Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2009.04.20
CITY G BURLINGAME w� ,m �HSTco Juu[0 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday, April 20, 2009 STUDY SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Council Chambers a. Railroad Grade Separation Footprint Study 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 April 6, 2009 5. PRESENTATION a. Proclamation declaring April 20 through April 26, 2009 Mosquito &Vector Control Awareness Week 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of an application for design review, hillside area construction permit, variance for height and special permit for an attached garage for a new 3 '/2 story single family dwelling and attached garage, on property at 2843 Adeline Drive, located within a single family residential (R-1) zone b. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change creating the opportunity for multiple family residential development on properties situated at 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road: 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. (i) Adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the text of the land use section of the general plan to add a description of the Carolan/Rollins Road commercial area and to add multiple family residential development as an alternative land use within the area; and (ii) Adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 25 of the Municipal Code to add an R-4 overlay for certain C-2 zoned properties in the Carolan/Rollins Road commercial area to allow multiple family residential uses as a Conditional Use c. Approval of FY 2009/2010 fee schedule 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. Approval of nominees for the 2009 Walk of Fame b. Consider Appointment to Library Board of Trustees 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Adopt Resolution certifying a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program for the annual creek and channel facilities maintenance program b. Adopt Resolution accepting the Mitten Sewer Pump Station Improvement Project by Gantry Constructors, Inc. c. Adopt Resolution designating Finance Department employees as official signatories on City investment and banking accounts d. Adopt Resolution to determine how to vote the City's Storm Drain Fee Ballots and authorize the City Manager to vote as directed by the Council e. Approve Warrants &Payroll 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 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. 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 12. OLD BUSINESS a. Federal Stimulus Funding 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety &Parking, February 12, 2009; Parks &Recreation, March 19, 2009; Beautification, April 2, 2009; Planning, April 13, 2009 b. Department Reports: Finance, March 2009; Building, March 2009; Fire, March 2009; Police Department, April 2009 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.burlinganie.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING—MONDAY, MAY 4, 2009 3 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Agenda Study Item Session Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Apri120, 2008 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 21, 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: COUNCIL STUDY SESSION — GRADE SEPARATION FOOTPRINT STUDY PRESENTATION BY SAN MATEO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council review the presentation regarding the initial findings of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) Grade Separation Footprint Study for railroad crossings in Burlingame and provide input and comments to the TA. BACKGROUND: For the last couple of years, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) has been working on Grade Separation Footprint Studies for all at-grade rail crossings within San Mateo County. The Footprint Studies are preliminary planning studies that evaluate a full range of rail and street alignment options for each crossing with initial planning level cost estimates. For each option, cost estimate ranges have been approximated for comparison purposes and should not be interpreted as actual costs. The study did not review visual, noise, or environmental issues. Also for the property impacts the report shows that an entire parcel is taken if it was touched by any potential construction whether it affected just driveways, sidewalks, or existing grades. Some of the property takes shown could be mitigated with simple design changes that would not impact the use or facility on site. The Footprint Studies will be used by the TA to identify and prioritize potential grade separation projects for a Project Study Report phase. The Project Study Report phase will include more detailed analysis, design and environmental review. The 2004 Measure A program provides funding for grade separation projects within the County. The goal of the Grade Separation program is to improve safety and relieve traffic congestion. It should be noted that the Grade Separation Footprint Studies were performed independently and are not part of the High Speed Rail project. However in the future it is anticipated that the studies may provide input in the design of High Speed Rail within San Mateo County. DISCUSSION: The Footprint studies in Burlingame evaluated seven existing at- grade railroad crossings between Broadway and Peninsula Avenue. The study also includes South Lane crossing which was closed by the recently constructed Burlingame Avenue train station improvements. The study evaluated a complete range of alignment alternatives for two and four tracks at each crossing as follows: 1 —Rail at-grade with street overcrossing 2—Rail at-grade with street undercrossing 3—Rail elevated with street at-grade 4—Rail depressed with street at-grade(trench) 5—Rail partially elevated with street partially depressed 6—Rail partially depressed with street partially elevated Because of the close proximity of existing crossings between Oak Grove Avenue and Peninsula Avenue,the impact of selecting one option at any of these crossings would likely impact all the other crossings. As a result, staff requested the TA to study the entire rail corridor involving fully depressed, fully elevated as well as a combination of partially elevated and partially depressed options through the City which are included in the presentation. Grade Separation of Broadway: Although the Footprint Study evaluated all at-grade crossings in the City, the Broadway crossing is the only identified high priority grade separation project.This is due to its high traffic volume, safety concerns, and traffic congestion issues. In addition, the Broadway grade separation is listed in the Regional Transportation Plan and has been on the grade separation projects list for over 25 years.The other crossings in the City have significantly lower traffic volumes and congestion issues. and therefore do not justify grade separation at this time. It should be noted that because Broadway is at a distance of approximately a mile from Oak Grove Avenue and Millbrae Avenue, could be possibly grade separated independently without impacting the other crossings. Grade Separation Footprint Study and High Speed Rail project: The Grade Separation Footprint Study was performed separately and independently of the High Speed Rail project. Therefore,the study is only relevant in the absence of the High Speed Rail project. Coordination with Caltrain electrification project: It is believed that the Caltrain electrification project will not require grade separations at existing crossings. However if it is combined with the High Speed Rail project it may require grade separations. In addition, the High Speed Rail may potentially impact Caltrain electrification efforts. Therefore, staff believes that a fully coordinated and comprehensive study of High Speed Rail, Caltrain electrification, and grade separations would be necessary to ascertain the full extent of benefits and impacts from these combined projects. BUDGET IMPACT:The Grade Separation Footprint Study is funded by the TA using Measure A funds. EXHIBITS: Summary of options with cost estimate ranges for two and four track alternatives for all the railroad crossings in the City. C:City Clerk,City Manager SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Grade Separation Footprint Study Council-Studysession4-20-09.doc DRAFT City of Burlingame March 25, 2009 Footprint Study Summary of Impacts and Costs Rail Horizontal Alignment Order of Rail Road Magnitude Crossing Vertical Vertical Property Project Costs Location 2 Track 4 Track Alignment Alignment Impacts Utility Impacts (Millions, 200ft Alt. 1A Alt. 1 B At grade Overpass Medium Low-Medium $114 - $207* Alt. 2A Alt. 2B At grade Underpass High Medium-High $157 - $245* Broadway Alt. 3A Alt. 3B Elevated At grade None Low $179 - $234 Alt. 4A Alt. 4B Depressed At grade Low High $500 - $600 Alt. 5A Alt. 5B Elevated Depressed Low Medium $214 - $258 Alt. 6A Alt. 6B Depressed Overpass Medium High $329 - $400 Alt. 1A Alt. 1B At grade Overpass Medium Low-High $115 - $191* Alt. 2A Alt. 2B At grade Underpass Medium Medium-High $126 - $217* Oak Grove Alt. 3A Alt. 3B Elevated At grade None Medium $212 - $267 Avenue Alt. 4A Alt. 4B Depressed At grade High High $495 - $578 Alt. 5A Alt. 5B Elevated Depressed Medium Medium $171 - $188 Alt. 6A Alt. 6B Depressed Overpass High High $354 - $418 Alt. 1A Alt. 1 B At grade Overpass Low Medium-High $92 - $189* Alt. 2A Alt. 2B At grade Underpass Low Medium-High $116 - $206* North Lane Alt. 3A Alt, 3B Elevated At grade Medium High $266 - $380 Alt. 4A Alt. 4B Depressed At grade High High $576 - $669 Alt. 5A Alt. 5B Elevated Depressed Medium High $255 - $300 Alt. 6A Alt. 6B Depressed Overpass High High $397 - $459 Alt. 1A Alt. 1B At grade Overpass Medium Low-Medium $104 - $202* Alt. 2A Alt. 2B At grade Underpass Medium Medium-High $100 - $187* South Lane Alt. 3A Alt. 3B Elevated At grade Medium High $266 - $380 Alt. 4A Alt. 4B Depressed At grade High High $577 - $670 Alt. 5A Alt. 5B Elevated Depressed Medium High $246 - $292 Alt. 6A Alt, 6B Depressed Overpass High High $396 - $457 Alt. 1A Alt. 1 B At grade Overpass High Medium-High $147 - $243* Alt. 2A Alt. 2B At grade Underpass Medium Medium-High $143 - $248* Howard Avenue Alt. 3A Alt. 3B Elevated At grade Medium High $265 - $379 Alt. 4A Alt. 4B Depressed At grade High High $574 - $669 Alt. 5A Alt. 5B Elevated Depressed Medium High $240 - $287 Alt. 6A Alt. 6B Depressed Overpass High High $409 - $474 Alt. 1A Alt. 1 B At grade Overpass High Low-High $132 - $235* Alt. 2A Alt. 2B At grade Underpass Medium-High Medium-High $141 - $226* Bayswater Avenue Alt. 3A Alt. 3B Elevated At grade High Medium $240 - $292 Alt. 4A Alt. 4B Depressed At grade High High $637 - $740 Alt. 5A Alt. 5B Elevated Depressed High High $226 - $267 Alt. 6A Alt. 6B Depressed Overpass High High $406 - $471 Alt. 1A Alt. 1 B At grade Overpass High Low-Medium $142 - $223* Alf. 2A Alt. 2B At grade Underpass High Medium-High $145 - $226* Peninsula Avenue Alt. 3A Alt. 3B Elevated At rade High Medium $233 - $290 �, ,��;� Alt. 5A Alt. 5B Elevated Depressed High Medium-High $238 - $286 Alt. 6A Alt. 6B Depressed Overpass High High $383 - $450 Fully Elevated Elevated At grade High High $508 - $627 (Combination) Fully Depressed Depressed At grade High High $1 ,203 - $1,429 (Combination) Split-Aerial Elevated Depressed High High $860 - $965 (Combination) Split-Trench Depressed Elevated High High $1 ,271 - $1,471 (Combination) Legend: 0 Feasible Alternative *Track work included in cost estimates for Alternatives 1 B and 2B would not be part of a grade separation project. The project costs for '; Infeasible Alternative these alternatives would be the same as the two-track alternatives. CITY G BURLINGAME a •'$Rwrco uN[6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of April 6, 2009 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 Ann Keighran called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Pat Giorni. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Deal, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2009 regular Council meeting, with one correction noting the arrival time of Councilman Deal under roll call; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting of March 21, 2009 meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009-10 AND SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 4, 2009 FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and accept the annual report; adopt Resolution No. 24 approving the 2008-2009 Broadway Area Business Improvement District annual report and declaring the intention to establish 2009-2010 assessments for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District; and set a public hearing for Monday, May 4, 2009. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve Resolution No. 24 approving the 2008-2009 Broadway Area Business Improvement District annual report and declaring the intention to establish 2009-2010 assessments 1 Burlingame City Council April 6,2009 Unapproved Minutes for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District; 2009; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1837 AMENDING TITLE 18 (BUILDING CONSTRUCTION) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SECTION 18.07.065 TO ADD SUBSECTION (C) TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT APART FROM ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing to adopt Ordinance No. 1737 amending Section 18.07 of the Burlingame municipal code to allow the Community Development Director to grant exceptions to the requirement to concurrently grant demolition permits with building permits for new non-residential project, based upon demonstration by the applicant that special circumstances exist to warrant early demolition, as well as a commitment to submit the new project for issuance of a building permit within a specified time period following issuance of a demolition permit. This amendment would add subsection"c" as an exception category that the property owner produces evidence that special circumstances exist to warrant early demolition; and produces evidence that plans are prepared or are being prepared for the project and the plans will be submitted to the building department within 90 days of obtaining a demolition permit. Based on direction from Council when the ordinance was introduced, language was added that if the property owner fails to obtain a building permit, within 60 days of submitting a building permit, the property owner will have 30 days to remove all debris from the site, secure the site and install landscaping. Additionally, the building official is authorized to require the property owner to ensure safety, security and cleanliness of the site during demolition. Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke on the item. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Mayor Keighran asked CC Kearney to read the title of the ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5 —0. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No.1837 amending Section 18.07.065 of the municipal code; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran directed CC Kearney to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Kevin Osborne, 208 Stanley Road spoke in favor of the storm drain measure and spoke about protectburlingame.org; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke in favor of the storm drain measure, the Chambers handicapped door and the Transportation Authority footprint; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent spoke on the high speed rail project; Art Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive requested information concerning appeal procedures. There were no further comments from the floor. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE CREATING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTIES SITUATED AT 1008-1028 CAROLAN AVENUE AND 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD: 2 Burlingame City Council April 6,2009 Unapproved Minutes (i) ADOPT A RESOLUTION NO. 25 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE WITHIN THE AREA ; AND (ii) INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt Resolution No. 25 to amend the land use element of the general plan, and review the proposed ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add an R- 4 overlay for certain properties in the C-2 zone district to allow multi-family residential uses as a conditional use. CDD Meeker further stated that in 2006 a new law went into effect that requires any housing site identified in the last housing cycle must have its zoning in place so that it is readily available during the current planning cycle. The deadline for complying with this new law is June 30, 2009. Mayor Keighran asked CC Kearney to read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5 —0. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran directed CC Kearney to publish a summary of the ordinance. b. FINANCIAL STATUS UPDATE CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and discussed the City's current financial condition, recommended budget reductions, and potential ramifications of an unsuccessful storm drain ballot measures. At the February Budget Session staff presented $3.2 million in budget reductions to balance the operating budget for the next fiscal year. Due to an additional decline in revenue, there is a need to reduce an additional $500,000 in operating expenses to achieve a balanced operating 2009-2010 budget. He discussed the need for the community to be aware of the additional budget reductions that may be necessary. Council discussion followed and it was agreed that staff should take steps to get more information out to the public regarding the types of reductions that may be necessary to implement. Staff was directed to distribute more information through the city's e-news letter. C. CONSIDER TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Council discussed the various attributes of all commission candidates. Each Councilmember voted for two applicants to fill the two vacancies to a four year term, ending in April 2013. Mayor Keighran called for a vote to reappoint Incumbent Tim Auran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran called for a vote to reappoint Incumbent David Cauchi. Council voted 4-0-1 (Nagel abstained) to reappoint and David Cauchi. 3 Burlingame City Council April 6,2009 Unapproved Minutes d. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION There was only one applicant to fill Dan Conway's unexpired term to November 6, 2010. Council discussed the various attributes of the commission candidate, Caroline Serrato. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to appoint Caroline Serrato to fill the vacancy; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilwoman O'Mahony requested Item 8i be pulled from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. Vice Mayor Baylock requested Items 8a & 8b be pulled for further discussion. Councilwoman Nagel requested Item 8h be pulled for further discussion. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items 8c, d, e, f, and g; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE PENINSULA PARTNERSHIP LEADERSHIP COUNCIL'S BILL OF RIGHTS FOR THE YOUTH OF SAN MATEO COUNTY Vice Mayor Baylock expressed concern that with the reductions to certain programs that could be forthcoming, we should not mislead the community that the City would be in a position to enlarge any youth programs. CM Nantell responded that the Youth Advisory Committee was quite aware of the City's financial position and the intent was to endorse and approve the Bill of Rights, but not establish a commission or expand any programs. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to endorse the Children's Bill or Rights; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADJUSTMENT INCREASE IN PARKING FINES AND INCREASING COMMONLY USED VEHICLE CODE PARKING FINES TO MATCH THE MUNICIPAL CODE PARKING FINES COP Van Etten requested Council adopt Resolution No. 26-2009 adjusting fines for Municipal Code and State Vehicle Code parking fines. Mayor Keighran requested COP Van Etten clarify the need for the increase. COP Van Etten stated that the increase was due to a State of California surcharge fee of$4.50 to parking citations in all cities. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Item 8b; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. C. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY PRE- HOSPITAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES GROUP AS REVISED AT THE FEBRUARY 9, 2009 ALS/JPA MEETING 4 Burlingame City Council April 6,2009 Unapproved Minutes FC Dornell requested Council adopt Resolution No. 27-2009 authorizing the Mayor to execute a revised Joint Powers Agreement for the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Services Providers Group. d. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO AMEND LANGUAGE IN THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT TO CLARIFY THE DISBURSEMENT OF REVENUES FC Dorrell requested that Council adopt Resolution No. 28 authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Agreement to clarify the disbursement of revenues. e. APPROVE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF LOTS 8 AND NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 9,BLOCK 60, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 SUBDIVISION, 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE DPW Murtuza requested Council approve the tentative and final parcel map for lot combination of Lots 8 and northerly half of Lot 9, block 60, Easton Addition no. 7 Subdivision, 1365 Columbus Avenue. L APPROVE TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27 AND 28,BLOCK 6, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION, 1625-1633 ADRIAN ROAD DPW Murtuza requested Council approve tentative and final parcel map for lot combination of a portion of Lots 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 6, Millsdale Industrial Park No. 3 Subdivision, 1625-1633 Adrian Road. g. RESOLUTION ORDERING AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD NOVEMBER 3, 2009 CC Kearney requested Council approve Resolution No. 29 ordering and calling a general municipal election to be held in the City of Burlingame on November 3, 2009; requesting the services of the Registrar of Voters, requesting consolidation of elections, and specifying certain procedures for the consolidated election; requiring payment of prorated costs of candidates' statement; and providing for giving notice of election. h. ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY CM Nantell requested that Council concur with the recommendation of the Green Ribbon Task Force and adopt the Environmental Purchasing Policy. Councilwoman Nagel and Vice Mayor Baylock both commented that the City staff should be aware of purchasing environmental preferable products. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve Item 9h; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. i. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR SERVICES CM Nantell requested Council adopt Resolution No. 30 approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute and agreement with the City of Brisbane for the services of a Director of Parks and Recreation. 5 Burlingame City Council April 6, 2009 Unapproved Minutes Councilwoman O'Mahony requested further clarification on the $200,000 annual savings for this position. CM Nantell explained that the position would reduce the Parks and Recreation Director position to 50% and Superintendent of Parks to .60%. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Item 9i; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS Neal Kaufrnan, 216 Bloomfield Road spoke in support of the storm drain measure; Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue spoke about the Burlingame Library Foundation book sale and the upcoming Authors Luncheon. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke on several items. There were no further comments from the floor. 11. OLD BUSINESS Vice Mayor Baylock and Councilwoman Nagel mentioned there was information about the high speed rail project on the website. 12. NEW BUSINESS Council discussed the high speed rail memorandum of understanding. Council set April 20, 2009, as the hearing date for the Planning Commission appeal for 2843 Adeline Drive. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Civil Service, January 20, 2009; Library, February 17, 2009; Beautification, March 5, 2009; Planning, March 9 &March 23, 2009 b. Department Reports: Police, February 2009 c. Letters from Comcast concerning programming adjustments d. Letter from Astound concerning price adjustments 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. in memory of Isabel Ormes. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk 6 Burlingame City Council April 6,2009 Unapproved Minutes STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: 6a BURLI®NGA•ME MEETING DATE: April 20,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: April 14,2009 APPROVED BY: FROM: William Meeker,Community Development Director—(650)558-455 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3 '/z STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE, ON PROPERTY AT 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should conduct a public hearing on the appeal of the application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,Variance for height and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, 3'/z story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive, 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 three(3)alternatives 1. deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's action approving the application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,Variance for height and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new,3'/2 story single family dwelling and attached garage; 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;or 3. uphold the appeal,and deny the application. BACKGROUND: Project Description: The applicant is proposing to build a new, 3 '/2 story single family dwelling with an attached two-car garage on what is currently a vacant, half acre parcel at 2843 Adeline Drive. The proposed house with attached garage will have a total floor area of 6,087 SF (0.28 FAR)where 8,000 SF (0.37 FAR) is the maximum allowed (project is 1,913 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). Because the lot slopes upward more than 25%,the Planning Division has measured the overall height of the building from 15 feet behind the front property line of the lot at the intersection of the front and side setback lines at each side of the lot (C.S. 25.28.060 c). A Variance for building height is required as part of this project because the proposed height(3'/stories,63'-5"-as measured from average top of curb)exceeds the maximum allowed(2'/stories,30'-as measured from average top of curb). CITY COUNCIL MEETING —April 20, 3009 Public Hearing —Appeal RE: 2843 Adeline Drive The project includes an attached two-car garage (20' x 20', clear interior measurements) which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The following permits were approved by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2009: • Design Review for a new three and a half story, single family dwelling with an attached garage (CS 25.57.010); • Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.61.020). • Special Permit for an attached garage (CS 25.28.035 a); and • Variance for building height (63'-5" proposed, where 30', is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.060 c). The latest Planning Commission staff report (dated March 9, 2009) 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 states 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 Action: Planning Commission Approval: At its meeting of March 9, 2009, the Planning Commission approved the property owner's request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variance for height and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new, 3 Y� story single family dwelling and attached garage on property at 2843 Adeline Drive (see attached minutes). The Commission approved the applications on a vote of 6-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting) with standard conditions of approval. The Commission also added the following conditions to the approval of the project: "at ah_ J_ck 1..: J. Y Y- M..J��........ n ..-A. ."-fl L _ ..I:...:....Y...A F...... YM.. .J....:....- 11101 LI IC UCUR ly Ing aUj0UCI IL LU UCUI UUI 11D G 01 IU 0 011011 UC C11n al laLCU 11 UI I I Ll 10 UGDIl l 1, • that tree protection measures shall be implemented for the Oak tree across the street from the property (near 2838 Adeline Drive) during project construction, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist; and • that the planting plan for the trees to be located along the left side of the structure shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Appeal of Planning Commission's Action: On March 17, 2009, Art and Kealani Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, appealed the Planning Commission's action in a formal letter to the City Clerk (see attached). The appellant's did not specifically indicate a reason for the appeal. Attachments: • Appeal Letter from Art and Kealani Labrie, date stamped March 18, 2009 • Minutes from the March 9, 2009, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting • Letter from Leigh Whitten, Manager, Coldwell Banker, date stamped March 31, 2009 • Letter from Christine Duncan, Realtor, McGuire Real Estate, date stamped March 27, 2009 • Letter from Mary Ann Teixeira, Realtor, McGuire Real Estate, date stamped March 16, 2009 2 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — April 20, 3009 Public Hearing — Appeal RE: 2843 Adeline Drive ■ Letter and attachments from applicant, Alex Mortazavi, concerning proposed tree species, date stamped March 9, 2009 ■ Letter from Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive) concerning property values and attached letters from realtors, date stamped March 9, 2009 ■ Copy of Planning Division Staff Report from March 9, 2009, Planning Commission Action Meeting ■ Applicant's Response to Commission's comments (including window specifications, photographs and section drawings), date stamped February 26, 2009 ■ Story Pole Certification Letter from engineer, date stamped February 24, 2009 ■ Story Pole Plan from applicant, date stamped February 18, 2009 ■ Letter from Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), date stamped February 23, 2009 ■ Minutes from the February 9, 2009, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting • Letter from Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), date stamped February 9, 2009 Letter from Steve and Wendy Ehrlich (2833 Adeline Drive), date stamped February 9, 2uu9 ■ Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped January 27, 2009 ■ Photographs of scale model of proposed house, date stamped January 27, 2009 ■ Minutes from the January 12, 2009, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting ■ Photographs submitted by neighbor, Arthur Labrie, at the January 12, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting • Letter from Aleksandr Zeltser (2878 Hillside Drive), date stamped January 12, 2009 ■ Letter from Alex Mortazavi to Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), date stamped January 9, 2009 • Letter from Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), dated January 8, 2009 ■ Letter from Steve and Eileen Schefsky (24 Vista Lane), date stamped January 9, 2009 ■ Letter and photos from applicant, Alex Mortazavi, date stamped January 7, 2009 ■ Letter from Aleksandr Zeltser (2878 Hillside Drive), date stamped January 5, 2009 ■ Letter from Art and Eileen Thomas (16 Vista Lane), date stamped January 5, 2009 ■ Letter from Steve and Eileen Schefsky (24 Vista Lane), date stamped January 5, 2009 ■ Application to the Planning Commission ■ Special Permit Form ■ Variance Form ■ Arborist Reports ■ Photographs of streetscape ■ Minutes from the March 24, 2008, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting ■ Staff Comments ■ Aerial Photo ■ Notice of Appeal Hearing — Mailed April 10, 2009 ■ City Council Resolution (proposed) 3 Art & Kealani Labrie HONORABLE MAYOR AND 2839 Adeline Drive CITY COUNCIL: Burlingame, CA 94010 Please schedule an appeal hearing for 2843 Adeline Drive to be heard at the April 20, 2009 City Council meeting. City Clerk To: BURLINGAME CITY CLERK 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 March 17, 2009 With this letter, we are appealing the March 9, 2009 decision made by the Burlingame Planning Commission to approve a 33-foot height variance for a 6,200 sq ft house, with a four-story elevator,to be built on a vacant lot at 2843 Adeline Drive. The owners of the property are DENHAM, LLC&HOYA INTERNATIONAL. We feel that an injustice has been done to our civil liberties, and we appreciate the opportunity to escalate our concerns to a group other than the Planning Commission. Enclosed is a check for $480.00. Sincerely, cj-j(�g"' 4, JA�()4�) Art Labrie Kealani LabAe CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 3. