT(1509 EL CAMINO LLC,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;AND KIRK MILLER AFFILIATES, ARCHITECT) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANER: RUBEN HURIN Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period at 8:34 p.m. Patrick Fellowes, 1008 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the applicant. He indicated he is willing to provide rooftop open space and make changes to rear-yard to make it more useable, based upon Commission comments in the prior case. He noted that Fish and Game didn't want the trees in the creek to be touched. Preservation of the trees on the front of the site would require removal of units. Commission comments: • Concern that the landscape plan doesn't address the creek. The creek is an amenity that should be enhanced. • Concerned regarding removal of fir trees on lot. The City of Burlingame values trees. The existing trees should remain. • Perhaps increase the height of the building at certain locations to compensate for the loss of units to preserve trees. • Landscape plan to show all of the trees in the creek and how the creek will enhance the living situation of the people. • Consult with the City Arborist regarding landscaping. • Tree maintenance should be addressed as part of the project. • Like the way the building has been designed to preserve individuality of units. Public comments: Ann and Paul Wallach 1524 Balboa Way, Burlingame; Nina Weil, 1520 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; John Gottsche (owner of 1524-26 Albermarle Way), 1457 EI Arroyo Road, Hillsborough; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; provided testimony, commenting as follows: the Wallachs and Ms. Weil wanted to be certain the Commission considered the comments contained in their letters of July 16, 2007 and July 17, 2007, respectively; expressed concern regarding the proposed rezoning; opposed to more density along EI Camino Real towards Ray Drive; concern regarding loss of privacy; protect sewer line within sewer easement during construction; have arborist review construction impacts on trees; Balboa Avenue is too narrow, impacted with traffic and parking; provide more trees to screen the property; lighting impacts from new project; concern about the project being overbuilt for the lot; lower the height of the building; protect creek and trees during construction, and control dust; the area has a high water table, sump pumps will be pumping continuously from parking area; should provide one parking space per bedroom. Mr. Fellowes clarified that the rezoning is simply to make zoning consistent with remainder of property (doesn't even have frontage); it is an anomaly that needs to be cleared up. Parking is not being changed 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 much from what currently exists. City's"Best Management Practices" (BMPs)for construction projects will address demolition and construction concerns. -� There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed at 9:16 p.m. Additional Commission comments: • The project is not workable, even though some elements are elegant. • Concern about driveway ingress and egress, given that driveway submerges;there could be potential conflicts between vehicles entering and exiting the garage at the same time. The driveway is too narrow. • If the project moves forward, rear two units need to be reduced to two-stories; the design should respect transitions to adjacent neighborhoods. Additional work needs to be done on the massing. • The project presents a rather pedestrian approach to Spanish architecture; the design will look"tatty" eventually; Spanish Architecture does not lend itself to a 3-story building. • Retain some portion of the existing trees on the site; tree preservation is a community value. • The site can be identified by the existing trees; the new project should retain the same atmosphere on the site that currently exists. • The interior street is a step in the right direction; additional work needs to be done with massing. • A visual simulation is required. • A shade and shadow analysis is not necessarily needed. • Poor choice of building materials. • Applicant needs to address neighbor concerns (particular the Wallach's) and Chief Building Official's comments. • Require a condition protecting the neighboring property's sewer line. • Maximizing the developer's profit is not a reason for the Commission to approve a project. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS (Continued) 7. 1401 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (NIDAL NAZZAL, APPLICANT; JOE CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNER;AND WILLIAM SCOTT ELLSWORTH,ARCHITECT) (37 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN At this time, the Commission returned to Regular Action Item 7. Community Development Director Meeker had presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments, including the sixteen (16) conditions suggested for consideration, earlier in the meeting. Chair Deal opened the public hearing at 9:26 p.m. Scott Ellsworth, 867 Valencia Street, San Francisco, represented the applicant. Commission comments: • The applicant may wish to omit removal of the existing sign on the property from the current plans, in order to retain flexibility in signage for the property. —� • New windows are to be simulated true divided lite. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 • The mural on the east elevation adds interest, why not continue the upper band of ornamentation on the building if the mural is removed, or create the illusion of continuation of this ornamentation through a "tromp I'oeil" painting. There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed at 9:37 p.m. Commissioner 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 18, 2007, sheets A.1 through A.3 and date stamped July 11,2007, sheets AA and A.5; any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission, with the exception that the plans shall be revised to omit removal of the existing sign from the property, and a "tromp I'oeil" paint treatment mimicking the ornamentation at the top of the building fagade on the east side of the building, shall be applied in the area where the existing mural presently exists. 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 14, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 15, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's May 24, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 21, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that this business location presently occupied by a full service food establishment, with 433 SF of on- site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 4. that the 433 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit, 5. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 6. that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 7. that an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 8. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 9. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this Conditional Use Permit shall become void; 10. that this full service food establishment may be open seven days a week, on Sunday through Thursday from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and on Fridays and Saturdays from 11:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m., with a maximum of four employees on site at any one time; 11. 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; 12. that any changes to the size or envelope of building,which would include changing or adding exterior 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 13. 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; 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 15. 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; and 16. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3 (Commissioners Osteding, Vistica and Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:37 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS Chair Deal deferred the discussion of Commission Subcommittee assignments until the next regular meeting. Commissioner Terrones expressed concern regarding condition of landscaping at"Pisces"(the Broadway train depot building on California Drive). XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT • Commission Communications — City Attorney — Planning Commissioners are to be provided with individual e-mail addresses. County working on a consistent approach. Will work with CC regarding mass communications. Communication with other commissioners through CD Director. • City Council actions from regular meeting of July 16, 2007: - Community Development Director Meeker reported that the City Council scheduled the appeal hearing for 2212 Hillside Avenue for the regular City Council Meeting of August 20, 2007. - He also noted that the public outreach plan for the Downtown Specific Plan project was presented to the City Council at its July 16, 2007 meeting. This marked the"kick-off'forthe Specific Plan project. • FYI: 110 Clarendon Road: changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Commissioners had no comments. • FYI: 1351 Howard Avenue: update to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project: Commissioners had no comments. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 23, 2007 • FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log: June 18 to July 9, 2007: Commissioner Terrones indicated that the log appears to show that there is movement regarding the "tree issue" that has been recurring. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Secretary 13 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION AUGUST 2, 2007 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:55 p.m. by Chairperson McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McQuaide, Benson, Ellis, and Grandcolas (late) Absent: Commissioners Carney, Lahey, and Wright Staff: Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, and Secretary Harvey Guests: John Root, Jean Silveira, and Jim Scileny The meeting time was delayed to obtain a quorum and then Chairperson McQuaide changed the order of the agenda to accommodate the guests. REPORTS — Superintendent Richmond 1 . Removals (pictures distributed to Commission) a. Washington Park Monterey Pine by small picnic area. Tree has been in decline for some time and has Pine Pitch Canker. Removal to be scheduled. b. Siberian Elm at City Hall near the rear parking lot. It is infected with DED and will be replaced with a disease resistant elm. Removal to be scheduled. c. Norway Maple in Front Park failed. Heavy rot at root collar. d. A second Norway Maple in the Front park was removed; this tree was carefully inspected after the failure of the same species (d.). The removal of the two maples will present us with an opportunity to replant with trees that will be tall at maturity. 2. Tree Grant Proposal for this Fiscal Year will be submitted to CalFire early next week. 3 . A memorial bench will be installed and a memorial tree planted in Washington Park on September 15 in memory of Jack Friend, who died last month. Commissioner Benson Commissioner Benson requested the renovation of the Washington Park Fragrance Garden be placed on the October agenda. FROM THE FLOOR John Root, 728 Crossway commented to "get on" with the Easton Drive Reforestation plan; that the public is growing impatient. MINUTES — The Minutes of the June 7, 2007 Beautification Commission Meeting, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Draft of proposed Burlingame Landscape/Beautification Award and Nomination Form (submitted by Commissioners Lahey and Wright). Beautification Commissioner's Attendance Report for Council. Letter and pictures of various Eucalyptus species to Easton Drive residents announcing Community Forum (June 28ffi) to choose alternative Eucalyptus species for reforestation on Easton Drive. Letter from Superintendent Richmond to Bobbi Benson congratulating her on her new appointment to serve on the Beautification Commission. Copy of Rules of Procedure of the Officers of the Parks & Recreation Commission, (for Beautification Commission consideration of use of same rotational process). 1 CORRESPONDENCE— (Contd.) Beautification Award Information(Submitted by Commissioner Wright) Staff Report regarding Replacement Tree Recommendation for Lower Easton Drive, submitted by Superintendent Richmond. OLD BUSINESS Easton Drive Tree Selection for Recommendation to Council Chairperson McQuaide reviewed the process and the ensuing discussion that took place at the June 28th Community Forum to choose an alternative "readily available" Eucalyptus specie and noted that it was the consensus of those in attendance that only the Citriodora Eucalyptus be used as a replacement tree on Easton Drive and that, no "accent"trees be used on the corners. She also reported that the group suggested planting in some of the vacant planting areas begin as soon as possible. She concluded that the Citriodora Eucalyptus, although not as tall, (growing 50-70') is litter free, hardy, disease resistant, and will still provide a broad canopy. Commissioner Benson stated that the Citriodora is a good selection; that the neighborhood wanted to maintain the integrity, homogeneity, and similar canopy of the neighborhood. She noted that the Citriodora is shorter but the canopy has the same breadth and density as the existing Blue Gums; that it made good sense by what they chose, and that it was also the Eucalyptus of choice by the certified arborist, Parks Supervisor Disco. Chairperson McQuaide asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. Jean Silveira asked if larger size trees could be planted. Administrative Secretary Harvey noted that property owners are routinely given the option to pay$200-$225 for the planting of a 24"box size tree as opposed to a 15 gallon size tree. There being no further comments from the audience, Commissioner Benson then moved that the Eucalyptus Citriodora be recommended to Council as the replacement tree for the lower Easton Drive area; seconded, Ellis. Motion carried 4— 0— 3 absent (Carney, Lahey, and Wright). Street Tree Planting Proiect Superintendent Richmond reported that the grant application is close to being ready to be submitted to CalFire and if approved will fund the planting of up to 450 trees on blocks in the City with few trees, with the project being funded over the next 3 years through the state Green Trees for the Golden State Grant. Arbor Day 2008—Centennial Tree Planting Chairperson McQuaide commented that the Commission has been discussing the planting of one large tree at Cannon Park (island on California Drive, at Bellevue and Lorton Avenues), as well as tree planting at the elementary schools in the City. Director Schwartz stated that the School District has accepted the concept and that the Green Trees for the Golden State grant will pay for the trees planted on the school properties. Director Schwartz envisions the Arbor Day ceremony being a week long celebration instead of the usual one day celebration, so that each school can have an Arbor Day "Centennial Tree Planting" ceremony, as well as the Community participating in an Arbor Day "Centennial Tree Planting" at Cannon Park. Chairperson McQuaide added that the Commission will be seeking donations from the Community for a larger size tree to be planted at Cannon Park and Director Schwartz noted that any additional funds collected will be placed in the existing tree replacement fund. The Commission further discussed the type and size of tree to be planted at Cannon Park. Commissioner Benson stated that the certified arborist, Bob Disco, should choose the specie, size, and caliper of tree, emphasizing that planting smaller, younger trees is better for the overall health and longevity of the tree. Superintendent Richmond noted that Supervisor Disco has been in contact with a vendor and will provide further information to the Commission with regard to the type and size of tree at the September 6'h meeting. 2 NEW BUSINESS Vision for the Beautification Commission The Commission discussed the Commission's reviewed and discussed the Commission's charter and other areas of interest that may broaden the scope and activity of the Commission such as: 1) Establishing an advocacy group similar to "Canopy"to promote and receive funding through"tree gifts", "tree walks", etc. for the education and advancement of trees in the City of Burlingame 2) Providing education and classes promoting and teaching tree and plant care. 3) Conducting a singular event inviting the public to attend and share any and all of their ideas on how to "beautify" the City so the public feels they have input and from that event, creating sub- committees to organize volunteers in getting the work done. 4) Designation of lower Easton Drive as an historic district. Chairperson McQuaide stated that it seemed to be a general consensus that the Commission can be doing more. Commissioner Grandcolas commented that the Commission needs to be more proactive about getting ideas from the public. What do they want?What can the Commission do? Commissioner Benson said the public should be encouraged to donate and volunteer. Superintendent Richmond stated it will be important to distinguish between vision and projects, to continue doing what the Council wishes the Commission to do, and to address the ongoing issue of being in attendance at the Commission meetings. Superintendent Richmond noted that as part of the proposal for the tree grant,the Commission will also be assisting with the effort to monitor the newly planted trees with regard to training, watering, and staking. Following the discussion, Chairperson McQuaide asked that Designation of Lower Easton Drive as a Historic District be placed on the October agenda and Commissioner Benson asked, in response to a letter she received from a concerned Burlingame resident, that the Elm Tree Project on El Camino be placed on the October agenda. Rules & Procedures for Officers— Rotation Process Superintendent Richmond distributed a draft process for rotation of commission officers and explained that this has been used for the rotation of chairpersons on the Parks and Recreation Commission, is based on seniority, and no one is required to serve as the Chairperson. After a brief review and discussion of the process, Commissioner Ellis moved that the Rules & Procedures for Officers used by the Parks and Recreation Commission be adopted for use by the Beautification Commission; seconded, McQuaide. Motion carried 4 — 0 — 3 absent(Carney, Lahey, and Wright). Meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, J Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 3 City of Burlingame JULY PERMIT ACTIVITY Permit activity for the month of July was strong. This is due to the volume of major work being performed on both residential and commercial properties. Permits were issued for two new homes.The activity for smaller, over-the-counter permits was significantly less than in July of 2006. **A pre-application meeting was held for proposed renovations to the Crosby Commons building at 1375 Burlingame Avenue. THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F.Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 1 450 3 3,278 -86 1 450 3 3,278 -86 SWIMMING POOL 2 31,000 2 31,000 SIGN 2 8,000 5 12,200 -34 2 8,000 5 12,200 -34 ROOFING 23 344,031 31 529,100 -35 23 344,031 31 529,100 -35 RETAINING WALL PLUMBING 13 21,720 20 52,090 -58 13 21,720 20 52,090 -58 NEW SFD 2 1,300,000 2 1,140,000 14 2 1,300,000 2 1,140,000 14 NEW COMMERCIAL NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT MECHANICAL 3 21,335 3 27,750 -23 3 21,335 3 27,750 -23 KITCHEN UPGRADE 3 99,500 2 79,500 25 3 99,500 2 79,500 25 FURNACE 1 10,847 1 10,847 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 4 9,300 4 9,400 -1 4 9,300 4 9,400 -1 City of Burlingame JULY PERMIT ACTIVITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % ELECTRICAL 7 10,589 6 1,625 552 7 10,589 6 1,625 552 BATHROOM UPGRADE 7 105,000 6 91,000 15 7 105,000 6 91,000 15 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 28 1,774,150 36 1,534,812 16 28 1,774,150 36 1,534,812 16 ALTERATION NON RES 12 1,621,150 3 1,235,000 31 12 1,621,150 3 1,235,000 31 Totals: 107 5,346,225 122 4,726,602 13 107 5,346,225 122 4,726,602 13 POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLS City of Burlingame Jack L.Van Etten Chief of Police July,2007 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Enclosed you will find statistical documents from the month of June,2007.As always,please note that the information contained in this police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. Please remember that the percentages of certain crimes might've dramatically increased or decreased in percentage(compared to the previous month or year).When reviewing the police department report kindly also consider the actual numbers in various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Even though the percentages may have increased or decreased, the actual number change may be slight or negligible. Please feel free to contact me at anytime if you have any questions or concerns about the numbers or percentages. As mentioned previously, Roam Secure is being finalized on both the Emergency and Public sides. The Burlingame Police Department plans to use the Public side of Roam Secure to provide crime information and public notifications to our business districts and citizens.We are working with the Downtown Merchants to begin implementation of Roam Secure. We are moving forward on this project and it should be up and running very shortly. The police department routinely and continuously receives information from the public regarding a number of criminal,traffic and parking related matters.All of these matters are immediately addressed,prioritized(based on the safety of the community),and depending on staffing levels, handled in the most effective manner possible.When necessary,overtime is used and(or)additional outside resources are also brought in to assist current staff with specific problems or unusual criminal activities.As previously mentioned,due to continuing shortages of police personnel(caused by long term injuries,retirements,new hires,etc.),the police department won't be able to appoint solo motorcycle officers to traffic enforcement until later in the Fall. However,the police department is working hard to hire new officers and fill current and future positions so we can once again staff our traffic bureau with motorcycle officers.At the present time, the police department has one officer in our FTO(Field Training)Program,3 officer trainees are scheduled to graduate from the police academy in August,and we've just given conditional offers of employment to 2 officer trainees who will enter the police academy in September. In addition,the police department continues to complete(with the assistance of HR)testing and backgrounds on 2 additional police officer candidates,bringing us to our authorized strength of 42 sworn. 1111 Trousdale Drive-Post Office Box 551-Burlingame,California 94011-0551-(650)777-4100-Fax (650)697-8130 Moving citations are down slightly from last year due to personnel shortages, but parking citation totals continue to show slight increases over last year. I've included the most recent selective traffic enforcement areas (related to addressing traffic related complaints in our community) that are routinely being monitored by our patrol officers. This information includes the types of violations that are being monitored. The police department is constantly monitoring the statistical information at all selective enforcement sites for future reference. We are in the beginning stages of offering a citizen's radar program in our community. The police department continues to reach out and ask the public to help fund the purchase of a second police K-9. Due to budget constraints over several years, the police department has reduced our K-9 unit from a high of 4 to only 1 . We believe the Burlingame community will help us reach (or exceed) our goal of $10,000 for this project which we believe will help protect both our community and our dedicated police officers. Our new Centennial Celebration uniform shoulder patches and badges are now being worn by members of the police department. As you know, our department's Centennial Celebration Committee chose to replicate (with some slight changes), the first and only other police patch worn over 50 years ago and the first badge worn by George Jones (the first police chief) in 1908. The police department joins all of Burlingame in a number of ways as we celebrate our Centennial. As always, I continue to be so proud of the dedication and sacrifices made by all of the employees of the police department. They work tirelessly day and night (and place themselves in harm's way) to protect and serve the citizens in our great community. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Respectful) , ack Van Etten Burlingame Police Department PAGE: 1 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES )7-16-07 FOR: JUNE, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD :rime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Change % Change 7urder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 lanslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 tape By Force 1 0 2 4 -2 -50.00 Lttempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 tobbery Firearm 0 0 6 3 3 100.00 tobbery Knife 1 0 2 2 0 0.00 tobbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 tobbery Strong-Arm 1 0 4 12 -8 -66.67 kssault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 kssault - Knife 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 kssault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 4 9 15 -6 -40.00 kssault - Hands,Fists,Feet 0 0 4 5 -1 -20.00 kasault - Other (Simple) 9 13 89 88 1 1.14 3urglary - Forcible Entry 2 7 16 33 -17 -51.52 3urglary - Unlawful Entry 6 B 39 48 -9 -18.75 3urglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 ;arceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 :,arceny Shoplifting 3 4 18 25 -7 -28 .00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 12 18 100 142 -42 -29.58 :,arceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 5 7 74 62 12 19.35 Larceny Bicycles 2 1 10 4 6 150.00 Larceny From Building 8 14 47 61 -14 -22 .95 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 1 9 9 0 0.00 6arceny All Other 6 2 43 34 9 26.47 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 7 8 38 42 -4 -9.52 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 4 1 9 -8 -88.89 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 3 1 6 -5 -83 .33 ------ ------ ------ 64 94 514 610 64 94 514 610 07-16-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change All Other Offenses 32 31 167 214 -47 -21.96 Animal Abuse 0 0 1 0 1 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Orson 2 4 4 16 -12 -75.00 Sssists 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 =heck Offenses 0 0 4 12 -8 -66.67 Child Neglect/prot custody 3 4 41 34 7 20.59 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 1 0 2 2 0 0.00 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Curfew and Loitering Laws 1 0 2 0 2 Death Investigation 1 3 13 17 -4 -23.53 Disorderly Conduct 1 1 1 10 -9 -90.00 Driver's License Violations 0 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Driving Under the Influence 5 9 44 39 5 12.82 Drug Abuse violations 8 5 26 17 9 52.94 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Drunkeness 7 3 37 34 3 8.82 Embezzlement 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 3scape 0 0 0 0 0 'extortion 0 0 1 0 1 False Police Reports 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 False Reports of Emergency 0 1 0 3 -3 -100.00 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 1 0 1 Forgery and Counterfeiting 1 2 15 21 -6 -28.57 Found Property 9 6 32 32 0 0.00 ?raud 4 1 16 15 1 6.67 .ambling 0 0 0 0 0 38 18 20 111.11 3arrassing Phone Calls 13 5 07-16-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change Hit and Run Accidents 4 5 22 24 -2 -8.33 Impersonation 1 0 7 0 7 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 4 3 1 33.33 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lew4i 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 2 2 17 9 8 88.89 Mental Health Cases 9 11 45 53 -8 -15.09 Missing Person 3 5 34 28 6 21.43 Missing Property 2 10 41 47 -6 -12.77 Municipal Code Violations 6 8 49 46 3 6.52 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Offenses Against Children 1 0 6 3 3 100.00 Other Assaults 9 13 89 88 1 1.14 Other Juvenile Offenses 3 1 4 1 3 300.00 Other Police Service 4 4 18 34 -16 -47.06 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 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 1 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 2 5 -3 -60.00 i Prowling 1 1 1 3 -2 -66.67 Resisting Arrest 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 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 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 07-16-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 - CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2007 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 3 6 5 1 20.00 Suspended License 3 3 17 20 -3 -15.00 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 0 1 4 -3 -75.00 Towed Vehicle 42 32 201 168 33 19.64 Trespassing 0 1 3 8 -5 -62.50 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 1 0 1 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 19 31 108 131 -23 -17.56 Vehicle Code Violations 0 1 10 9 1 11.11 Violation of Court Order 1 1 3 6 -3 -50.00 Warrants - Felony 3 2 9 7 2 28.57 Warrants - Misd 3 7 25 32 -7 -21.88 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 3 6 8 -2 -25.