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3 % STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 9,2009,with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, 20 Vista Lane; represented the applicant: ■ Have self-imposed a setback of over 23-feet from the side property line due to trees along the fence line; the trees will reduce the appearance of bulk and mass of the building. ■ Noted that the trees will be California Laurel along the side of the residence; will be staggered in a manner to totally block the view of the residence at the fence line. ■ Brought a window sample for the Commission to view. ■ Submitted a manufacturer's cut-sheet for the bi-fold doors and windows. Commission comments: ■ Noted that lines of sight were drawn from several locations;was the 131.5'elevation the elevation of the patio on the adjacent property(Mortazavi—has no idea what the patio elevation is; believes it is at roughly 127' or 128'). ■ Might there be more information regarding views toward the project from the southern end of the adjacent yard on the right-hand side (Mortazavi — the right side is not affected; he owns the lot above). ■ What is the growth potential for the trees (Mortazavi —up to 20-feet tall and 25-feet wide). ■ Clarified that the thought process is to move the trees to the fence line to block the view of the house from the adjacent property; was there any thought to keeping the trees at the building itself (Mortazavi—having the tree next to the building doesn't help as much, but will be offsetting some of the trees. It is his interest to retain as much landscaping as possible; but lose the use of 4,000 square feet of property by doing so. There will be portions of the property that are visible. The eight, 24-inch trees are significant landscape features). ■ Could the residence be camouflaged more by doing more planting; is there any way to clad the elevator with wood rather than stucco (Mortazavi —the tower is further in from the property line by around 14'). ■ What is the best view from the residence(Mortazavi—one of the best views is towards Highway 92; though under County development standards, something could be built to block the view). ■ Consider eliminating or reducing the deck off of the bedroom; it is substantial in size (Mortazavi — that is the only sunny deck on the house; because of the other difficulties with the site. Will not be a heavily used area. Placing it a few feet back will not help the neighbor). The Commission tries to limit exposure of neighbors to decks overlooking a neighboring yard; due to the size of the deck, there is the potential for greater activity. There is another deck on a lower level. Public comments: Art and Kaelani LaBrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; Mike Ghaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Gil McCoy, 1022 Bayswater Avenue; Steve Ehrlich, 2833 Adeline Drive; George Chrissman, 2848 Adeline Drive; Eileen Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 9,2009 • The bedroom deck is larger than either of the two bedrooms;the elevator shaft leads directly to the deck;suggested that the owners of the home would use the deck more frequently,impacting privacy of the adjacent property to the left. • Is a beautiful house,but it belongs on a 5-acre lot nearer to Los Angeles;doesn't belong in the Burlingame Hills;the story poles confirmed the height of the proposed structure above the property to the left. • Felt that the findings for the requested height Variance cannot be made;reviewed the findings. There are other alternatives to the site and project design. • Will decrease the value of the property to the left by$150,000-$400,000. • Cited the significant difference in the size of the home versus the existing homes within the area. • A smaller version of the house would be a more marketable project. • Requested that the applicant explore other design alternatives. • The configuration of the property makes it difficult to develop;this is not the fault of the developer; how can the problem be best resolved. • The prior design was too forced on the lot;it was suggested at that time that the design follow the form of the lot. • Feels it is a good design. • The only problem in meeting the zoning requirements is the height;there is no good solution,butthe current proposal is the best solution. • Landscape screening will minimize impacts on the neighbor. • There is a large old Oak tree in front of Gall's property;should be protected during construction. • Suggested a smaller home to be more marketable and to reduce impacts. • The design impacts privacy of the neighbors,even three(3)properties away from the site. • This is more than double the maximum height allowed. • Looks like a high-rise building;there is a huge potential to impact the privacy of neighbors. • The design is out of character with the neighborhood. • Shefsky's property is two(2)stories;no Variances were requested. • The applicant is agreeable to providing screening on the right side. • Also open to providing a green roof system. • Sooner or later,something will likely be built on the property;should the neighbors decide to appeal the Planning Commission's approval;would the City Council be bound to use the same rules applied to properties lying within the City of Burlingame? • The Planning Commission is sensitive to privacy issues;some of the issues raised by the neighbors are overblown. Applicant rebuttal by Alex Mortazavi: • Is not an office building;the Variance is caused by the method of measuring height in Burlingame; the measurement is taken from the curb line;the house follows the terrain of the lot. • Has owned the property for 10-years. • The solar panels on adjacent properties are irrelevant;they lie to the south of the property and will not be impacted by the new home. • The access to the deck from the elevator can be eliminated,if desired. • The style of architecture in the neighborhood is mixed. • The prior proposal was presented a year ago;current project is less visible. • Real estate agents have their own opinions regarding impacts upon property values. • The design of the house steps up the hill and adds to the cost of the construction due to the amount of circulation space necessary within the residence. • Were surprised that the neighbor encroaches upon the property with retaining walls and gates. 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 ■ The hardship is that the lot contains one-half acre; are preserving the trees on the property; this is only a two-story building. ■ The block's average setback also creates a hardship. ■ Have minimized impacts upon the neighbors; every adjustment affects one of the neighbors; there must be a compromise; the project can't be made invisible. ■ Having a $3 million home next to a property will increase the value of the adjacent properties. ■ The Commission is aware of the efforts that have been made by the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Concerned that bedrooms 2 and 3 are problematic elements in the design; there is a certain realty that has to be accepted; the Commission is responsible for finding compromises. Has the applicant looked at shifting the mass of the bedroom to the other side of the building (Mortazavi — has looked at this alternative. Considered flipping the floor plan, but ends up impacting mature trees, particularly due to the driveway location. Would also disturb the Shefsky property even more. Can't cantilever the bedrooms; would need to expand the family room and add to the bulk of the property and impact trees. Have communicated with the neighbors and made attempts to address neighbors' interests). ■ Regarding the screening on the south side; how tall are the trees (Mortazavi — drawn at 14-feet, but will grow to 25-feet). The tree will work better as a screen if it is taller (Mortazavi — staggering the trees will also help to screen). ■ Continuing the mass on the south side would have a greater impact than the current design. ■ Noted that a cool, concrete color will help to disguise the mass. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ The applicant has taken the direction of the Planning Commission well; is a good design. ■ The trees being installed on the property will provide a lot of screening. ■ Has demonstrated that the house will be well screened from Adeline Drive. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: Reduce deck to 8-foot depth from the front facade. Tree protection for Oak across the street. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ Concern is more with the width of the deck as it impacts the neighbor to the left; consider reducing the width rather than the depth. ■ Consider revising the motion to reduce width of deck by 50% instead of 8-foot depth reduction. ■ Clarified that the Commission never voted on the prior application. ■ The challenges created on the property are due to the topography. ■ There was always an acknowledgement that there would be a Variance of some sort required for development of the property. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 • The story poles have demonstrated the potential impacts; the home is in excess of 6,000 square feet, the design is nearly acceptable, but not yet,the impacts of the bedrooms can be mitigated by placing them on the first floor. ■ Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he couldn't support the current project as designed, without mitigating the mass more; there is no need for the deck off of the bedroom. ■ Applicant commended on the design of the building;moved in this direction at the suggestion of the Planning Commission;has addressed the concerns of the neighbors to a large degree;though there is still some impact on the LaBrie property. ■ Would like the deck off of the bedroom eliminated. ■ Hard to touch rooms to the ground with this type of design;the decks are an important element of the design and the livability of the house. ■ The screening proposed by the applicant should work to address neighbor impacts; there are actually few windows on the left wall of the residence. ■ The house is already set back quite a distance from the left property line. ■ The design in general is well worked out;has been studied by the applicant. ■ Maker of motion indicated a willingness to eliminate the deck off of the bedroom; agreed to by the second of the motion. ■ Planting plan for trees along the left side of the property should return to the Commission as an FY/. 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 27, 2009, sheets A02 through A09, and date stamped December 2, 2008, sheets A00 through A01 c, A10 through A16 and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; 2. that the deck lying adjacent to bedrooms 2 and 3 shall be eliminated from the design; 3. that tree protection measures shall be implemented for the Oak tree across the street from the property(near 2838 Adeline Drive)during project construction;to the satisfaction of the City Arborist; 4. that the planting plan for the trees to be located along the left side of the structure shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 5. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,windows,architectural features,roof height or pitch,and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 7. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 8. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Peninsula Tree Care Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department on June 30, 2008; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 2, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's July 22, 2008 memo,the Fire Marshal's July 7,2008 memo,the City Arborist's July 30,2008 memo,and the NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2008 memo shall be met; 10. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 9,2009 comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project,the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission,or City Council on appeal;which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission,or City Council on appeal; 12. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 13. that the 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 orfull demolition of a structure,interioror exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices"as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 16. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection,a licensed surveyor shall locate the property comers,set the building footprint and certify the firstfloor elevation of the new structure(s)based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans;this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 17. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer,oranother architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing,such as window locations and bays,are built as shown on the approved plans;architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 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;and 19. 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. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1(Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m. 11 1427 Chapin Avenue z II ch Burlingame, CA 94010 U.S.A. 650.558.4200 BUS RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE 650.347.4067 FAX March 27, 2009 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: 2843 Adeline Dr. Dear Commissioners; You recently received a correspondence regarding a proposed project for the above mentioned property directed to you by John Vega, an independent contractor associated as a real estate sales person with Coldwell Banker. He provided, in that correspondence, information concerning adjacent property at 2839 Adeline Dr. owned by Mr. Arthur Labrie. Although Mr. Vega's correspondence was on Coldwell Banker letterhead, please be advised that the opinions he has expressed are his and not those of Coldwell Banker. Furthermore, Coldwell Banker has not and will not express any opinion or position with respect to the referenced project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further clarification. Very truly yours, Leigh Whitten Manager Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage PH: 650-558-4300 Direct cc: Alex Mortazavi '4 tz Li MAR 3 1 200-9 CITY OF BURL1NGAMF PLANNING DEPT. Owned And Operated By NRT LLC. r ri.rxnv `o your li{t.. City of Burlingame R E E I 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 AR 2 7 2009 March 13, 2009 "IT4-OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. To Whom It May Concern: On March 7, 2009 I wrote a letter criticizing the development project at 2843 Adeline Drive in Burlingame. I am now retracting all statements in that letter. I also want to make it clear that the statements in my letter were not the opinions of McGuire Real Estate or any agents or brokers in my office, but were my opinions alone. I have no issue with the developer, architects or anyone else regarding this project. After further thought, please give my previous letter dated March 7, 2009 ZERO weight when considering this project. Please don't hesitate to contact me for further information at 650-281-8660. Sincerely, Christine Duncan McGuire Real Estate 360 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Mar. 11, 09 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Recension of letter regarding proposed height variance 2843 Adeline Dear Planning Commission Members: I am writing in recension of my letter written to you dated March 6th, 2009 in which I stated my opinion about the proposed development to be built in the lot adjacent to 2829 Adeline. In that letter, I stated my opinion about the presumed impact on the home and lot at 2829 Adeline. I was in error to give my opinion without understanding the complete proposal, and performing my due diligence and investigation. On that letter I stated my opinion about the impact on the LaBrie property with regard to: - afternoon sun on the LaBrie pool - the proposed building's view of the LaBrie backyard - auto turn around in view of the LaBrie dining room window I was wrong to have made an opinion. I apologize for stating my opinion without having first fully understood and researched the project with the various studies and plans that have been prepared. Please do understand that the opinion written previously was my own, not that of McGuire Real Estate, and that I alone accept full responsibility for my error in judgment. I appreciate your understanding. Thank you very much. Sincerely, __ ECENED Makv A^M, Teixeira DRE: ,x'18767 c r u;."NiG ',,lE McGuire Real Estate i I i ? "T McGUIRE PENINSULA, CORP. A McGuire Real Estate Affiliate 360 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: 650.348.0222 FAX: 650.348.0233 WWW.MCGUIRE.COM Tim Auran Michael Bro,,Nmrigg City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 David Cauchi, Chair Jeff Lindstrom City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones. Vice-Chair Stanley Vistica, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sandra Yie William Meeker, Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 March 9, 2009 Re: Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit for 2843 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA(APN: 027-093-310) Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Meeker, Attached please find the description of the proposed trees along the building. "U.4,fBELLULARIA Californica"is commonly known as California laurel. It is an evergreen tree used for screen and tall hedge. It grows about 20'-25' high and wide. Attached please find a complete description of the plant per Western Garden Book by Sunset. We believe that this species will.provide more than adequate screening between the adjoining properties. The shape of this tree also blends in well with the surrounding landscape. We propose to place these trees 15 feet apart and staggered along the fence The sections provided to the Commission with the current staff report demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed landscape screening. We would point out that the width of our second story bedrooms are only 26 feet. Given the fact there is 202 feet of common property lihe,26-feet represents only 12.8%of the entire length. Further, we would note that our self-imposed 23'-6"of side yard setback represents more than three times the required setback by the City and in doing so, we will lose the use and enjoyment of almost 4,000 sq. ft. of our property. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. M L-t7_1 V t U Sincerely, 9 2009 Denham LLC Cr-t'O`F Alex Mortazavi Ulrtaus-Vatdota Dwarf varieties suitable for bonsai include'Frosty',3-ft.shrub with leaves from stems to indefinite width.Narrow,dark green,'h-X14-in.}eaves turn edged in tiny white teeth; 'Hokkaido',tiny-leafed,very slow-growing but coppery or purplish in winter. Tiny pinkish flowers tart red berries in shapely miniature tree (1 fL tall in 20 years); and 'Seiju% a sport of autumn.Commercial growers raise this plant in bogs—beds that can be 'Ho}dcaido'with larger leaves and corky bark A note of caution:A less desir- flooded to control weeds and pests and make harvesting easier.Gardeners able species,t1.pumik(Siberian elm)is sometimes sold as Chinese elm can use cranberry,as an attractive small-scale ground cover in full sun U. pumila SIBERIAN ELK Deciduous.Zones Al-A3; 1-11,14-21; (space plants 2 ft.apart).Ample water: used chiefly in Zones Al-A3, 1, 2, 10, 11, where climate limits tree V. ovaturn.EVERGREEN HUCKLEBERRY.Zones 4-7, 14-17, 22-24. choices.From Russia,northern(Mina.To 501 tall,40 ft wide.Smooth Native to Pacific coastal region,from Santa Barbara area of Southem Cali- dark green leaves are V;-2 in. long. Resists Butch elm disease and forma north to British Columbia.Erect growth to 2-3 ft.high and wide in endures cold,beat,aridity,and poor soil—but has brittle wood and weak sun,8-10 ft.tall and broad in shade.Leathery,lustrous dark green leaves crotches and is not a desirable tree.Possibly useful in.holding sot.}against to 11/4 in.long;bronzy or reddish when new.White or pinkish flowers are erosion;fast growth also makes it suitable for windbreak or shelterbelL followed by black berries good in pies, jams, jellies, syrups. Can be Papery,winged seeds disperse seedlings over wide area. trimmed as a hedge or grown in containers.Cut branches are popular for U. wMwniana `Prospector'. Zones 3-9, 14-21. Fairly new variety arrangements.Sun or shade.Moderate to regular water. from western China;similar in shape to U amerkana Likely ultimate sire is V. parvifolium. RED HUCKLEBERRY. Deciduous. 'Zones A3; 2-7, 40 fL tall,30 fL w=ide.Leaves are orange red when new,mature to deep shiny 14-17.Native to Sierra Nevada,Coast Ranges from Northern California to green turn yellow in fall Resistant to Dutch elm disease and elm leaf belles Alaska Slow-growing plant,eveau ally reaching 4-12 ft.(rarely 18 ft.)tall, iR 6&wide Thin green branches with spreading or cascading habit provide an intricate winter silhouette. Oval, thin-textured light green leaves are UMBEILULAM californica �. %-3/4 in.long. Greenish or whitish flowers are good in arrangements. CALIFORNIA LAUREL,CALIFORNIA SAY, « Showy bright red berries can be used in jams,jellies,pies.Partial or full OREGON MYRTLE,PEPPERWOOD shade.Regular water. ; Lauraceae V.vitis-idaea COWBERRY,FOKBERRY.Evergreen_Zones 2-7,14-17, ' except as noted Native to Europe.Slow growth to 1 ft.high;spreads widely , by rhizomes if grown in highly organic or Nddy mulched soil.Glossy dark Z ZONES 4-9,14-24 - • SUN Oft SHADE a green leaves to 1 in.long,new growth often tined bright red or orange. S�A �. White or pinkish flowers followed by sour red berries something like tiny 0 Ari LITTLE TO REGULAR WATER -_ r cranberries;these arevalued for preserves,spnrps.Handsome lime plant for informal edging around larger plantings; good small-scale ground ative to southwestern Oregon, California cover(space plants 2-3 ft.apart).Best without potassium fertilizer.Regu- Coad Ranges, lower elevations of Sierra lar to ample water.Prefers partial or full shade,but if given ample water lr'etada In the gild,form varies On windy hill will take full sun in cool-summer areas.European varieties grown for fruit E sides near coal,it is a huge,gumdrop-shaped shrub;in forests,its a tree production are sometimes seen. 'Erntdank'produces one crop in spring, to 75 fL tats over 100 fL wide.In prdens.it tends to g3rrxt*wdv labrum anatlier in summer. Woraffe'also bears two crops;its berries are darker lIt a year)to 20-25 fL high and wide.Lance-shaped,2-5-in.-long loves red and somewhat larger than those of the species,and the later crop(if' medium to deep yellow green and glossy above, dull light green not harvested)can remain on the plant all winter ±etrearh.Leaves can be substituted for sweet bay(Laraus nobbiUs)in cook y, v. mimi.r. LINGOWBERRY.Zones Al-A3; 1-7,14-17.Cold-hardier but they have a more pungent flavor:Clusters of tiny yellowish flowers form from arctic North America.Has smaller leaves(to'h in.),is attrac- h' ase plant a yellowish cast in spring.Blossoms are followed by olivelike, tive in ruck gardens,containers. �trpDA inedib}e ftuit. RGrows best and fastest in deep soil with regular water but tolerates many 'Valerianaceae. The valerian family ofwennial herbs (rarely drubs) . -$er conditions,including aridity:Will grow in deep shade and ultimately, has clustered small flowers. In addition to Vak iona, members include ;-�t big enough to become shade maker itself(cans very dense shade ,Mess thinned). Though often afflicted with sooty mold resulting from Jupiter's beard(t etrtrmrffirrs)and Palrinia chid or scale infestation,it is nonetheless useful for screen,background Ming,tali hedge.Heavy drop of yellow to tan leaves in autumn. VALE ANA.offitcinalis 11BRELLA PINE.See SC.IA1H3P1TY5 verticilla VALERIAN.GARDEN HELIOTROPE a5` Vaterianaceae , MBRELIA PLANT See GYPERLI,S altmdol'rus PERENNIAL y RELIA TREE,QUEEN51.M.Sege SCHEFFLER.A actinophylla !ZONESI-24 N y; — xt FULL SUN oR PARTIAL sHADE lLl1lJ1Yl -a REGULAR WATER ++ g G Yiar�ianacirraiL� _�ceae � From Europe and.western Asia.1'0 5 ft tall.in . raPN OR DECIDUOUS SHRUBS _ " bloom,spreading to 4 fL wide.Most of the foliage remains fairly close , . ONES VARY BY stems � g , to ground. Light green leaves each with eight to ten pairs of narrow; 0 EXPOSURE NEEDS VARY BY SPECIES jagged-edged Ices.Tall,straight flowering stems carry tiny,fragrant pink � WATER NEEDS VARY sr stems blossoms in rounded dusters at stern.ends in summer;useful:for cut flow- A`4 0 — ers.White-and red-Hoverer}fortes exist.Strong-smelling mots are widely xeellent ornamental sl>a ubs.LEustets of bell used in herbal preparations said to have sedative qualities. Routs also `shaped flowers in spring; colorful, edible n �� attract .Start new plantsfro=n se-edordivisions.Grow to qt r�i lFerb or ; :es that attract birds,Provide organically enriched,acid soil, for Bower borders,but be aware that it can become inv�asivi dott�„lilK-nt cre l a V �` gardens.For species grown largely for fruit,see Blueberry: other plants. macrocarpon. CRANBERRY. Evergreen. Zones 1-6, 17. Native to YALLOTA sperm See CYATi MM elms w eastern U.S.,eastern Canada.Ta 2-6 in.high,spreading and rooting i�s: 2009 ;.ITY OF u��°��I,'i's..'i�aAhRl aLA.KV41 ?5 DEa^"T. e ,ter A` � s '�"` ,,���� `:S" -.` 5 fix^ u��t�� g.✓,i § d4'�.f �"� 1 f M ice";,: 1 ,2�`+.. 4:� k �M�'c,`3 ,0.y �.:E;^- �!f,• . � ,. "FIR i z;X�a ,*�, �&'. ,ate "."� ��• ,:'� ','v'A.'� .gin 1101 'c.. 't•: � x c a Y G k x* a r �K i a . �' r ��9�.. �.',4',°'":- ra'•+k �' �„ �� any�'�i" S. _ Ham.,. �> c`. r�;�> y;.. .�a���' � f.. � •n>s� r Agenda Item 3 - 2843 Adeline Drive PC Meeting 03.09.09 ARTHUR J. LABRIE, JR. COMMUNICATION RECEIVED 2839 ADELINE DRIVE AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 340-1117 March 7, 2009 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Height Variance for 2843 Adeline Drive Dear Planning Commissioners, After the story poles were erected, I asked several local Realtors to give their opinion on the effect the proposed structure would have on my property value. Attached are their testimonials. It is obvious from their comments that allowing a height variance at 2843 Adeline Drive would have a major negative impact on my property value. Sincerely, Arthur J. Labrie Jr. 1 a` March 7, 2009 To Whom It May Concern: My name is Christine Duncan and I am associated with McGuire Real Estate in Burlingame. This letter is in reference to the property owned by Art LaBrie at 2839 Adeline Dr. in Burlingame. Art asked that I come by his home to evaluate the impact of building the proposed "spec" home at 2843 Adeline Drive. After seeing the story-poles on the land and reviewing the modern design of the proposed house, I believe this new structure will detract from the beauty of Art's back yard and eliminate his privacy. It will also block the afternoon sunlight around the pool area and shade the house and yard for much of the day. The original Mediterranean design (or something similar) would be a lovely fit in the neighborhood. In my opinion the current modern design would decrease the value of Art's property by at least $150K — $250K. Please don't hesitate to contact me for further information at 650-281-8660. Sincerely, ChAstine Christine Duncan McGuire Real Estate 360 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 i i i McGUIRE 1 i Mar. 6, 09 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Height Variance 2843 Adeline Dear Planning Commission: I am writing in behalf of the owners of 2839 Adeline, Burlingame, CA, Art and Kealani LaBrie. I am a real estate agent practicing in San Mateo and Burlingame since 2006. In i representing both buyers and sellers, property location, neighborhood and desirability are key components in the pricing, and ultimate sale price of a property. In the current market, more than ever, factors such as neighborhood are critical. i A major value component of the LaBries property is the privacy, woodiness and seclusion offered by the situation of the property on the hillside. In my opinion, construction of the proposed multi-story single family home, with it's height on the west side of the property would in turn: i - Block afternoon sun on the LaBrie pool - Offer a direct view into the LaBrie backyard therefore robbing it of it's most valuable asset - Create an auto turn around immediately in the site line of the LaBrie dining room I believe that these key elements alone would stand to severely impact the desirability, and market value of the La Brie home. I thank you very much, Sincerely, Mr18767i D McGuire Real Estate I i MCGUIRE PENINSULA, Copp. A McGuire Real Estate Affiliate 360 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: 650.348.0222 FAX: 650.348.0233 WWW.MCGUIRE.COM ® ® 1427 Chapin Avenue CJ-Ato Burlingame,CA 94010 U.S.A. 650.558.4200 BUS RESIDENTIAL BROKERAGE 650.347.4067 FAX March 3, 2009 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Height Variance for 20843 "deline Drive Dear Planning Commissioners, I am, and have been, an active real estate agent in Burlingame and the San Mateo County for the past 12 years. Mr. Labrie has asked me to give my opinion of what the effect of the proposed house at 2843 Adeline drive would have on his property value. I have inspected the proposed plans and visited Mr. Labrie's back yard. One of the major features of Mr Labrie's home is the privacy and serenity of his back yard and swimming pool. The story poles of the proposed building clearly show that his privacy will be extremely compromised due to the height and closeness of the structure to his swimming pool. In addition, the massive structure will block the afternoon sun in the summertime, because the structure will be on top of a steep hill on the west side of Mr. Labrie's yard, It is my professional opinion that the proposed structure would reduce the value of Mr. Labrie's property by as much as $200,000 to $275,000. It would be a shame if the planning commission granted a height variation for a"spec" house that will have such a negative impact on a long time Burlingame resident. Since ely John Vega Y, Zk J' A A,1K R E A ' T V Ur- v V To Whom It May Concern: Mr. Labrie has asked me to give my professional opinion on the proposed building at 2843 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA in regards to the property value of his adjacent residence at 2839 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA. I have been an active real estate agent in the San Mateo County for the past two years. I have inspected his property and looked at the story poles of the proposed building. In my opinion the new contraction will take all the privacy of Mr. Labrie residence,which will have a great negative impact on the value of his property,around $300,000.00 to $400,000.00 Cordially, Real Estate`''onsultant Keller Williams Realty 505 Hamilton Ave.Suite 100,Palo Alto,CA 94301 Office: (650)454-8500 Fax: (650)462-1595 Gil McCoy Real Estate Broker 1022 Bayswater Ave. San Mateo, CA 94401 (650) 678-8490 March 3, 2009 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Height Variance for 2843 Adeline Drive Dear Planning Commissioners, I have been a real estate broker since 1973, and I am very active with the SAMCAR Board of Realtors. I tour almost every Tuesday and inspect homes for sale in Burlingame, Hillsborough and San Mateo. I am very"in-tune"with the local real Estate Market. I met Art LaBrie (2839 Adeline Dr. Burlingame) in 1991 through a mutual Real Estate friend. Over the years I have visited Art &Kealani at their home. They have an attractive home in the Burlingame Hills, overlooking the Mercy High School Campus with its classic architecture. Their neighborhood consists of modest traditional and Mediterranean style homes. A great deal of charm for the Labries is the sense of privacy in their back yard due to the beautiful trees and landscaping. The next door neighbor is planning to construct a"spec house"that would take away the Labries' privacy and sunlight. I reviewed the original Mediterranean design and feel it is much more attractive for the neighborhood, and would make more economic sense considering our current real estate market. If the owners of 2843 Adeline were my clients, I would advise them to go with the smaller Mediterranean design. I think the oversized contemporary design would be a detriment to the neighborhood and would be much harder to sell. If the proposed height variance is allowed,I feel that the LaBries would suffer major economic loss of property value in the range of$150,000 to $250,000, not to mention the loss of privacy and sunlight. Sincerely, el Gil McCoy, 1 �S��ti •. ] 9� � �f+ ��� r `r � {'1�a .s e a ��yL� � '�sa�~ r. �' � 6 Si' Z.i�• ,h `Afrin �yfigr i � � p.s r ry ti�bf ,r s.f» F .,, -./: � ' .r• y �t�Y` v.�rf t t x '''S Ua r.�` 'i'�z�r,� t�� r ash 4 � r ��^�;. �f ��—,—,--..." '5�--�—•,y;'a,:: Ali- 7,- r �f. tf r +k.l• 7'. :rs ,Y,r �, t s' '� J'!.w fr f �' .' $ • �>���� 'h- " '� y " t 7A'�ccf sit1t - �J r t "' ./ {� r""�i y r•�{fir�' ,, J ..•� y 7JT, .w FC # a �x'a uY3at J i dl �1�. r: :r/ 'sr asAA x �y . ;V11 tf y. Sa zd'tf,p +' f City of Burlingame Item No. Design Review,Hillside Area ConstrucRegular Action tion Permit, Variance and Special Permit Address: 2843 Adeline Drive Meeting Date:March 9,2009 Request: Design Review,Hillside Area Construction Permit,Variance for height and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new 3%:story,single-family dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Architect:Robert Van Dale,EDI Architecture,Inc. APN:027-093-310 Property Owner:Denham LLC Lot Area:22,036 SF General Plan:Low Density Residential Zoning:R-1 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 states that construction of a limited number of new,small facilities or structures,including one single-family residence,ora second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas,this exemption maybe applied to the construction or conversion of up to three(3)single-family residences as part of a project. History: On March 24,2008,the Planning Commission reviewed an application for Design Review,Special Permit for an attached garage and a Front Setback Variance to all floors for a new 2%story,single family dwelling with an attached garage as a Design Review Study item. The Commission had comments and suggestions concerning the placement of the house on the lot,existing and proposed landscape trees and proposed setbacks,and voted to refer the project to a Design Review Consultant. On March 26,2008,the applicant withdrew that project from the Planning Commission process. On June 30, 2008,the applicant submitted the current application to the Planning Division. Project Description:The applicant is proposing to build a new,3%2 story single family dwelling with an attached two-car garage on what is currently a vacant,half acre parcel at 2843 Adeline Drive. The proposed house with attached garage will have a total floor area of 6,087 SF(0.28 FAR)where 8,000 SF(0.37 FAR)is the maximum allowed(project is 1,913 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). Because the lot slopes upward more than 25%, the Planning Division has measured the overall height of the building from 15 feet behind the front property line of the lot at the intersection of the front and side setback lines at each side of the lot(C.S.25.28.060 c). A Variance for building height is required as part of this project because the proposed height(3'%stories,63'-5") exceeds the maximum allowed(2%2 stories,30'). The project includes an attached two-car garage(20'x 20',clear interior measurements)which provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five-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 requesting the following: • Design Review for a new two and a half story,single family dwelling with an attached garage (CS 25.57.010); • Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new single family dwelling(C.S.25.61.020). • Special Permit for an attached garage(CS 25.28.035 a);and • Variance for building height(63'-5'proposed,where 30',is the maximum allowed)(CS 25.28.060 c). *This area was intentionally left blank* Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Variance 2843 Adeline Drive 2843 Adeline Drive Lot Area: 22,036 SF Plans date stamped: December 2, 2008 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ---.............._._......