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 207 220 1,191 1,250 207 220 1,191 1,250 07-16-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2007 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD . . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 4111 2 , 804 23 , 675 17 , 928 Moving Citations 159 171 1 , 001 1 , 276 4270 2 , 975 24 , 676 19 , 204 4270 2 , 975 24 , 676 19 , 204 vzzicer Y1,UUUCL1V1uy . . . . yC11GtGt�Gu vii v r i� v� i �� - • - Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 06/01/2007 to 06/30/2007 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids All Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALVISO 355 754 19.12 22 35.48 97.16 DOTSON 509 1169 29.64 15 24.19 98.73 FEITELBERG 508 819 20.77 7 11.29 99.15 GARRETT 501 461 11.69 8 12.90 98.29 SMITH 654 741 18.79 10 16.13 98.67 Total 3944 b2 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM To: All Patrol Personnel From: Sgt.Williams Date: 06/29/2007 Subject: Selective Enforcement As time permits, please advise your teams to attempt selective enforcement in the listed areas: Location Violation Description Time of offense Date Reported Barriolhett 22350 VC Speeding commute 6/25/07 Trousdale Dr. 22350 VC Speeding 0830-0900 6/25/07 Broadway Av 21950 VC yield to ped All hours Continuous Oak Grove Av 22350 VC Speeding After school 5/21/07 Mills Ave. 22350 VC Speeding commute 5/10/07 Grove Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 5/09/07 Cypress Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 4/12/07 Calif Drive 22350 VC Speeding All hours 3/21/07 (Oak grove to Carmelita) Bernal Ave. 22350 VC Speeding Morning 3/23/07 (1300 blk) Hillside Dr. 22350/21950 Speed/Ped viol. All hours 3/23/07 Occidental/ 22450 VC Stop sign All hours 3/16/07 Howard Ave (warnings only) Howard Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 3/2/07 Hinckley Rd. 22350 VC Speeding Morning/evening 3/6/07 Easton Dr. 22450 VC Stop sign All hours 3/8/07 Adeline Dr. 22350/450 Speed/Stop sign commute hrs 2/7/07 Bayswater(all) 22350 VC Speeding commute hrs 2/1/07 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary June 30, 2007 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF & County Pool 22,294,936.93 22,294,936.93 22,294,936.93 61.43 1 1 4.942 5.010 Federal Agency Issues -Coupon 14,000,000.00 13,927,710.00 13,998,501.60 38.57 1,357 1,076 5.043 5.113 36,294,936.93 36,222,646.93 36,293,438.53 100.00% 524 416 4.981 5.050 Investments — Total Earnings June 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Fiscal Year Ending Current Year 152,221.89 1,475,938.04 1,475,938.04 Average Daily Balance 36,584,602.41 31,530,976.35 Effective Rate of Return 5.06% 4.68% Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and availability of some of these funds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). SU VA, FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 06/01/2007-06/30/2007 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/26/2007 - 13:02 PM (PRF_PM1) syrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 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 5.250 5.250 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 8,091,890.54 8,091,890.54 8,091,890.54 4.590 Aaa 4.590 1 Subtotal and Average 22,219,084.52 22,294,936.93 22,294,936.93 22,294,936.93 5.010 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 31331XB35 536 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/04/2007 1,000,000.00 995,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.600 5.600 1,800 06/04/2012 3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 998,750.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 4.817 481 10/24/2008 3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 995,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 505 11/17/2008 3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 997,810.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 180 12/28/2007 3133XGQM9 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2006 1,000,000.00 999,690.00 1,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 810 09/18/2009 3133XJ6F0 531 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/20/2006 1,000,000.00 989,060.00 1,000,000.00 5.025 Aaa 5.025 1,268 12/20/2010 3133XKKM6 533 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1,000,000.00 996,560.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,027 04/23/2010 3133XKL94 534 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1,000,000.00 990,940.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,758 04/23/2012 3133XKU37 535 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/30/2007 2,000,000.00 1,983,760.00 2,000,000.00 5.450 Aaa 5.450 1,795 05/30/2012 3133XL51-3 537 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/08/2007 1,000,000.00 998,130.00 998,501.60 5.250 Aaa 5.330 704 06/04/2009 3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/06/2006 1,000,000.00 992,070.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,558 10/06/2011 3128X5SU3 532 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 12/29/2006 1,000,000.00 995,630.00 1,000,000.00 5.220 Aaa 5.220 1,276 12/28/2010 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 995,310.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 109 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 14,365,517.89 14,000,000.00 13,927,710.00 13,998,501.60 5.113 1,076 Total and Average 36,584,602.41 36,294,936.93 36,222,646.93 36,293,438.53 5.050 416 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/26/2007-13:02 PM(PRF_PM2)SymRepl 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Cash June 30, 2007 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Average Balance 0.00 0 Total Cash and Investmentss 36,584,602.41 36,294,936.93 36,222,646.93 36,293,438.53 5.050 416 Portfolio CITY CP Run gate:07/26/2007-13:02 PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity By Type June 1, 2007 through June 30, 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 4.590 391,790.50 1,900,000.00 Subtotal 23,803,146.43 391,790.50 1,900,000.00 22,294,936.93 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 31331XB35 536 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 5.600 06/04/2007 1,000,000.00 0.00 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 3.500 06/22/2007 0.00 1,000,000.00 3133XL51-3 537 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.250 06/08/2007 998,501.60 0.00 Subtotal 13,000,000.00 1,998,501.60 1,000,000.00 13,998,501.60 Total 36,803,146.43 2,390,292,10 2,900,000.00 36,293,438.53 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/26/2007-13:02 PM(PRF_PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Activity Summary June 2006 through June 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 Term Days to Maturity 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 June 2007 15 36,293,438.53 4.981 5.050 5.010 2 1 524 416 Average 14 31,904,447.30 4.580% 4.644% 4.755 1 1 418 234 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale:07/26/2007-13:02 PM(PRF_PM4)SyrnRepl 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Distribution of Investments By Type June 2006 through June 2007 June July August September October November December January February March April May June Average Security Type 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 by Period LAIF&County Pool 55.6 53.6 53.6 54.2 49.0 46.8 52.5 61.3 64.8 65.3 67.9 64.7 61.4 57.7% 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 40.0 41.9 41.9 44.2 49.4 51.4 45.9 37.1 35.2 34.7 32.1 35.3 38.6 40.6% Federal Agency Issues-Discount 4.3 4.6 4.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.7% 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:07/26/2007-13:02 PM(PRF_PM5)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 7 Interest Earnings Summary June 30, 2007 June 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 93,580.00 632,309.44 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 90,169.32 90,169.32 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 123,224.31) ( 119,852.38) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 60,525.01 602,626.38 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 60,525.01 602,626.38 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 613,644.35 613,644.35 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 521,947.47) ( 453,845.78) Interest Earned during Period 91,696.88 873,311.66 Total Interest Earned during Period 152,221.89 1,475,938.04 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 152,221.89 1,475,938.04 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale:07/26/2007-13:02 PM(PRF_PM6)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 PFM Asset Managenten LLC- CAMPPROGRAM 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 June 30, 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: NANCY JONES (415)982-5544 JONESN@pfm.com Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2007 (Excluding Cash MARKET%OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET—VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORST FED AGY DN 1,000,000.00 991,290.56 991,113.14 100.000 5.208 5.206 0.166 TOTAL SECURITIES 1,000,000.