---................................._=-- -- ....._. - -----._....------ - ------- —_..._.__...— Front (1s' fir): 41 '-6" i 35'-4" (block average) (2°d fir): 40'-6" (to BR # 5 overhang) 35'-4" (block average) ...__..................._.................._....._ _..................................................__._._........_ _ _ .._......._......................-----....................._.._..-----....._a—.__............-_...._.--............._....._...................................................._......_._....._........................................-........... Side (left): 23'-6" I 7'-0" (right): 12'-6" 7'-0" ......__..._._........_..._.__..._._._..........................................._._............._............____...........__................----............................._ .._ __...__ _........_....._.............................................._...... ..__..__...... ............ Rear (1st fir): 72'-6" 15'-0" 2nd fir): 72'-6" 20'-0" _�..__...__......_..... .......-.--......-.........- --- --- ... _. .._..._---- - - --- -....- --._...-- ..... Lot Coverage: 3,713.75 SF 8,000 SF 17% 36% FAR: 6,087.1 SF 8,000 SF ....._..._...._—..........-......_..................................................................._._..........,..__._..... _—.._._— 0.28 FAR 0.36 FAR' # of bedrooms: 5 --- _ - __ ..._._._.........._._._......................._....- ....._..._..._...._..__.._.__.—_.._ _ - ................---..........._...._._.......-- ----- i---...- _--------..............._..........._.......__....._..-----........................................... Parking: 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') i (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20 ) (9' x 20') Height: 63'-5" z l 30 -0 - ----------- -- ._...__..._........ _..._..... DH Envelope: complies CS 25.28.075 ' (0.32 x 6,875 SF) + 1100 SF = 8,152 SF (0.37 FAR). The maximum single-family residential house size shall be 8,000 gross square feet, excluding accessory structures (CS 25.28.070 e). 2 Variance for building height (63'-5" proposed, where 30', is the maximum allowed) (CS 25.28.060 c). Staff Comments: Staff would note that due to the amount of grading and soil removal that is proposed on site, the applicant has submitted a preliminary grading and drainage plan to the Planning Division. This grading program outlines all hauling and dirt removal from the site. See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer and NPDES Coordinator. Staff would also note that on January 5, 2009, the Planning Division received a letter from the neighbor at 2878 Hillside Drive requesting a more extensi�/e CEQA review of the project. After discussion with the City Attorney, staff determined that the project was Categorically Exempt from CEQA per Sections 15303 (a) and 15300.2 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the construction of a single-family residence is exempt from evaluation under CEQA, unless the subject property lies in an area that has been determined to be environmental sensitive. Pursuant to CEQA, such environmentally sensitive areas must be "designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state or local agencies". The subject site does not qualify as an identified "environmentally sensitive" area; therefore, the CEQA exemption for single-family dwellings applies. February 9, 2009, Regular Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission Regular Action meeting on February 23, 2009, the Commission had several additional comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to continue the project with direction to the applicant to install story poles along the left and rear elevations (February 9, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a story pole plan to the Planning Division on February 18, 2009, a story pole certification letter on February 24, 2009 and a detailed response letter that includes window specification sheets, photographs and section drawings on February 26, 2009, to address the Commissions comments. Please refer to the copy of the February 9, 2009, Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission and neighborhood comments concerning the project. -2- Design Review,Hillside Area Construction Permit,Special Permit and Variance 2843 Adeline Drive January 12,2009,Design Review Study Meeting:At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on January 12,2009,the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding story poles and a massing model for this project and voted to place the item on the Regular Action calendar at the next available Planning Commission Meeting(January 12,2009 Planning Commission Minutes). The designer submitted a response letter and revised plans,dated stamped January 27,2009,to address the Commissions comments. Please refer to the copy of the January 12,2009,Planning Commission minutes included in the staff report for the list of Planning Commission and neighborhood comments concerning the project. 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,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. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health,safety,general welfare or convenience;and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action:The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific -3- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Variance 2843 Adeline Drive findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. 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 Division date stamped January 27, 2009, sheets A02 through A09, and date stamped December 2, 2008,sheets A00 through A01c, A10 through A16 and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 5. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Peninsula Tree Care Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department on June 30, 2008; 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July2, 2008 memo,the City Engineer's July 22, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 7, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's July 30, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2008 memo shall be met; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and anygrading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; -4- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Variance 2843 Adeline Drive THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans;this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing,such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. 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; and 16. 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. Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner c. Robert Van Dale, EDI Architecture, 450 Sansome St. suite 250, San Francisco, CA 94111, architect. Attachments:' Applicant's Response to Commission's comments (including window specifications, photographs and section drawings), date stamped February 26, 2009 Story Pole Certification Letter from engineer, date stamped February 24, 2009 Story Pole Plan from applicant, date stamped February 18, 2009 Letter from Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), date stamped February 23, 2009 Minutes from the February 9, 2009, Planning Commission Regular Action Meeting Letter from Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), date stamped February 9, 2009 Letter from Steve and Wendy Ehrlich (2833 Adeline Drive), date stamped February 9, 2009 Applicant's Response to Commission's comments, date stamped January 27, 2009 Photographs of scale model of proposed house, date stamped January 27, 2009 Minutes from the January 12, 2009, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Photographs submitted by neighbor, Arthur Labrie, at the January 12, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Letter from Aleksandr Zeltser (2878 Hillside Drive), date stamped January 12, 2009 Letter from Alex Mortazavi to Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), date stamped January 9, 2009 Letter from Arthur Labrie (2839 Adeline Drive), dated January 8, 2009 Letter from Steve and Eileen Schefsky(24 Vista Lane), date stamped January 9, 2009 Letter and photos from property owner, Alex Mortazavi, date stamped January 7, 2009 Letter from Aleksandr Zeltser(2878 Hillside Drive), date stamped January 5, 2009 Letter from Art and Eileen Thomas (16 Vista Lane), date stamped January 5, 2009 Letter from Steve and Eileen Schefsky(24 Vista Lane), date stamped January 5, 2009 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Form Variance Form Arborist Reports Photographs of streetscape -5- Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit and Variance 2843 Adeline Drive Minutes from the March 24, 2008, Planning Commission Design Review Study Meeting Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed January 30, 2009 Aerial Photo -6- Agenda Item 3 - 2843 Adeline Drive letter from applicant •Y Tim Auran Michael Brownrigg City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 David Cauchi, Chair Jeff Lindstrom City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones, Vice-Chair Stanley Vistica, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sandra Yie William Meeker, Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 February 20, 2009 Re: Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit for 2843 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA (APN: 027-093-310) This letter is in response to the Planning Commission's comments during the discussion of motion on February 9, 2009. 1 . "Provide sections showing relationship of building and adjacent buildings, including landscaping". Response: After clarification with the Planning staff, attached is a site section as requested. 2.; "If the neighbor on the immediate left and the applicant can agree with another solution without vegetation removal, then will accept a letter to that effect". Response: Several attempts lave been made to address the possible concerns of the neighbor by offering numerous mitigating solutions — and all have been flatly rejected by the neighbor. 3. "Should look at using a permeable, surface for the driveway; and water management". Response: We propose to use interlocking pavers instead of concrete or asphalt for the driveway. E'� � 7n09 4. `Be certain the construction equipment is kept to a minimum". Response: Every effort will be made to minimize construction equipment used for this project. 5. "Concerned that the uphill neighbor could also have concerns; should also provide story poles along the rear". Response: The story pole has been erected at the rear property. Please note that the rear property is owned by the Applicant. The Commission responded to Steve Schefsky's desire to have a story pole placed in the rear of the property. I would like to reiterate the contents of our letter submitted on January 6, 2009. The Applicant has a legally binding judgment which prevents the Schefskys from having any say as to the height of the proposed building as long as the finished floor is at an elevation of 256 of their contours. In fact, despite "letter of support", Mr. Schefsky has still been trying to get around the judgment by showing up to the meetings and making comments regarding the location and height of the proposed structure. The judgment reads as follows: "7. Schefsky's Support for Denham Variance. Denham intends to seek a variance for the development of the Denham Adeline Property, Burlingame, California, to locate the building finished floor at said property at an elevation at or about 256 according to the contours used for the development of the Schefsky Property, or as high on the Denham Adeline Property as the City of Burlingame will allow with a variance. The Schefsky's shall submit written support to the City of Burlingame in favor of the issuance of said variance." Mr. Schefsky has withdrawn his initial objection in writing, but still continues to show up at public hearings and attempts to influence the Commission and neighbors against the project. This story pole request was the latest attempt made by him. Ire conclusion, it has taken several years and several_ designs to build a single family home on our property. In this application, several commissioners have voiced their support and including,but not limited to aesthetics, mass, scale, landscaping, preservation of existing trees, location, etc. Our rights to develop and enjoy our property have been delayed for several years due to the aggressive efforts of certain neighbors....Below are a partial list of examples: The late Mr. Jones, former owner of 24 Vista Lane, took over 1/ acre of our land and landscaped it to claim some sort of"easement right". -Mr. Schefsky built three(3) retaining walls, without a permit, as long as nine(9) feet into our property. FEB 2 63 2009 -Mr. Schefsky built a monstrous house that invaded the entire privacy of our back yard and blocked three-fourths of long distance bay views from 20 Vista Lane. This also had the effect of taking the privacy of the entire back yard of the proposed project. _Mr. Art Thomas owner of 16 Vista lane planted three apple trees 25 feet into our property and claim some sort of easement. -We just found out that a neighbor on Vista Lane has placed an entire sewer line in our property and connected it to the City of Burlingame sewer without our permission or the required City of Burlingame permit. -The property next door owned by Art LaBrie has encroached on our property with retaining walls, a walkway, stairway, and driveway without our permission and/or the required City of Burlingame encroachment permit. He also claims some sort of rights and opposes to our project. On the other hand, as a property owner in the City of Burlingame, we were forced to file a lawsuit to challenge development approvals in the adjacent unincorporated area granted by the County which has minimal standards when compared to the City. We are held to the highest standard and scrutiny of design review in the City. We have been asked for, and provided a grading and drainage plan, soils report, scale model, photo imaging, site sections and story poles reflecting the Commission's sensitivity to concerns raised by neighbors living in the unincorporated area. These concerns varied as the house was redesigned and moved around on the site. We can not please everyone. We trust the Commission will base its decision on the merits of our revised project and compliance with their requests. We believe the project is well designed and will be an asset to the local community. Thank you for your consideration of our efforts in the face of a challenging political environment. Respectfully, Alex Mortazavi Denham, LLC. Attach-rents: Sliding door manufacture brochure Window manufacture cut sheets Sectiop D-D site plan Section D-D demonstration of landscape screening at the fence. Standing 10 feet away Section D=D demonstration of landscape screening at the fence. Standing 20 feet away Section C-C site plan Section C-C Picture: Art LaBrie house showing'the driveway and retaining wall encroachment Picture: Art LaBrie house Side yard retaining wall, concrete stairs encroachment i-EE> 6 2:009 F. = - Idn g D o os - f — ➢ Panda folding door systems are all completely custom made to order with dIN a large variety of options available. • Tracks can be radius,90 degree and 45 degree configuration ` - • Can achieve heights of 10' • Finishes available in Powder Coat, :. Kynar or Anodize - - _- ➢ S.40 Hidden Hinges Folding Doors • All aluminum interior and exterior } construction r 1 • Hinges are"hidden" in the sash ' creating a clean look and increased security • Panel profile is a sleek 2 1/16"wide and 1 5/8"thick 'I • Can fold to either interior or exterior y • Can be either top hung or bottom running x ' f 13, • Three track types available ! ➢ S.60 Extreme Seasons Folding Doors • Durable thermally broken all aluminum construction t _ j • Designed for extreme weather conditions - • Panel profile is a sleek 2 1/8"wide and 2 3/8"thick • Can fold to either the interior or exterior i £ • Can be either top hung or bottom runnina � # •4 i • Three track types available j ; z - ➢ S.62 Wood Clad Folding Doors • Aluminum exterior profile with a wood clad interior construction -- t- • Panel profile is a sleek 2 '/z"wide w and 2 '/2"thick NO • Folds to the interior only __ • Can be top hung or bottom runni- 4 >, _ • Three track types available - _ FEB 2 612009 i 4 To view our entire collection contact us at(702)643-5700 or visit our website at www.Panda-Windows - VINDOWS G DOOR5 TM SERIES 40 FOLDING ALL ALUMINIUM CONTENTS 1. TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION 2. TYPOLOGY 3. VERTICAL SECTION 4 . HORIZONTAL SECTION 5. BOTTOM TRACKS 6. HEADER TRACKS 7. SIDE FRAMES S. ARTICULATION JOINTS 9. CENTER MEETING STILES 10. GLASS DIVIDER PWINDOWS G DOORS E,0 3,415 REWNGTON RD N.LAS VEGAS,NV 89030 PHONE(707)643-5700 - PANDA@PANDA-W7NDOWS.COM WWW.PANDA-VANDOWS.COM FAX:(702)6435715 DRAWINGS AND LAYOUT BY SHAWN M.HORNER - - - MMYIII TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION The Panda SERIES 40 Folding Door System is custom made to order and consists of extruded aluminum frames that run along a single track and can be folded in either direction to maximize the total opening. Profiles: Profiles are made of extruded aluminum with special ribs that ensure maximum hardness.The rounded forms and exclusive design make such glass folding door systems extremely pleasant and original.They allow a better surface treatment and are less subject to damage during transportation and installation. Accessories: The hinges of the SERIES 40 folding door system are recessed into the stiles and do not protrude from the profile when in the closed.postion.This gives the system a clean,sleek look while increasing security.The stainless steel screws`and bolts, highly corrision resistant synthetic wheels, rollers and EPDM gaskets of the SERIES 40 have all been particuiarly'designed for the door system. Running: The S40 can operate with either top hung or bottom running carriages along a single inline track. Folding/Operation: To interior or exterior,the folding door system quickly, easily and silently folds to either side.There are 26 operational door typologies and when in the open position they maximize 92% of the total rough opening.. Dimension: The individual panels in a system are.always equal size and can be a maximum of 39" wide and 118" high. Folding door systems can be as long as you like;as countless panel groups can be assembled which slide along the tracks and are connected with special joints and seals. Adjustments: The top and bottom tracks of aluminum are made of profile couples allowing fora 8" adjustment on all sides. Glazing: vario!ms types of glass and other materials may be used, at a thickness of up to-ill . Weight: Folding door systems, excluding fitting materials,weigh approx.. 6 to 8 lbs/sqft, changing with the height and width of the panels. F �"� se v �?f'ri r'4 EB 2' 6 LtE�... DESCRIPTION SERIES 40 FOLDING I1 MOST COMMON CONFIGURATIONS p %VV %7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PA 10 11 12 If %/ 13 : 14 15 - - - � 16 17 18 \7' \/ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • PANEL WIDTHS UP TO 39 INCHES • PANEL HEIGHTS UPTO 118 INCHES • INSIDE AND OUTSIDE 90° CORNER CONFIGURATION ALSO AVALABLE . r r n cs.. r. n 11E) Ul TYPOLOGY SERIES 40 FOLDING 2 S F i io m io i; 5 5 _ STAINLESS STEEL 2009 RECESSED - TOP RUNNING - BOTTOM RUNNING - TOP RUNNING VERTICAL SECTION SERIES 40 FOLDING 3 EXAMPLE OF MULTIPLE PANEL ARTICULATION 23" �l � O � � e O �1 IE B v8 OnO 0 O i5�F +.a I Q 1 / -- O O O \ O • PANEL WIDTHS UP TO 39 INCHES • PANEL HEIGHTS UP TO 118 INCHES • IN SWING AND OUTSWING AVAILABLE O O i-tB 2 6 2 o,oj9 9 CENTER MEETING STILES HORIZONTAL SECT. 10 SERIES 40 FOLDING 1 4 FEATURES: A. STAINLESS STEEL RECESSED TRACK • ADA COMPLIANT �--16"--) • GOOD.IN OPENINGS WHERE WEATHER --- INFILTRATION IS NOTA CONCERN • GOOD FOR USE IN PASS-THROUGH WINDOW CONFIGURATIONS B. STANDARD TRACK • GOOD RESISTANCE TO WEATHER INFILTRATION • MOUNTS DIRECTLYTO SUB-FLOOR C. STANDARD TRACK(BOTTOM RUNNING) ,! • RELIEVES STRESS ON HEADER BY DISTRIBUTING y PANEL WI£G_ HT TO BOTTOM TRACE( 3 it f 4 E! STANDARD GLASS 4 X 4 X 4 ,! CLEAR LOW-E INSULATED GLASS THICKNESS MINA" MAX. " A S.S. RECESSED 116 1 6 219 Z !, /¢3!! �'3!i 8 � 4 I 22111 G18 ry �$!e 2�!! LLSHIM SPACE'TYPJ I L SHIM SPACE 12 TYP. 14 1i!— 1S vE n B BDTTONE GUIDED C -BOTTOM RUNNING BOTTOM TRACKS SERIES 40 FOLDING 5 FEATURES: A TOP RUNNING s" • EACH SET OF ROLLER CAPABLE OF CARRYING SHIM SPACE i•WP. 130 LBS rf �136,s 1 4& 7 Will 8 2V { ,g 9 ff • i26 i A TOP RUNNING 2-i B TOP GUILDED :4 . • RELIEVES STRESS ON HEADER BY I` 4" L WEIGHT TO DISTRIBUTING PANE Si"��SAII fS'fi 2 BOTTOM TRACK t 1 1 1$" f, Oka 41 ff Zg f1 ��., _•: FEB 2 6 2009 ,;,Tv OF STANDARD GLASS a X a X, CLEAR LOW-E INSULATED 1i6" GLASSINICKNESS �J TOP GUIDED MI"• •_M "• HEADER TRACKS SERIES 40 FOLDING 6 I ' I �I 511 � 26 to 16 2111 :AT HANDLE 511 1all 16 21" 16 1611 ... 2$It� B AT CARRIAGE STANDARD GLASS X X CLEAR LOW-E INSULATED GASSTHICMESS MIN.}"•MAX a' SYSTEMMINTS INTS SERIES 40 FOLDING 8 STANDARD GLASS 4X4 X4 CLEAR LOW-E INSULATED GLASS THICKNESS MIN.4" - MAX.a" 6 It � � JL16 6 9r Is } 21311 T it 48 11 4 2b 11 718 11 O - 41 1 s11 I 2$ 11 El �� VVIOUTA SWING DOOE� B Wj SINGLE SWING DOOR MEETING STILES SERIES 40 FOLDING 9 ;a-;.:_a:,:�s vs:�sx.via •5�-..� E I---�1 1 —: — — —11�o 1 3981 e II � 11 111 111 ,II ISI 111 111 III 111 III Ifl 111 111 811 III 111 111 111 ,1, f{ I�1 111 111 111 111 111 III III 111 111 111 111 i11 111 111 I,1'I�jIf I,1 1 1 1 21 $ 111 111 I,1 k11 111 111 111 111 111 ._ f 11 111 11 I l;l I;I I;I I I I I 1 1 11i 111 111 Iil I;I ISI E$ 1 I I 1 1 I;I I;1 I;I 111 III I,I •� �i F-11 ,I I, I I U DOUBLE SWING DOOR B DIVIDER-GLASS . STANDARD GLASS 4 X 4 4 CLEAR LOW-E INSULATED GtASS THICKNESS MINA _MA)L DIVIDED GLASS SERIES 40 FOLDING 1 10 , t �A61 ,.r a �krt V r+ Y 1 p t *' �y 1 .�1b,'i'►.^' '\t eYn'".IiM'�'+',;Wf/ ' �;a..\ �r� wt„xa 1* h,: �. r K A C aLY x• � ,... a rMw'a,aEir�`y� r 1 'J ^ \ < :. Y ; � `,� C d • �_ � A.. ,. "�W: rv'; .. , r r r. � i .'IT�n t����;��,jffr9t ��4 P ax r�!n9�-'"vim r } • �' 8�- ��� �,•J�1 w� . .,;. � � 5w1 � ",?F, 6�v r a+ r/' ' �• �' (P*�"I�S„"�d'rol♦ • _j�'A h�'is. 1 � �YM yy w � Vwi 4 ! Y;em_tU XyzTa ���� p�j lo 'r'T zpw •IX+,• >U. t'Lr„�.�v'a l �j II vat rc, r�1 .f1�1 \ M�e� Po1 ,�✓J �� I r a ° d'�.. �^': .x�` •�..;. � +�4 �� �iSr 'Y�gL� � r �� : �,a 1# � �'py"Jl.�M �UA �y i� ♦r C "LM , � �M V� ,�}. G Ay�'k���.r�,�`} � "��(n����� �'� ^r. �rr' ^i< •, • r � �y( '��,; ��F A r� "xw '��-'�$w h,.° •wrl1� "w';4 r' �r ;� , ;"`' ^.�" +Xtk.' w+ fi s �' a14pppth;v tl��,• .'��, .6A,� ,. " �!� is '"•` •i w as A :..i, ♦ d A " V ,5 • [ x {`, ✓ ,N'�". may,},S T Nr �� r 1 r '�P .,,, aA :. .ISR' ,' 1 wR^ t.., a1-,n M .2„ � w ♦ �^r. pg M �...f�...' w". .rd .5 u� ' ( ' 1,� . r. r 1r?•.a.•. 1 ,✓� (�. � y',Iti:f+, "�, ,gh •r r'� a '� :4! WF :.� ,.� �' ° y 1• /t' r / i�`�.1 rc ,r� !r y v jtLs�. �' ".0 11" ,n�t+.b/?i^i .4 ',w' !�,.y ) r r ^'1'.., '�t • Y: yn� m:r i p .«. :.. w �i•.,� „f. .*t✓Tr M{# ,'.x9' •.; 'w.'',tl'i,�+ 4�, � 5 r r r ,� k ��w+ ,y. �: "hl+Lk., `a ���UU1,.'. ,� q' • "� r.. ',�;r�. x.. ,r •1Y,,,t .•. , ., ,r."r++. .%xwk� bnt v� �,y `w.,� t,*.w .,�y":�,.1,o. ,� r,.�;.» �. �,+'"."4 .. i✓., .11 X it (' '�j,1kaA M.�'� C "�j�lr'j��. 1R'•b "'-' ..tl t" - �, ,. .*�xkr '�{q„ � at F•1� l;74 "( (1,'r,, l4ER�a' ',:7 1� � y 'L 4My'r^t rYT nR y,"r•`l ,,.1! ,. a'P. o� f � i '. I a , F,, 't,' x':F� +a' "�� ` �Y� + v S •nV�.f•5 �i ,' , p e' x ^�` 'Pw r• r 'v-f.Q. (YI. .A , � � +1,4^' � .�� I' .�M`4" , 4 ' ' I Y�1 �N � x 1'� Y15 r F ,!', ev" V �1,,�4' �rar�, •r.. P aJ �'!ti iA�� r'°,..I,LMy✓yl�lP�9• '[y I,P!wa I}:+r, x(w�;.; nl '.. , r"r .• ��aft' p:1.11� 'I^„V�' 1�. R�a� `I :'Ik,.P A x I r��i� r\� i ice" ^\'' � C :Y •}� �!'�n .R�'(:(' IJ �� •�y Y f "i f µ 1J.r. h:" r. � �ti. R, .4 ..., W ��'� ykl,�,y�A a ed'r� �:?' a �p x.r.:'.�7�•ry y"`` � r�j{� Fj�. a , * Y iW aI ., ^ .,�, ' "i '1'•' '.'pP'xc.,. .r r. _ •r•Z'� Ys n4A. Flow•a '�4`` ,Yi, ,�,ro r• +I'i.,.` a r'N f} *A. .^w M `A"€�'Gy�w" 1w }{. ,�h .,1�'• / es ,r ;;,ores;' '4, �1�. � :� . > ° Y' ! ' .. 1 f. *,. "I:. ,.. . .'1'R 1....t �a �' �1 Ni ,�,r,..„ M1•1' ,,,,.�,.'S... litl.',. i. a `i 'I �.^Fi'�'F_�'yu _..F .f�"YT �e �. ,^( ,p - �.r . �Ao^:r,` �Ij1' v 'ro%' .,* �IL tp J,Dpw�i . <�gt• {.�r l .,.:lw, '�," � �' , �'y,, � ire •s h".yr• '1..{✓ t,.' yn. �. 'Z.: r; r:Kv�.a ,v ` '�..,, !'r, ..,.. t r.. x•�,/y irir ,! r. fr, •;�(7� � hf•. ,�Vv I(i{' 4 i rf'7 .rf w *AW' 1 a,� ,.M.e.�,'1'' lk 'S•i ''Y '✓,: ' .�r.i. 4r,,w .^,y, y,•f J .�pB a ..y (:.F '. �,;r r M, ,y �t a' Y .y fw+l � ' r a E .: ., P 'M' :•• r (/ 'a �:�, �' I ` r .. r Jn 't ,"!Ny✓�.._ . p 'y,Tui ,. %Il:n'" r y ° y.' ♦ . rx x4P.l au° 3f L t 1 i,J�',i 'tL' `1�i��; 'w w�' Jw a-.. `.r n/:� �1 �. .,: f� r�� Y. J .t"Au, .:d Ik',� „ �yf :r:� 4' IhwP.� ��r:. w,� Ir �, �a: ,f' }% n"' `.y'f . ' r y r ��. � •' �., 1V. .{*} "S�"�.,: a "� �, F�r� +" {^ r..S Y r4eYT ( �•. ��' r , 1 7�v t'P8•'/'.. fS+T:. ` a �; i�Y. �1� t ."y . °, ap"" a .,'1 -.�` fTt�'�:'4�\vr"'� a .�, 1+ ,+ +r' ( .�!`5?, :r4� r ..;"'fr }�"L'S��y: 1 kyr. • 'y.: x' ',��") :r.. , t,a�y('' . �r.:.,l� i, ' Tff�'S��, :.i 'i� il,, •�;rx r �..f.".' :r ! �.Y' ' ''<` ( _ ',e il"`L�i'kr �N�1; � 'S"" �" 1 ,� qn.. P--"�i!.'in., +,.,:ey;.. / �t� af`� � a. 7 ,r { �ir I a •"'\.•11 Rj,:'�Ya..t a F '� \,5' f° f�A �.'' ',°1l'. 9 �� ��'C. ♦ r"'.{�b�.C,1 v' ��rjx^p�_T. .�, r ,d, V a,,, T.a�; y�r `�y� A � r (� t la�� ~ A, f,^1'�1 '` � �^ @� ,. ' I;; .� � '� , � a T�t, �• �r��f�k;f�t�r �� � qf 5r �� �� .Q. � I �� # � �Sr 1p. tw (. . I 1�:'. iin I .• , ' �: � 14x':. / !�y I 11 1 Ar��IY�� vy`"���' � ;`� � 4• a,,�,��' x �► r �; L l•1 8 /�yd• , t• ,�c! ! fir,:, td. (r�ya�,'j.��x�� }y�"+. 1 l h , I \ • f � "1" l� `5 � /. N T. �. � : f'. Y °.1 � ,� �,n.+�" ,. /. H .,r A i� � '}. t •�°• ���•I^.�. i9 "'»'".,'! . r' .r + 1°}.. •y '.V � 1.. 1 '' k'y. t, 7 r � `r.'�'1 "•,X,.. �F `, �� ' �`C i .: , ♦ "", Ise ' „q i J '/,`, ' *r � ., {� .b S � 's� ��M a :;T fix.�`� !! r S . A m'., t. L'1 'l"1�. :a � 1 . J'�f t''' 1!i ''w�N..}, r .L'',•.'r ✓�' 'r5�1 T..?' �'� / ''� '�' '`t�f1 • 1. f�'+ylY� ,aj., �r✓'; f a''�� �� "r+r �� , "«V r' �IIPI' , 1 � gt°� r e P t] S\ ikpj 'Yyx t ".S �J�1r ( ^'!4+ y,. 7�j( 'L r '.P�. ��1p ,' � , �... *y�y '•..�;, �1. �hi ,t > `.QI A , , .r1• ''. SSS,J,i _.ti ".J; , r :♦ x; ('r,( fi , V. +�� ''('m¢ ,p}[�"WNw r, , ^ `.i >A ` , 4 �' a 'r. a A �',r 1t 1 �y�1 e.� i. � > �fyr � td,� { I �, � fx" f'°h'•'3(#' e�'J�: .t t X1,11:,. r :t { 55 r'f dv n,y r�r h f , ,�px 1 ,f//� f ,..+ ! II 1 ;� .f'•' r .+ t. P' " 1. r ' a r R' /� rt''9f t r W•,° t.�.'r r4r{ ` ''!'.1W• � �.. ri :A 4S.T ,h., , Idw� Ir?'iuu �, r' ,♦ 1` :_ hS p• .nd s 3*�a r k k ow" d ° " .t tit'`}��, �' �" r}-• 145c�' ,1 a•.^. r �ic4 '��." -Y' � � �S'.'�y�w .j' rr y,, K `�' r.`+2 ^.^+'. 'a" ,.•; `'n^{i� :y. � •� hn :� r..,1,1� '' i. .,-,. .� � kf., ; 'in � .r=' l°�",>.r% ,dy .'� '""^''" I. S rip.n,, "45 !1,".,, 5.��+:' '� :f,.:,^I+rj r Ig" ur,, �[ -, +�+ •.a a ✓, 4y � , �,. s mF r Ali ,.. µ,.,, .*n"f.. :,,::W.Z. 41jl Fsit.,�y y, .. •.,..d- 2 t ,,. Yr ^d! .M'♦ d"' �,d�t♦ 7 I !.� ,:,, �, ., ,. (}.y }. ..! .,• xs� ;`i �. !' r',.:r+'„,i yK .�” .•his'.' k^ { ,aY. >!'^ ��""'!°"^A""P,rSd- , n h�'y'rJ; f �,,N' 1°' , 1,"•;• � ` ,,: t �yme tSf j,.�'f... r_`" '.,.r' .da. yd. �M$fi,• ¢ N, „ "i''> � ;(�,�`'k7'4,u,. �"+. ,.,.� ,, �, :c, ,4• .^'( ..,, :.Sa:,iW„yl' ,,.- � 't',� `-'�.41°' ;,-. i.'� � d.. ✓•" .n.,r+F ;'"�•P '�. �i• � ,at: ..4s?„ a r -y..@ ��1r. ''�,fr�`itd'"p'".M1�;P' ;'P pgbi'4 •"r'��Z ",,j,���+f{1 F'Srn i �Vg� e�M.•r,a( 'fit" r� .a a� t "'rr .PI�7� r : d._.':,Wr,n�! :� �Y.. arty, ,M`'i t',wi'j! �,,l:..W" q'" ` a '"n + •` � r ' �'q � 4.>M',++ ,., L i'r..,;ax.+ nnr. �. � r fir,g �"r, �, 4�',e• -0'S�','�° S'+ 7 .,p^.•n�4Li}SW��� PSL+ fiSr�7, frr�rt,}����'. ;«('n'+'fr''t'�y ':� r fip-;i•Y do atl ;' ,wa �, t '.1. In,.n 4} `y?�5.:"A r `+¢a94 tL auT:::r,.S'�"v� "w:, e � �s.-qvN L,r,6j tiy.,'�.ki'7 " .•T Sk" .�. x :',�}ty la/,� .-r!"d af*'k" „`�'g4i�4+ a '+I� �ria', "k'y 4 ';"•y:ia ',p,, °•,q+,� ,l1,•e t�` v-a%L, ,,.. (..1�, „t ;,, fi,ca,tart-i, 1.,11:1.,, - r xw'.�' mn '.. •;„ ,�^ a"i p ala r. vfi+irr�i .' l,i t�".+,��.b1Y 4'+1• t j Y'{2r 1 I a „.t .t �h , 1iW $iwLr4 yy��1A �. �� RIN {3 `k� �,t�rt y ''�'�:'Aw +” k�,� `�"`"�`p,n� ,jy fir' fi�"Y�' •'� a - ” f�ti.:« ' Ora �;'.` ey "!1 k Ts��. .. : ��+�ry,S?.r �. 4 �,�r � .�,• r�lt'f �kk�K1��yL��'���P�ii "i�V�1`. ��� ei: rv�,. ,'+ni p•,�i,d, t ..w ,♦ t.'t 1 vi• ... + .fits: . a X' U ty- j.: T�rJ• , a;� 11.e. , ,1, ,�' nr�i:>r;. 'i „t4:'� .., hr .G_ .y. ♦ w»"'a a t s! e��!' �? R1,��Sy' �" \ V� •b '4 ,_. y x y�:. i j�' •�k{ � :.,A1 y tiSv ,N.^ 't ', ;d h�ih� � a•, ,,,. ,n�f�?�� .v� ,,pM :1Wr.., r,r .. .`t ..'a i,por:,,*�.: <�J ;� ?F'�r ��ku ,;,Ajt1.kir 'ho�i•fi :.t,.K"'�4� ��1 ki.:. �.�;.�1{�. d �l if;'1 v�!I ,dg„.4 r �f'1+r„ .r:;-V r { r,�,7r" i'� � �! a" �', � / � L ��t,yy�t' �. ���,� +ti";k.� .'�[ ^'+� �t{',pyNt •'i,'mv:':t c ''�^a�'�'4tt � d"'�,a ;a •'•'�,•'�' ., ��'` YL i♦ ''� , S M �; ''�' �lytq +a'7"� ✓ ! �" :�P!' '� t�•'a«, s,., �.� _ �$t ,• 1 { w i[�`�•,4 w r ,�,,,.k ,,i Kt 't.` '�: . ,t•',r'�' r.r i � y',. � 1/.�'�1+ � ��_` .'fi'''r sr �4�+;.r � y��.. "'i�`i"S �+':',r"�����!,`'� +rya,, q w..y:•. � Mg •• �•. S ,f:':+4' 5w�� .tGy,, 1 Jt }}��,� '��f..:.,Y".1p.._�'t�•+5, tf 'K �SVs 't'nx . 4-�,. C�:,.•W f �I ..t4 rey. ,e.,j:. ,,�„ 1•. +, ar e 4 .. 4� Wui^.w 1. ;1. "Ilk x h" + a rte:, w� r �;�' > � ; •rt»t i " �,t' „ ' ;d .6�"t� �M i"N � 'iii .r,�� +1• '�6"t I ',NO" fff „ 3 Y �' -. g ° r,rk. 31YbTx, r r, •'o.W�fWr'Rqq; , `'�.*pnl'St.! ',• �' �^�i;ry•�°. �w:' ".,���rn d��''' ,".: ,, .,. .� r _, � :.;: ,.: .�.r,q. , ., , ",Jur'0, ^F, :i'' d ��i,' ��' 'll+'"' .;"'��,a��k�'„ '. .r"r�a� ° � �� ,' ,�I,n'm». , ' .'.1'xa'j ,y •c >»: . ;, -w-+,�.+.+.-"+.tip.....,.", ,,•.. .. ,...L,,W t`.f n,� ,, k�,'��. •., K',: �,t .:m •'� u'.. :n',.' n '�'^"! n k i r ti 'r�i. {4" +N-� �r Si rY a ,.::,. N.. . dr' ,�,�Ai' a,� i,,+.,: "!"t °"': ;', ,' '`."•�-AMM-•W_a1-.i-,.4..� �'..`..,'._°`'--4_w--4-- � a"' R'i;4".�a � Y y ' '�: " "W'�.: �" * ��y.: �,. T ,s ! y pe �' Y... "* iuN n j k 'W V '»4i I � 'd! 4 rz I"I ails �';�'+' �,�•R�.w v, ..r I • 9 .,:4w'-4-•�e--�••.�wi�-+a- -�rr�+.-r-..--..•..-,.. .,,,,+'•^4•�t- • 'tk ,+awrv9w, , �'"'ili i'�Y��,F� �y�ar +idyl ,:4�f�"� a ,w' S , ?; �"�,�* �I�„' '". ig •;k.,4 0. i� � pp 'hAa' I.,��,qk5 P,�t 7 u�+ � q ia+ �'. .V.' ;.b, r '�. r• n "`".t,�"'ye, 'd,1• ., �''' �.r;: n,.: '� it'"� '.4{i� '�' v f iaF°J'1�7:�!r i ..p,. �1 4:.. �M,r � ,�• • ,u. "i ,ykd,a I tdti n i '� roi I, r 'I ? o`-4r--"w apk.�ll"" „�"F ,h V4..a-lr-o"-w,"up''h•L"r'+ h;...k�m T:4 Y � *'n,�°I��TN' "yr'�'J 4r,1p IR!�"�.�r,a y,"1' ,'dp:r4 ��". rY+i �u;V::'i4 4.N'':' t !. .� �d __ • '4" .t, ba " '� '. ._q n- +r Z a,,d'ni',,n <�'ai+1 Vi igptik i�q'.'.+1✓t bk�aJ¢p ;Y!� ...,: rofldt♦ad� :p: nV M. aiih rA - .y.. '.:r, �•-"4"'N-��'&W b✓n , �, $ a k ;u P a 9 � i ^ � r + I:^ aWT - a`..,a-�t-- '4 ,. •# �„.a>��u^kh W ,..�: �_".' .;: �"� :, �i�i PSI.'i�n$SI�" �,,"�'4 fhi' S� J���'�,µq'� �r�'p k 8' 'J'h +pu .p.� ,d, „. -.�"•�-�-�-w�•+�.� �-�t � ��M�r �:?€ k° I,�•" . ., ,:.. ;� `�' �kl� ,� ..' :< ��� k�pM'"�"��a� �v �eaa �i >,eij:��"����Nird�u df� ',,,. �''q)r' .t� r+ •.� y'�+ ~ , _ wa e , r : �w u �i r p r n v est AW""�" '"�•.W mrµ a ! M �:k " uw i 'M�;naw ' r+ry 'N o � i " y„-`�.•aµ--.;a-dr••4utiw-'�"�'".n�°'p' ' � rdd"H ' "" '.r Y Yi.�, i I �� ,y �y�rw y y�N'�+tM�pM+°rMd yr 7 .^A,p•' i 4r-k-rpt`" `"`. "-" " p"9'° •-""L„"�4v...tY.. � ,�„�„�,.:Aw. "kr s ',�u4-+ h..{„-er..ry,'y „�., a0.,.e:..,,.:+....-...,..n...n.:ar.u. ,„.. 'm s.�wa'� `— �,...,,..•-�.",t,,,,.,� ,q 4= k ,�+.r.amw.�1MAe�^�'n,...,«p.” .. q � ^ �'_� , r I 14, q 1 vi, 00000 00 00000000009 MC. CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING February 24, 2009 City of Burlingame—Planning Department C/o Alex Mortazavi Denham LLC 851 Burlway, Suite 710 Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, BURLINGAME, CA To Whom It May Concern: Today, February 24, 2009, by field survey, we checked the as-built elevations of the story poles in place for the proposed residence, deck and garage at the above-referenced site. The story pole elevations are as follows: Left side of roof for residence(rear): As-built elevation 178.8 (design elevation 178.8) Left side of roof for residence(front): As-built elevation 178.8 (design elevation 178.8) Upper deck: As-built elevation 168.3 (design elevation 168.3) Lower deck: As-built elevation 155.0 (design elevation 155.0) Left side of roof for garage (rear): As-built elevation 148.8 (design elevation 148.83) Left side of roof for garage(front): As-built elevation 148.8 (design elevation 148.83) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, LAND 9 ' �g OARS J. �(P O No.8227 Robert Dains, P.E., P.L.S. * Exp.12/31/_.5 RECEIVEID Or, EB 2 4 200_9 9�F C)F CA,'`�- CIT`(QF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 965 CENTER STREET SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 (650) 593-8580 FAX (650) 593-8675 5 PR�PE TYVE +e�wsoa';b✓._.*�!-. .) Ste. r ��. LP P I h 41 t Jar r7 � O �rt. r LL .s 1 a wu 'EX, MIS PROPERTY LINE STOREY POLE PLAN (2843 Adeline ) LEGEND: / BURLINGAME,CA.94010 _ i; ® STORY POLE 41 `T / N 0o a ELEVATION 1 HEIGHT J l' t� �-�..'' s .,............ r -NETTING <, s CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes February 9, 2009 4. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3 '/z STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 9, 2009, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, 20 Vista Lane; represented the applicant. ■ Any development on the lot will result in some kind of Variance. ■ The City Arborist required the protection of a tree within the interior of the lot; this resulted in a request results in a Variance regardless of the approach to development. ■ The method of height measurement requires measurement from the curb; most other cities require height to be measured with respect to the natural slope. ■ The majority of the home is one and two stories in height. ■ Attempting to preserve trees on the lot. ■ The Planning Commission requested that the home be placed further up the hillside. ■ The three neighbors at the top of the hill have objected to the design, but two are now withdrawing their concerns. ■ The neighbor to the left has been approached; have visited his property to see the potential privacy impacts; offered to build a 12'x 15' heavy redwood trellis that will protect privacy and block the view of the building. Also offered a 6-foot high fence along the property line. Extra plants will be placed in the area at his discretion and will be installed in addition to the current landscape plan for the subject property. ■ The neighbor will be permitted to retain a driveway encroachment on the property. ■ The new house is situated in excess of 23 feet from the property line shared with the neighbor to the left; the City only requires a 7-foot setback. ■ Not sure what else can be done to respond to the neighbor's concerns. ■ Provided a view simulation. ■ The left neighbor's privacy is already impacted by properties developed in the unincorporated County area. ■ Also provided a massing model. Commission comments: ■ Noted that there will be a row of five trees along the left side of the house and along the driveway on the applicant's property to further shield the neighbor to the left. ■ Asked for clarification of where the proposed house is 3 '/2 stories in height (Hurin—demonstrated on the model; includes the garage level that is semi-subterranean). ■ Like the project; the residence is in the correct location now. ■ How accurate is the driveway ramp modeled;what is the height of the retaining wall, and how will it be treated (Mortazavi — can be built with keystones with plants growing out of it; or possibly use a textured wall that will allow for plant coverage). ■ What is the ceiling height at the bedroom level (Mortazavi—9-feet; must rise enough to bridge to the rear yard). ■ What is planned for the outdoor living space (Mortazavi —would like to have a waterfall using the retaining walls; natural landscaping will be used from bedroom area). 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes February 9, 2009 ■ Have done a good job with the design. Public comments: Art Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; William and Justin Jarvis, 2835 Adeline Drive; and Wendy Ehrlich, 2833 Adeline Drive; Virginia Wright, 2811 Adeline Drive; and Steve Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane, spoke: ■ The perspective in the presentation showing his (Labrie's) property is misleading; the driveway will replace all of the trees along his property line. ■ Noted that the Planning Commission did not promise granting a height Variance. ■ Project requires a 33-foot height Variance (Cauchi—noted that the prior application was withdrawn and cannot be considered). ■ Will have a negative impact on his (Labrie's) property; will block sunlight and invade privacy. ■ The scale is not accurate in relation to his (Labrie's) property; should require story poles. ■ Noted the required findings for granting a Variance; requires a full investigation, including story poles. ■ His (Labrie's) property value will be lowered substantially by the new construction. ■ None of the findings for a Variance can be made. ■ The driveway will cause exhaust fumes to go into his (Labrie's) dining room and kitchen windows. ■ The hill is very unstable;just lost a tree due to ground saturation; what will prevent the ridge from sliding down? ■ Invited all of the Commissioners into his (Labrie's) rear-yard after story poles have been erected. ■ Enjoys the tranquility of the area; there has been massive construction in the area for over three years. ■ The County neighbor's project has impacted the stability of the area. ■ New project would face into his (Labrie's) rear-yard; the project is out of character with the area. ■ Other development in the area has reduced sunlight to the neighboring properties. ■ Traffic on the street is horrible; will become more unsafe. ■ Losing all of the wildlife in the area. ■ There is no parking on the street. ■ The surrounding houses are lower than the subject site; there will be privacy impacts. ■ Feels that some portions of the house are greater than 30-feet above natural grade. ■ Encouraged restrictions on dirt hauling onto and off of the property. ■ Have view rights under the Hillside construction permit; story poles are needed to show true impacts upon views from the new construction. ■ Encouraged providing screening to obscure views of the new house. ■ Noted that the Shefsky house was built without any Variances. Alex Mortazavi responded: ■ Have a settlement agreement that allows structure to be built to an elevation of 256'; are far below that elevation. ■ Due to the siting of the residence, there cannot be shadow impacts, the sun sets behind the ridgeline. ■ The summer sun will be at a much higher elevation; the hill itself will cast shadows, not the house. ■ The adjacent building was built in the County jurisdiction; height measurement is to the finished floor; results in greater heights; his structure cannot cast shadows on adjacent homes down the street. ■ The majority of the homes are 7-feet from the property line; his garage door is approximately 31-feet of the property line with Labrie; a much greater distance than most homes maintain. ■ The structure does not rise to 30-feet above natural grade. 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes February 9, 2009 ■ Have had a soils report prepared, including grading and drainage investigation; are engineering the development of the site; it is a misconception that the hillside will slide if the site is developed. ■ Have offered mitigation to address neighbors' privacy concerns. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Like the design and the position of the home; there is some concern about the design of the retaining wall, but it can be treated well. ■ The model helps to demonstrate where the home will be placed on the property; but story poles are needed to help show the relationship to other homes. ■ Perhaps a shadow study could be prepared; but believes that the applicant's representations about the shadow impacts are accurate. ■ Questioned whether the residents that are in the unincorporated County area can object to development in Burlingame; the applicant is taking many measures to mitigate privacy impacts (Guinan —the City cannot enforce legislative authority outside of its jurisdiction). ■ Story poles will be necessary to satisfy the neighbors' concerns; will provide clarity. ■ Some concern about the size of the house; though the lot is greater than 20,000 square feet. ■ The sloping sight supports the Variance request. ■ Difficult to place the house at a better location on the site;will always impact the neighbors in some way; the current sighting mitigates impacts. ■ Story poles are typically used to determine massing and view impacts;the massing is well done,and views will not be impacted. ■ Would like to have more description of materials (e.g. window types, trims, siding, etc.). ■ The applicant was encouraged to make the project a sustainable design. ■ A section drawing showing the landscape screening to the downhill neighbors should be prepared. ■ Impacts upon shadows and views are a given in the hillside areas. ■ Views into adjacent properties are not typically demonstrated with story poles; usually addresses distant views; there is no need for story poles. ■ How much attention should the Commission pay to County residents; have required story poles to demonstrate massing and placement of structures foredification of nearby neighbors;would support story poles along the left elevation. ■ There appears to be confusion about the size of the structure(Hurin—the Planning staff determined that the total floor area was 6,087 square feet). ■ The applicant has gone overboard to address impacts upon the neighbor to the left. Alex Mortazavi responded: ■ Noted that there are implications regarding the installation of story poles on the left side of the property; vegetation will need to be removed to allow installation of story poles. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue with direction to install story poles along the left side of the property, noting that the neighbor will be made cognizant of the removal of vegetation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of Motion: ■ Provide sections showing relationship of building and adjacent buildings, including landscaping. 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes February 9, 2009 ■ If the neighbor on the immediate left and the applicant can agree with another solution without vegetation removal, then will accept a letter to that effect. • Should look at using a permeable surface for the driveway; and water management. ■ Be certain that construction equipment is kept to a minimum. ■ Concerned that the uphill neighborcould also have concerns;should also provide storypoles along the rear. Commissioners Cauchi and Lindstrom agreed to amend the motion to include the installation of storypoles along the rear elevation as well. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to install story poles along the left and rear elevations. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Auran dissenting). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:19 p.m. 23 2843 Adeline Drive Agenda Item #4 - 02.09.09 PC Mtg. COMMUNI CATION RECEIVED ARTHUR J. LABRIE JR. SIFTER PREPARATION , OF STAFF REPORT 2839 ADELINE DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 340-1117 February 6, 2009 Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Height Variance for 2843 Adeline Drive Dear Sirs, Last March (2008) The Denham Corporation(DENHAM)presented a plan to develop a five-bedroom 2-% story, Mediterranean style house on the vacant lot located at 2843 Adeline Drive. You(the planning committee)were very positive about the design of the house with the exception of the front entryway, which you said didn't have much curb appeal. DENHAM was asking for a 29-foot setback variance. When asked why DENHAM didn't move the house farther back on the lot, Mr. Mortazavi of DENHAM replied that there was a height restriction, and to move it back would require a Height restriction variance. One of the committee members responded, "That's what Variances are for!" You suggested that DENHAM present another alternative, and that you would consider it. You did not promise DENHAM that you would grant that variance. DENHAM withdrew their original application for the Mediterranean style house and designed and submitted new plans for a modern five-bedroom, 3 % story contemporary, 6,200+ Sq Ft house, which would now require a 33-foot height variance. You now have two alternatives to consider: PLAN A, which would require a 29 foot setback variance or PLAN B, which would require a 33-foot height variance. The massive structure proposed in PLAN B will have a very negative impact on our property. The 33-foot height variance will block out our sunlight in the summertime and will also invade the privacy of our back yard, BBQ area, and pool. In addition, granting a 33-foot height variance for a massive 6,200+ sq ft house in this neighborhood violates Section 25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. We are strongly requesting that you reject PLAN B and reconsider PLAN, A which has absolutely no real negative impact. Page 1 of 4 - see over 09 1 C0.1di+lU1lrICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION SUPPORTING FACTS: OF STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE: Section 25.54.020 provides that: "The variance may be granted provided that the (planning) commission finds, after a full investigation and public hearing, that all the following is true: (a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) The use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity." The proposed project meets none of the above criteria. If for no other reason,the variance should be refused to protect the city from a lawsuit for violating this law. PRIVACY ISSUE: PLAN B: The Ridge line that is at least 20-feet away from our property line is approximately where DENHAM plans to place a 30-foot high structure. In order to do this they will have to remove the privacy shrubs that were planted there by the previous owner of our house, with the permission of The Sisters of Mercy. The proposed structure has many windows and a deck looking straight down into our back yard& pool. PLAN A: Mr. Mortazavi of DENHAM had promised us when he submitted Plan A in March of 2008,that the Privacy hedges were not to be removed or destroyed. No negative impact. BLOCKING OF OUR SUNLIGHT: PLAN B: During the sum-ner months our family enjoys the late afternoon evenings by our pool. The sunlight is an important ingredient to our enjoyment. The sun sets directly over the privacy hedges. The proposed 30-foot structure will block out that sunlight and we will end up losing about one to two hours of sunlight. PLAN A: No negative impact. HEALTH ISSUE: PLAN B: During the summer months,we leave our kitchen& dining room windows open for ventilation. Our windows are on the west side of the house and we enjoy the breeze that flows through our house from that direction. The proposed garage doors will be situated directly across from those windows. As the vehicles drive in or back out of that garage the exhaust fumes will blow directly into our open windows PLAN A: No negative impact. Page 2 of 4 - see over 2 2843 Adeline Drive mmmi Agenda Item #4 - 02.09.09 PC Mtg. PROPERTY VALUES PLAN B: No one ever wants to buy a house where the neighbor's towering structure looks down into your back yard/swimming pool. PLAN A: The beautiful Mediterranean style house right next door may even add value to our house and the rest of the neighborhood. Positive impact. ADDITIONAL POINTS TO CONSIDER: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT REQUIRED The proposed structure in Plan B will be built so close to the ridgeline that we are concerned that the hillside, being mostly composed of clay, will become more unstable than it already is, and will cause mudslides and drainage and erosion problems. We want to see an environmental impact statement before a permit is granted. In fact, CEQA requires that the applicant complete a full analysis of potential environmental impacts, including without limitation, the preparation of an initial study, a negative declaration, a public hearing and a comment process, prior to even applying for this proposed project. We believe it is your responsibility to require an Environmental Impact Review. ESCAVATING AND GRADING PLAN B will require a huge amount of earth to be removed from an already unstable hill. The extensive driveway that crosses the entire property will require significant retaining walls on both sides; one side to keep the hill from falling into the driveway and the other side to support the driveway from sliding into the street. CURB APPEAL The rendering we reviewed for PLAN B is very misleading, because it doesn't show the retaining wall, which will be the view from the street. Many people in our neighborhood including us, walk up and down our street. The retaining wall on the left side of the property will be at least 12 to 15-feet high. That's what we'll see. Not very appealing! CONSTRUCTION IMPACT PLAN B will require more funding due to the complexity of the design and the additional excavating and grading required. The extra heavy-equipment to build the driveway and dig out the hill will cause the ground to shake for weeks thus resulting in the hill to become more unstable. The steel beams will have to be lowered into the lot with a crane. The possibility of a cost overrun is also much greater than with PLAN A. What if the Denham Corporation can't get additional funding after desecrating the land? We've recently witnessed too many projects abandoned because the contractor ran out of money. We were living in Hawaii when the Japanese money dried up, and the Japanese companies abandoned hundreds of construction projects, devastating the Hawaiian Real Estate property values. What's to insure that this doesn't happen here in this economy? Page 3 of 4 - see over t °5 'r=EB 0 9 z,'99 �ITOFIU�Tl�CF REP' O'I,COTFENI E SUMMARY & RECCOMMENDATION The Denham Corporation has submitted two applications for design review. We are recommending that the committee reject the second application on the grounds that granting the height variance will be detrimental to our property and the properties in the vicinity. In addition, the location of the massive dwelling may have dangerous consequences for the steep, unstable hillside. Also, and more importantly to The Planning Commission, granting a variance will be in violation of the requirements of CEQA as well as violating the Burlingame Municipal Code. We are not unreasonable people. The first application submitted in March of 2008, is perfectly acceptable to us, and we recommend that the committee request that the Denham Corporation re-submit the application for PLAN A. Sincerely, Arthur J. Labrie Jr. Page 4of4 4 2843 Adeline Drive Agenda Item #4 - 02.09.09 PC Mtg. _ _ [MME The Ehrlich Family 2833 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 February 9, 2009 Burlingame Planning Department 510 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2843 Adeline Drive To whom it may concern: We have studied the proposed Plan B design for 2843 Adeline Drive. We are concerned that the 33 foot height variance for this proposed structure will negatively impact our privacy. We appreciate you taking the time to consider the overall implications of this design and we are hopeful that a resolution can be found for all parties. Sincerely, Steve f dy Ehrlich .._ ..... .. Page 1 of 1 January 23, 2009 Erica Strohmeier Associate Planner Community Development Department - Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Response to the Commissioners comments Dear Erica, 1. "Have done a masterful job of reducing the mass and scale of the house." Response: As the Commissioners acknowledged, we have spent considerable time in site planning,with the objective of reducing the mass and scale of the house on this difficult site. 2. "Landscaping helps to obscure the mass of the house" Response: Maintaining the existing trees and carefully placing proposed trees on both sides of the property would minimize the perceived mass of the house and be visually aesthetic. 