()0 991,290.56 991,113.14 100.000 5.208% 5.206'/, 0.166 TOTAL EWESTMENTS 1,000,00().00 991,290.56 991,113.14 100.000% ACCRUED INTEREST 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PORTFOLIO $1,000,000.00 $991,290.56 $991,113.14 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 custodic 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. Ples 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 I I PROGRAM 1 , I , Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2007 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 TED AGY DN 313396LC5 FI-ILMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 08/31/07 A-1+ 05/30/07 05/31/07 986,864.44 5.208 0.00 991,290.56 991,113.14 1,000,000 .4 .2 0 991,290.56 991,113.14 TOTAL SECURITIES $1,000,000 $986,864.44 5.208% $0.00 $991,290.56 $991,113.14 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value 1]FHIMC $991.113 1W.% ❑A-1+ $991,113 100.0% mia. se91.113199.9w Total: $991,113 100.0% B-1 Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2007 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 FED AGY DN 313396LC5 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 08/31/07 99.111 991,113.14 (177.42) 4,248.70 0.166 5.206 SUBTOTALS $991,113.14 ($177.42) $4,248.70 0.166 5.206 '% ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 0.00 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $991,113.14 C-I P Asset FM Iement LLC- I PROGRAM I , Security Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2007 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL 06/27/07 06/27/07 MATURITY FHLB DISC NOTE 3133841IK8 A-I+ 1,000,000 0.000 06/27/07 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS 1,000,000.00 D-1 Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2007 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL,AMOUNT 06/27/07 CW WITHDRAW (1,000,000.00) (1,000,000.00) (512001000.00) NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONSI(WITHDRAWS) E-1 Realized Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2007 TRADE SETTLE PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED DATE DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT CST 06/27/07 06/27/07 MATURITY FHLB DISC NOTE 313384HK8 1,000,000 0.000 1,000,000.00 3,881.25 0.00 TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES $3,881.25 $0.00 F-1 Cash Balance Report: 125/0150 CAMP-C17,yOFBURL1NCAME (116-00) MONTH ENDED: June 30,200 CASH BALANCE: $0.00 Earnings Calculation Templates Current Month-End Book Value + 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 07/06/07 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 07/19/07 FOMC Minutes 07/06/07 Unemployment Rate 07/25/07 Existing Home Sales 07/13/07 Advanced Retail Sales 07/26/07 Durable Goods Orders 07/17/07 Producer Price Index 07/27/07 2nd Quarter GDP 07/18/07 Consumer Price Index 07/31/07 Personal Spending 07/18/07 Housing Starts 07/31/07 Chicago Purchasing Manager Market Commentary The FOMC kept rates steady at their June 28th meeting. The Fed Funds rate has now been at 5.25%for a full year. Even though some measures indicate that inflation may be moderating,the Fed's primary concern is still controlling inflation. The Fed is worried that elevated food and energy prices,along with a tight job market,could exert inflationary pressures in the future. On balance,economic releases in June were better than expected. Renewed activity in the manufacturing and service sectors forced economists to increase their GDP estimates for the 2nd quarter of 2007. Market analysts also revised their view of future Fed activity. Most now think the Fed will leave rates unchanged for the balance of the year. The housing market is the economy's weak link with both new and existing home sales near their lows. Increasing mortgage rates,continued sub-prime concerns and tighter lending standards have kept housing activity under wraps. A dramatic increase in longer-term yields changed the shape of the yield curve during June. The yield curve is now positive--longer yields are higher than shorter yields--for the first time in several months. Positive economic news and changing Fed expectations helped push yields higher. . C CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary July 31 , 2007 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF & County Pool 20,977,131.80 20,977,131.80 20,977,131.80 59.98 1 1 5.023 5.093 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 14,000,000.00 13,954,740.00 13,998,501 .60 40.02 1,357 1 ,045 5.043 5.113 34,977,131 .80 34,931,871 .80 34,975,633.40 100.00% 544 419 5.031 5.101 Investments Total Earnings July 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 154,351 .12 154,351 .12 Average Daily Balance 36,142,766.26 36,142,766.26 Effective Rate of Return 5.03% 5.03% Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and availability of some of these funds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). J S NAV FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 07/01/2007-07/31/2007 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 08/13/2007 - 12:58 PM (PRF_PM1) SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments July 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 LAW&County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 14,387,953.16 14,387,953.16 14,387,953.16 5.255 5.255 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 6,589,178.64 6,589,178.64 6,589,178.64 4.740 Aaa 4.740 1 Subtotal and Average 22,144,264.66 20,977,131.80 20,977,131.80 20,977,131.80 5.093 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 31331XB35 536 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/04/2007 1,000,000.00 996,880.00 1,000,000.00 5.600 5.600 1,769 06/04/2012 3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 999,690.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 4.817 450 10/24/2008 3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 997,500.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 474 11/17/2008 3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 998,750.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 149 12/28/2007 3133XGQMO 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2006 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 779 09/18/2009 3133XJ6F0 531 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/20/2006 1,000,000.00 992,190.00 1,000,000.00 5.025 Aaa 5.025 1,237 12/20/2010 3133XKKM6 533 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1,000,000.00 997,810.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 996 04/23/2010 3133XKL94 534 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1,000,000.00 995,630.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,727 04/23/2012 3133XKU37 535 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/30/2007 2,000,000.00 1,989,380.00 2,000,000.00 5.450 Aaa 5.450 1,764 05/30/2012 3133XL51-3 537 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/08/2007 1,000,000.00 999,060.00 998,501.60 5.250 Aaa 5.330 673 06/04/2009 3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/06/2006 1,000,000.00 993,570.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,527 10/06/2011 3128X5SU3 532 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP, 12/29/2006 1,000,000.00 997,400.00 1,000,000.00 5.220 Aaa 5.220 1,245 12/28/2010 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 996,880.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 78 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 13,998,501.60 14,000,000.00 13,954,740.00 13,998,501.60 5.113 1,045 Total and Average 36,142,766.26 34,977,131.80 34,931,871.80 34,975,633.40 5.101 419 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:08/13/2007-12:58 PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Cash July 31, 2007 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Average Balance 0.00 0 Total Cash and Investmentss 36,142,766.26 34,977,131.80 34,931,871.80 34,975,633.40 5.101 419 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale:08113/2007-12:58 PM(PRF_PM2)SynnRepl 6.41.202a CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity By Type July 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 5.255 184,906.77 0.00 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 4.740 97,288.10 1,600,000.00 Subtotal 22,294,936.93 282,194.87 1,600,000.00 20,977,131.80 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon Subtotal 13,998,501.60 13,998,501.60 Total 36,293,438.53 282,194.87 1,600,000.00 34,975,633.40 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:06113/2007•12:58 PM(PRF_PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Activity Summary July 2006 through July 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 Term Days to Maturity 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 June 2007 15 36,293,438.53 4.981 5.050 5.010 2 1 524 416 July 2007 15 34,975,633.40 5.031 5.101 5.093 0 0 544 419 Average 14 32,001,189.23 4.642% 4.706% 4.810 1 1 434 254 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:06/13/2007-12:58 PM(PRF_PM4)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Distribution of Investments By Type July 2006 through July 2007 July August September October November December January February March April May June July Average Security Type 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 by Period LAIF&County Pool 53.6 53.6 54.2 49.0 46.8 52.5 61.3 64.8 65.3 67.9 64.7 61.4 60.0 58.1% Certificates of Deposit-Bank Certificates of Deposit-S&L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln Negotiable CD's-Bank CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing Commercial Paper-Discount Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 41.9 41.9 44.2 49.4 51.4 45.9 37.1 35.2 34.7 32.1 35.3 38.6 40.0 40.6% Federal Agency Issues-Discount 4.6 4.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.3% Treasury Securities-Coupon Treasury Securities-Discount Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon Miscellaneous Securities-Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments Mortgage Backed Securities Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:08/13/2007-12:58 PM(PRF_PMS)SymRept 6.41.2020 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 7 Interest Earnings Summary July 31, 2007 July 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 150,140.14 150,140.14 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 90,169.32) ( 90,169.32) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 59,970.82 59,970.82 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 59,970.82 59,970.82 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 282,194.87 282,194.87 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 425,829.78 425,829.78 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 613,644.35) ( 613,644.35) Interest Earned during Period 94,380.30 94,380.30 Total Interest Earned during Period 154,351.12 154,351.12 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 154,351.12 154,351.12 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Run Dale:08/13/2007-12:58 Report Ver.5.00 i PTMAssetMan sent LLC- CAMP PROGRAM 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 July 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: NANCY JONES (415)982-5544 JONESN@pfin.com Account Summary: 12510150 C',1111l'-Crr170FBUliLINCADIG(ii.6-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2007 MARKET%OF Y'1'M AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE, PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKT VALUE PORTTOLIO COST 117ARKL:T TO WORST FED AGY DN 2,000,000.00 1,987,721.11 1,987,398.45 100.000 5.205 5.189 0.117 TOTAL SECURITIES 2,000,000.00 1,987,721.11 1,987,398.45 100.000 5.205% 5.189% 0.117 TOTAL EWE STMENTS 2,0011,000.110 1,987,721.11 1,987,398.45 100.000% ACCRUED INTEREST 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PORTFOLIO $2,000,000.00 $1,987,721.11 $1,987,398.45 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 1 J PROGRAM Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOFBURLINGAAIE(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2007 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARKET CUSIP DESCRIPTION 1'AR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY DN 313396LC5 FRLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 08/31/07 A-1+ 05/30/07 05/31/07 986,864.44 5.208 0.00 995,716.67 995,554.89 313588ME2 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 09/26/07 A-1+ 07/03/07 0.7/05/07 988,149.44 5.202 0.00 992,004.44 991,843.56 2,000,000 1,975,013.88 5.205 0.00 1,987,721.11 1,987,398.45 TOTAL SECURmES $2,000,000 $1,975,013.88 5.205% 411.1111 $1,987,721.11 $1,987,398.45 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value r]FI IWO $095,655 50.1% ❑A-1+ $1,987,.398 100.0% 111 FNMA 5091.904 49.9% T01a1: $1,987,399 100.0% Tolel: SI,FlB/,300 1110.0% 13-I Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 3 I,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 FED AGY DN 313396LC5 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 08/31/07 99.555 995,554.89 (161.78) 8,690.45 0.083 5.185 313588ME2 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 09/26/07 99.184 991,843.56 (160.88) 3,694.12 0.152 5.194 SUBTOTALS $1,987,398.45 ($322.66) $12,384.57 0.117 5.189 ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 0.00 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $1,987,398.45 GI PFM Asset Manazensent LLC- CAMP PROGRAM Security Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAAII'-CI7')'01,'11URLINGAA7E(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2007 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP I(ATINC PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL 07/03/07 07/05/07 BUY FNMA DISC NOTE 313588ME2 A-I+ 1,000,000 0.000 09/26/07 (988,149.44) 0.00 (988,149.44) 1,000,000 (988,149.44) 0.00 (988,149.44) TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS (988,149.44) D-I 1 PROGRAMPFMAsset Managentent LLC- CAMP Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITPOFBUnLINGAM,C(116-00) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2007 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT 07/05/07 CC CONTRIB 988,149.44 988,149.44 NET CASH C0NTRI6UTI0NS/(W ITIIDRA WS) $988,149.44 B-1 l PFMAsset / / CAMP PROGRAM II Realized Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAA1P-CITY0FBURLINCAML(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2007 TRADE SETTLE PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED DATE DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METIIOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT CST No transactions during 1hn month TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES F-1 PFMAsset Management ► PROGRAM ash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2007 "ASH BALANCE: $0.00 larninas Calculation Templates :urrent Month-find Book Value + Add Coupon Interest Received + ;urrent Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons ,ess Purchases Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/- ,ess Purchased Interest - Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month Wd Disposals(Sales,Maturities,Paydowns,Sinks,etc.) + kdd Coupon Interest Received + ,ess Previous Month-End Book Value .ess Previous Month-End Accrued Interest Fetal Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month 3conomic Calendar 08/03/07 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 08/16/07 1-lousing Starts 08/03/07 Unemployment Rate 08/24/07 Durable Goods Orders 08/07/07 FOMC Meeting 08/24/07 New Home Sales 08/13/07 Advanced Retail Sales 08/27/07 Existing Home 08/14/07 Producer Price Inde 08/30/07 2nd Quarter GDI' 08/15/07 Consumer Price Index 08/31/07 Personal Spending Market Commentary Treasury yields declined to near their lowest levels of the year as investors looked to the safety of the Treasury market. Investors ignored economic data and focused on growing problems in the subprime mortgage and credit markets. The concerns include mounting losses from those holding subprime debt and the possibility that tightening credit could cause the economy to slow. Credit spreads,the difference in yield between a Treasury and a similar maturity bond,widened during the month increasing the cost of borrowing for companies. Many of the leveraged and private equity buyouts over the past year have been dependent on tight credit spreads and low borrowing costs. The potential of a merger and acquisition slowdown helped push equity indexes lower for the month. The Dow for instance has dropped almost 800 points from its high of 14,000 reached earlier in Judy. The Fed has said they are monitoring the situation closely and see no need to intervene at the present time. The FOMC will meet oil August 8th with no rate changes expected. G-1 Ccomcast Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon, CA 94583 Office: 925.973.7000 www.comcast.com July 17, 2007 Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may already be aware, it is our goal at Comcast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community. In pursuit of attaining our goal we are sending you this letter to inform you of our intention to add the Sony SET channel to the Digital level of service on channel 249. This change will take effect on August 8, 2007. If you should have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling: 415.715 .0549. Sincerely, Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Franchise Compliance Manager Bay Market Comcast® Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 Office:925.973.7000 July 17, 2007 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may already be aware, it is our goal at Comcast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community. In pursuit of attaining our goal we are sending you this letter to inform you of the relocation of the Galavision channel from channel 68 to channel 74. This change took effect on Wednesday, July 11, 2007. If you should have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling: 415.715.0549. Sincerely, ` t Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Franchise Compliance Manager Bay Market com cast, Comcast Cable 1 1 1 12647 Acosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 Office:925.973.7000 vwvw.comcast.com August 3, 2007 Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may already be aware, it is our goal at Comcast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services that we offer to our customers who reside in your community. In pursuit of attaining our goals, we are sending you this letter to inform you of our intention to add the KICU-DT High Definition channel to the existing channel line up at channel 706 on the Limited Basic level of service. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the matter please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling, phone: 415.715.0549. Sincerely, WX____t Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Franchise Compliance Manager Bay Market B�p Mayor Terry Nagel& Burlingame City Council D U 501 Primrose Road JUN 2 8 2007 Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Broadway Zoning Restrictions CITY OF BURLINGAME MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Madam Mayor&Burlingame City Council, I am writing this letter to you regarding our property, namely Broadway Plaza at 1199 Broadway, Burlingame.As you already know,we have been trying to lease space at our property for a long time. Every prospective tenant we have had,tenants that would definitely be an asset to Broadway, in the past and even recently have been denied by the Burlingame Planning Department.The last prospective tenant, H&R Block, was turned down as usual. Regarding the most recent tenant, H&R Block,the Broadway Merchant's Association and the BID were extremely excited and encouraged renting the space to them.The feedback was very positive and they were happy to have such a business on Broadway as it would benefit everyone. H&R Block is a reputable,well respected company that is well known in the Bay Area.They would be an asset on Broadway,serving the public and businesses alike.They would bring foot traffic,which in turn will generate more business for local merchants. Unfortunately,we lost this tenant as well. Now, I wonder who will be next? H&R Block was very excited;they really like the property and its location.They deemed it as the ideal location for their business but due to the Planning Department and its restrictions,they were denied. H&R Block was very disappointed as they did not want to deal with the Planning Department, so they passed.They were turned off by the prospect of having to go to bat against the Planning Department and this was the primary reason why they were dissuaded from renting our space.This is very bad for our city as it gives us a bad reputation. H&R Block already has locations in Millbrae&San Mateo and they really wanted to offer a Burlingame location to serve its citizens, merchants and businesses alike. I said this many times,these restrictions on Broadway are hurting and will continue to hurt our local businesses.At the same time,these restrictions are also denying the residents of the Broadway Burlingame area of needed services.As long as we have these restrictions, Broadway will continue to lack a variety of businesses.The citizens of Burlingame need only so many restaurants and hair/nail salons,which are the majority of businesses on Broadway. Having a variety of businesses will not only benefit the citizens of Burlingame, it will also help local businesses. Having a lot of vacancies due to zoning restrictions does not give Broadway a positive image. I have been on Broadway for more than thirty-five years and Broadway is not what it once was. Yes,we have made various improvements over the last few years but aesthetic improvements are not enough to benefit the community and its businesses.We need to do much more.A variety of businesses is a great start but until these restrictions are lifted,solid, reputable businesses will continue to be chased away to other cities like Millbrae,San Mateo, Belmont&San Carlos. Sincerely, Garbis Bezdjian Cc:Tim Auran, City Manager, Larry Anderson 1199 Broadway Suite 5 • Burlingame, CA 94010 - ph 650.344.0577 • fax 650.344.0579 tLeague of California Cities Page 1 of 2 2007-08-14 League Officially Takes an Oppose Position on SB 375:Cities Should Act Now to Defeat the Measure The League of California Cities has formally taken an"oppose"position on SB 375(Steinberg),a measure that would essentially allow a regional authority to make local land use decisions. Unfortunately,after months of intense negotiations,e-mails,and counterproposals with Sen.Steinberg,D-Sacramento, the bill is still not where it needs to be to draw League support. As currently written,SB 375 would require Metropolitan Planning Organizations(MPOs)to develop a"preferred growth scenario"within the regional transportation plan(RTP).The goal would be to channel new growth and investment in a manner that would reduce carbon emissions. The MPO would also have to designate"significant resource areas"as defined by SB 375.Local projects that are contrary to the MPO's designation would not be eligible for transportation funding.In essence,a regional authority would be making local land use designations. Why the League Is Acting Now The League agrees that emissions reduction from the transportation sector will be part of how the state complies with the stated targets included in AB 32(the climate change bill from 2006).As a result,League has attempted to work with Sen. Steinberg to focus on emissions reductions strategies and planning,rather than growth controls. The League invited the League of Conservation Voters(sponsor of SB 375)to directly address the League's board of directors at its July meeting in Monterey.The board devoted 2.5 hours to discuss the bill.In the final analysis,however, the board believed that though they were willing to continue working with Sen.Steinberg on the measure,there were too many problems and ambiguities to be worked out in the last five weeks of the legislative session. As a result,they asked Sen.Steinberg to make this a two-year bill.In return,the board promised to fully engage League time and resources in finding a resolution.Otherwise,the League would have to oppose the bill.Ultimately,that offer was declined. League Issues with SB 375 The League made the following points in its opposition letter to SB 375 that was sent to Sen.Steinberg: • The Focus Should be on Emissions Reduction,Not Growth Control.SB 375 attempts to dictate specific growth policies,rather than providing local agencies with the necessary flexibility to address the stated goal of emissions reduction.But directing growth at this level of detail is unnecessary.Emissions reduction can be advanced by regional transportation agencies by giving preferences to transportation projects that help achieve emission reduction targets without designating where growth should and should not go. • Broad Scope of Growth Controls Compel Further Consideration.The proposed preferred growth scenario would severely curtail the development of specific categories of land called"significant resource areas."As such, consideration of this bill requires more in-depth discussions than what has occurred. • Coordination with Other Efforts Needed.Since the enactment of AB 32,one of the difficulties is getting clarity on the many different emissions reduction efforts that are underway.For instance,the Air Resources Board is proceeding according to its statutory schedule.The California Transportation Commission is holding stakeholder meetings on these issues to develop guidelines.If SB 375 is going to be a workable law that can be effectively implemented,then the time needs to be taken to integrate the bill with other ongoing efforts and applicable laws. • CEQA Promises Yet to Materialize.The League has carefully reviewed the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)language in the bill and found it insufficient.We remain willing to develop meaningful CEQA streamlining for projects that advance emission reduction goals.That discussion will take time. • Conflicts with RHNA Process Not Yet Addressed.SB 375 would give direction to regional authorities to place housing in a way that will reduce carbon emissions.Yet the Regional Housing Need Allocation(RHNA)process requires that the units be distributed on a fair share basis.This bill makes no attempt to reconcile these two conflicting goals.Cities cannot comply with potentially conflicting reporting requirements.This is a critically important issue that must be handled appropriately. • Broad Stakeholder Input Needed.If SB 375 is to be fully embraced,then needs a broader dialogue involving transportation agencies,Local Agency Formation Commissions(LAFCO's),cities,counties,those in the http://www.cacities.org/stoTy_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub sec=... 8/14/2007 -League of California Cities Page 2 of 2 Schwarzenegger Administration already implementing AB 32, the housing and development industry. The League stands ready to fully engage in such a process. Next Steps: What Cities Need to Do There are five main actions that local officials can take to help oppose SB 375: 1. Take a Position. Send an oppose letter to your Assembly Member and Senator. A sample letter is posted on the League Web site (to access it, look up SB 375 using the League Web site's bill search function at http-_//www cacities org/biIlsearch.) 2. Contact Your Legislators Personally. The Legislature is still in Summer Recess. Thus, your legislators are probably in their districts for another week. 3. Talk to Your COG of MPO. Many of the Councils of Governments (COGs) and MPOs have taken a neutral or support position on this bill. As an association of local governments, their position should be consistent with their members. 4. Engage Contract Lobbyists. Those cities that have a contract lobbyist should provide direction that opposing this bill is one of your legislative priorities for the end of the year. 5. Make Time At The Annual Conference. If this bill is still moving, officials who are attending the League's Annual Conference in Sacramento (which coincides with the second to last week of the Legislative session) should come prepared to speak to their legislator. The League will continue to send updated information in the coming days and weeks about SB 375. Stay tuned to the League Web site at httt ://w ww.cacities.org/and future issues of Priority Focus. last updated : 8/10/2007 http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub sec=... 8/14/2007 L © (�` j j r 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 L 1 tit V .L Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 OF CALI FORK IA www.cacities.org CITIES August 9,2007 The Honorable Darrell Steinberg State Capitol Building,Room 4035 Sacramento, California 95814 RE: SB 375 (Steinberg): Transportation Planning: Preferred Growth Scenarios Notice of Opposition Dear Senator Steinberg: The League regrets to inform you that the League has adopted an Oppose position on your SB 375. (Steinberg). After months of discussions with you,your sponsors and staff, we are disappointed that we could not reach an accord on key issues and language. We agree that climate change is a serious issue and that emissions reduction from the transportation sector will at some point be part of how the state complies with the mandate of AB 32. But there are too many unresolved issues, ambiguities and points of disagreement in the current version of SB 375 (and in the proposed mock up we received on August 6) for us to take any other position. Moreover, we believe a rush to enact such sweeping legislation will most likely lead to serious omissions and errors that will cause a significant backlash and undermine AB 32 and its successful implementation. For this reason,we continue to respectfully request that you delay further legislative consideration of the bill this session, and convene broad stakeholder discussion in the interim. You have already received personal assurances from our executive officers of our commitment to participate fully in those discussions. The following are the concerns that we have shared consistently throughout the many discussions and emails we have had with you,your staff, and the sponsors: • Emissions Reduction or Growth Control? The League has been very clear about our interest in being progressive and proactive on emission reduction strategies. We have shared with your sponsors and staff an alternative approach to address emission reductions that will work for local governments. We differ with the provisions of SB 375 that attempt to dictate specific growth policies,rather than providing local agencies with the necessary flexibility to address your stated goal of emissions reduction. We are not averse to participating in a growth control discussion,but we believe that significant progress on emissions reduction can be made without opening up that controversial issue. • Broad Scope of Growth Controls Compel Further Consideration. We have raised numerous concerns with the required preferred growth scenario(recast as"sustainable communities strategy" in the last mock up). This provision is aimed at removing from development—by statute—specific categories of land called "significant resource areas."Any development contrary to this state-imposed designation would be ineligible for transportation funds. Other categories of land can only be included in the preferred growth scenario if a transportation agency made onerous findings that are certain to be litigated. Furthermore,the decision on what is in or out of a preferred growth scenario ripple across other laws and policies affecting growth. As such, consideration of this bill requires more in-depth discussions than what has occurred. We have pointed out to your staff and sponsors that dictating where growth cannot go in this bill is unnecessary. Emissions reduction can be advanced by regional transportation agencies by giving preferences to transportation projects SB 375(Steinberg) Transportation Planning:Preferred Growth Scenarios League of California Cities;Notice of Opposition Page 2 that help achieve emission reduction targets. It is this exact premise that has helped make the voluntary blueprints that are currently in place so successful to date. • Coordination with Other Efforts Needed. Since the enactment of AB 32, one of the difficulties that we have all encountered is getting clarity on the many different,but related, emissions reduction conversations that are underway. For instance,the Air Resources Board is proceeding according to its statutory schedule.The California Transportation Commission is holding stakeholder meetings on these issues to develop guidelines. Other organizations, such as Local Agency Formation Commissions have yet to be consulted. If SB 375 is going to be a workable law that can be effectively implemented, then the time needs to be taken to integrate the bill with other ongoing efforts and applicable laws. • CEQA Promises Yet to Materialize. The League has been a long supporter of CEQA and its benefits of expanding community involvement and ensuring that critical environmental issues are raised with decision makers. That said, it is also clear that CEQA can also be used to stop worthwhile infill projects. The League has carefully reviewed the CEQA language in the bill and found it insufficient. This is why we proposed in our June 27 memo that this proposal simply be eliminated from the bill. Since then,we have reviewed another CEQA proposal that have been discussed with a local attorney who represents developers. This language also contains significant limitations on its usefulness. We would be happy to engage with you and your sponsor to develop meaningful CEQA streamlining for projects that advance emission reduction goals. That discussion will take time. • RHNA Process. Affordable housing advocates have long wanted to ensure that affordable housing units are distributed in a"fair share"process,where each community builds some affordable housing. This goal, however, directly conflicts with"smart growth' objectives of concentrating growth to reduce emissions. Your sponsor has informed us that the affordable housing advocates "might agree"to allow market rate units to be distributed pursuant to a preferred growth scenario, while affordable units were distributed in the traditional "fair share"process. This proposed solution does not work for local government. If we are going to take the emissions reduction objective of the bill seriously,then continuing to place housing units in locations that does not further emission reduction goals makes no sense. This is a critically important issue that must be handled appropriately. If SB 375 is to be fully embraced,then it would greatly benefit by a broader dialogue involving transportation agencies,LAFCO's, cities,counties, those in the Administration already implementing AB 32, the housing and development industry and other interested parties. The League stands ready to fully engage in such a process. Until then,however, we must oppose SB 375 unless it is amended to address these issues or made a two year bill. Should you have any questions,please feel free to call me at(916) 658-8275. Sincerely, Daniel Carrigg Legislative Director League of California Cities CC: Members and Consultant,Assembly Appropriations Committee Tia Boatman-Patterson, Consultant,Office of the Speaker William Weber, Consultant, Assembly Republican Caucus Lynn Jacobs,Director,Department of Housing and Community Development Cynthia Bryant, Director,Governor's Office of Planning and Research Dale E Bonner, Secretary, Business,Transportation and Housing Agency Mike Chrisman, Secretary, California Resources Agency Chris Kahn, Legislative Secretary, Governor's Office 0 mBuasman SEavicEsof San Mateo 1700 South Amphlett Blvd,Suite 220,San Mateo,CA 94402 County, Inc. phone: 650 349 7008, fax: 650 349-7009 RECEIVED August 9, 2007 AUG 13 2007 Mayor Terry Nagel CITY CLEF_.'(' %-. � ��T�€CE City of Burlingame CITY 0 BUpi vu-AME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 BOA" Dear Ms,,'� aggel: Marianne Mannia President Judy Johnson I write to thank City of Burlingame for its donation of$1,054 to Vice President Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County. We are indeed grateful Bob Montevaldo for your support, and in particular for your recognition of the value of Treasurer the work we do in the long-term care facilities in your city and Chris Kenny beyond. Secretary Andre rw Carolynyn Crow Although we have made great headway in getting word out to the Howard Hughes community, this program is still not well known. We really want Teresa Hurtado Fred Jackson people to know about the work we do. I would welcome the Helen Kan- Bob Montevaldo opportunity to make a brief presentation to the City Council and will Al Teglia follow through with a formal request in the near future. Legal Counsel Thank you again for your support. Deirdre O'Reilly Marblestone Sincerely, w Tippy Iwin Executive Director Thanks to all our donors,including the following major contributors.San Mateo County Area Agency on Aging, Peninsula Healthcare District,Peninsula Community Foundation,Bernard A.Newcomb Foundation, Woodlawn Foundation,City of San Mateo,City of Redwood City,Atkinson Foundation,Labuda Family Foundation,Catholic Heahhcare West, Sequoia Healthcare District August 10, 2007 THE HCRLINGAME HISTORICAL SOCIM PO_HOS I44•HURUNGAME6..CA At0}a RECEIVEe Mr. Nava AUG 13 20V-7 Burlingame City Council Burlingame City Hall CITY CLERK'S Or 501 Primrose Rd. CITY Or BURL4\1C Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear honorable Mayor Nagel, dear honorable councilmembers, We cannot express enough our gratitude towards all of you for fulfilling our grant request. This will great- ly expanding our microfilm collection and make research on site much more efficient. As you know, we are currently working on a fabulous new book for Burlingame, and we have relied heavily on brittle hard copies of the newspaper for a good part of the research. Having the materials on film helps assure that the originals can remain pristine, while still allowing us to glean interesting information in a more efficient manner. Sincerely yours, Jennifer Pfaff Co-VP Burlingame Historical Society *CORA Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse August 8, 2007 Jesus Nava Finance Director, City of Burlingame City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Mr. Nava: This letter is to inform you that we have received a check for the full amount($3,180) from the City of Burlingame in response to our request for Community Group Funding. I would like to thank you on behalf of CORA's board and staff for your support of our organization. This current award will help our agency continue to serve the needs of domestic violence victims in the City of Burlingame. Thank you for your continued investment in our work. Sincerely, A,�O� WWA44C6,�,� Susan Murchison Grants Management P.O.Box 5ogo,San Mateo,CA 94402 • Office:65o.652.o800 • Fax:65o.652.o8o8 24-hr Hotline: 8o0.300.io8o • www.corasupport.org