3. "Like the design a lot; suggested consideration of a green (living) roof as it could further soften the appearance of the house" Response: We appreciate the Commission liking the design. We did conduct some research on a possible lawn/green roof Unfortunately,the cost and liability for this is extremely unreasonable and would require a lot of resources to maintain. We are still open to do further research f1bur other possible green solutions. 4. "The mass is broken up well; requested a massing model to help illustrate this in 3 dimensions" Response: We appreciate the Commissioners acknowledging our effort to break up the mass. The scale model has been built and will be presented to the Commission. In addition,photo imaging will be provided. 5. "Appreciated that most of the trees on the lot are being preserved" Response: We were successful in preserving not only the tree that the city arborist would like us to keep, as well as most existing trees on the site. 6. "Design allows the massing to be articulated up the hill; permits it to be achieved with some elegance" Response: We appreciate the Commission acknowledging our massing up the hill and the elegance of our proposed house. 7. "When the project comes back, ensure that elevations completely match the floor plan" Response: We apologize that some of the windows do not match the floor plan. During the staff review and attempts to comply with the staff comments we lost track of a few window locations. Revised elevations are attached. 8. "Massing model could be helpful" Response: A scale model has been provided. In addition,photo imaging will be provided. 9. "Expressed concern regarding requiring story poles for benefit of San Mateo County residents that are not subject to the same requirement; perhaps consider a more limited story pole installation" Response: With the exception of the house across the street,whose owners are in support of our project, all other neighbors are in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. These owners are not subject to the restrictions and strict requirements of the City of Burlingame. The scale model and photo imaging should demonstrate the minimal impact on the neighborhood. 10. "A model could help to demonstrate the massing of the project, but would not help to understand the massing in context with adjacent properties" Response: A scale model has been provided. In addition a photo imaging will be provided. 11. "Determined that the applicant can choose to erect story poles, or provide a massing model, but if story poles are not installed the Commission retains the right to require them in the future" Response: As noted above,we will present a scale model as well as photo imaging. Sincerely, DENHAM, LLC Alex Mortazavi 7 "' r�IAM'4 ,�di1 d U. s Ink 1d y �iy�iJ•. J t v Y -1 J.. 4. .$v .:fit �J- • VU 7,1 HL J x. J 1 , > „ tLa,f4 "�t4' FRONT VIEW A. . 2843 Adeline-ProjectCD (Scale Model) A i w....:. ..NP r mum / r �, j✓ � f I 1 1p t,• r r R S Y L, kyl' r ,d !� NjF I 3 i TOP VI W 843 A-eline Pro ec • i 4P � Y 11�fi Mkf R � �'uy� N ^� I • �i r ,til If s x w k' 5 yk ":04 'uf ile k i�B V� I I ,hd. d I - IH �µ P� � 'y 41 T 1 fa. FW '!l . A�+ Ye✓ � �� '.��� f� iia � .- ''>jj,�r p �II 6 �'�r�. r f � �rt�r fin.'*,• �� � �I����� ��� �; � ,��, to'd° .r ' ,,• �, m h„ I A� �p `a M • 1 +fir!' •�� b a I 41 � r M D E N 51 I 1 • p ani", i" CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes January 12,2009 10. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, 3 '/2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE(ROBERT VAN DALE,EDI ARCHITECTURE,APPLICANTAND ARCHITECT:AND DENHAM LLC,PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT:ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated January 12,2009,with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. John Ward,792 Willborough Place and Alex Mortazavi,20 Vista Lane;represented the applicant. • Noted prior design for site that wasn't embraced by the Planning Commission. • The Commission directed him to step the house up the hill;and that a height Variance could be supported due to the lot characteristics. • Discussed average setback requirements in Burlingame,and the presence of multiple,significantly varied setbacks that are present on the neighboring properties that lie in unincorporated San Mateo County. • Noted that large Oak tree in center of property should be preserved,per City arborist. • Traditional architecture would add to mass and bulk of building;have chosen modem architecture in an attempt to reduce the mass of the structure on the hillside. • Submitted letter from Shefsky's withdrawing their opposition to the proposal. • Have not had the opportunity to discuss other neighbors'objections with them. • Side setbacks are much greater than what the City of Burlingame requires. • Much of the home is dug into the hill;and steps up the hillside. • Noted correction in his letter to a neighbor indicating that the distance from his garage door to their dining room is 51 feet. Commission comments: • Have done a masterful job of reducing the mass and scale of the house. • Landscaping helps to obscure the mass of the house. • Like the design a lot;suggested consideration of a green(living)roof as it could further soften the appearance of the house. • The mass is broken up well;requested a massing model to help illustrate this in 3 dimensions. • Appreciated that most of the trees on the lot are being preserved. • Design allows the massing to be articulated up the hill; permits it to be achieved with some elegance. • When the project comes back,ensure that elevations completely match the floor plan. • Massing model could be helpful. Public comments: Art Labrie,2839 Adeline Drive;Donna Gaul,2838 Adeline Drive;Mike Gaul,2838 Adeline Drive;Eileen and Steve Shefsky,24 Vista Lane;Gail Labrie,2839 Adeline Drive;and Pat Glomi,1445 Balboa Avenue;spoke regarding the project: • The owner to the left of the property feels that his light on his lot will be impacted. Provided photos of his rear-yard. Hasa swimming pool with a 5 Yz foot high wall. Sunsets directly over the ridge on Mortazavi's property. Will adversely impact his property. Height restrictions exist for numerous reasons;blocking out the natural sunlight and privacy. At left elevation;upper floor deck will look 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes January 12, 2009 directly into his pool. No height Variance should be allowed. Referenced his letter submitted to the Commission. ■ Expressed concern about the position of the garage; concern about fumes from garage entering his property; suggested having driveway enter garage from the other side, rather than circling around. ■ Think about surrounding properties, not just those in Burlingame. ■ Referenced prior design; indicated support for it. ■ Liked that the house has been stepped back. ■ Appreciate that applicant is keeping the oak trees. • Was opposed to original design. Likes modern architecture; there is a bit of a precedent; there is a variety of architecture in the area. • The applicant has assured that the new home will be finished in earth-tones. ■ Noted that the City's Hillside Area Construction Permit process allows any property owner to call up a permit for review; the procedures do not differentiate between City versus County property owners. ■ Story poles should be required regardless of jurisdiction within which adjacent properties are situated. ■ There will be view impacts from the new design; were supportive of the original proposal that placed home closer to the road. ■ Light to the adjacent property will be severely impacted. ■ The proposed setback will more severely impact privacy on the adjacent property. • Noted that California law does not give you light, air and water rights. The local view ordinance only applies to hillside areas. ■ There are few comments about view obstruction; primarily loss of privacy and fear of change. • Clarified the method of height measurement is the distance above the curb at the street level. • With respect to story poles; will need an interpretation from the City Attorney. Recommends story poles; have.generally required them in other hillside areas. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Expressed concern regarding requiring story poles for benefit of San Mateo County residents that are not subject to the same requirement; perhaps consider a more limited story pole installation. • A model could help to demonstrate the massing of the project, but would not help to understand the massing in context with adjacent properties. ■ Determined that the applicant can choose to erect story poles, or provide a massing model, but if story poles are not installed the Commission retains the right to require them in the future. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Vice-Chair Terrones called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 21 w d � M 7 i P4, Y f "All T � r y I �. SSSl '�• g � G Wt" ,k S r haayw� it � ;, I � �d�� � ! i a� • � ��r� .' � ! n ,pi9�i n.• M , s �`�x �4 ISG�� �� brat e � _ � i '�,: a •'s ' R 9 .-u`'.. • S 1�,S�kF kJyp% '� w.5 K r` 911�:� Y;.., }•' �,'FJ.4 k�,E.i '.rye' r , i i.. , • 'rte[ r� � f � +� � p! ;t• .n �P + January 12, 2009 Tim Auran Michael Brownrigg City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 David Cauchi, Chair Jeff Lindstrom City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones, Vice-Chair Stanley Vistica, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sandra Yie William Meeker, Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2843 Adeline Drive Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit Dear Planning Commissioners, I now understand from reviewing that the Roof of the new, 3-1/2 story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive zoned R-1 (the "Proposed Project") will not exceed the height of the first finished floor at the Schefslry home at 24 Vista Lane. Mr. Mortazavi provided the plans to Mr. Schpfskv and hated Mr_ Mortazavi's request, Mr. Schefsky contacted me and I had the opportunity to review the plans. Based upon my now understanding of the Roof elevation, I now withdraw my opposition to said application and i now support the said application. Sincerely, Aleksandr Zeltser Neighbor at 2878 Hillside Drive, Burlingame E 1 JAS! 1 2 2009 ,`.,1TY GI=BURLI�JcAr"ME PLANNING DEPT: Received After 01.12.09 PC Meeting Agenda Item 10 - 2843 Adeline Drive January 9, 2008 Pagel of 3 Arthur Labrie 2839 Adeline Drive Burlingame, Ca 94010 Dear Mr. Labrie, We received a copy of your letter of opposition that was submitted to the City of Burlingame on January 8, 2009. I wish we could have done this in a more neighborly fashion as i ib have demonstrated over the past several years by contacting you and supplying you urith all the plans and information regarding our projects. As you are quite aware,this plan was not our first choice. We were directed by several Commissioners to build on the middle to upper portion of the lot and they expressed strong support for a variance to do so. With their suggestion, it took us several months and we incurred substantial costs to redesign the project per the Commissioners' direction. Also, our consultant John Ward had left you a message requesting the opportunity to meet with you prior to the study session on Monday, January 12t'. Please be advised that this is only a study session,,not anaction meeting, and there is plenty of time to resolve any concerns or misunderstandings you may have regarding our proposed project. I would-like to respond to-the'concerns you expressed in your letter with the hope that it will give you a better understanclg of the proposed plans. HEIGHT A. Privacy The statement regarding the proposed deck being like an"observation tower"is incorrect. The deck off of the bedroom is located beyond the edge of your swimming pool. Please note that this is a deck provided for the bedrooms and is in a private section of the house. The deck on the"public" space of the house is located at the lower level off of the living room.As to your concern about potential loss of privacy, we are prepared to plant some trees and shrubs to create additional screening. Please note on the landscape plans that we have proposed three (3) large California Bay Laurels, and can easily add two (2) more or a species of your choosing after consultation with a landscape expert. B. Sunli t We are located on the West side of your property. The setback requirement for the City of Burlingame is only seven( ) feet. We have provided a twenty-three foot, six inch (23'6") setback in the proposed plans. This exceeds the City requirements by a substantial amount. One-third(1/3) of the elevation of our proposed home facing your property is only one story. This is even shorter than the existing shrubs. Of the remaining two-thirds (2/3) of the home, one-third (1/3)has a deck on top so it would be very hard to imagine any loss of sunlight reaching your pool because it is over fifty (50) feet away(please refer to the Left Elevation). RECEIVED ..JAN 0 9 2999 GIT 1 OF EURUTAGAPA PLANNING,DEFT. Received After 01.12.09 PC Meeting Agenda Item 10 - 2843 Adeline Drive LOCATION OF GARAGE Page 2 of 3 The garage is located thirty-one (3 1) feet away from the property line. Your dining room windows are located approximately fifty (50) feet away from the property line. We honestly don't feel that a single family home with as little as S trips per day for a family could create such a fume that would disturb a neighbor fifty(50) feet away with the existing planting and breezeways. We simply have to disagree with you on this issue. DESIGN Uphill projects are particularly difficult to create traditional homes on with a typical roof and overhang due to the fact that it tremendously increases the height and bulk of a building, as opposed to buildings at street level. A well-designed, more modem home will aesthetically fit better within the trees, and because of their flat roof it reduces the height acid bulk.ofa traditional design. A substantial effort was put in to creating a well-blended, lowered mass which is largely not visible from the street. If your previous concerns are addressed with further screening/additional vegetation, it would not even be seen from your house. We understand that taste in design is subjective, and that is why Adeline is an eclectic mix representing various periods of architecture. We have to rely on the Commission's discretion. WATER RUN OFF With modern-engineering and construction technology today, any empty land is worse off than a developed and up-to-code building that contains dispersing and stabilizing factors.An extensive drainage plan has been submitted, even though this matter is not required for design review. We have demonstrated proper handling of drainage of the site. EXISTING SHRUBS AND TREES A. Shrubs The City of Burlingame does have tree protection rules. Shrubbery and wild plants could be cut at any time on anyone's private property. With or without this project, these shrubs could be cut by the owner of the property. In the spirit of neighborly cooperation and peaceful construction of our project,we have always indicated to you that we are willing to preserve or replace damaged Shrubbery if our project goes forward. B. Trees Obviously, any tree located in your property would not be touched. DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION During construction there would be licensed and insured contractors performing their tasks. It is customary that any damage caused by any contractor or subcontractor during construction will be handled properly by the licensed and insured individual or firm. This is the standard practice in the industry, and in any case we will take all necessary steps to work with you if there is any problem. PARKING :"' I E JAN 0 9 2009 C-27"'vF SW LJNGANIE -l�,r,�NNIG DPT, 2) (M O (DD (a cD 0 The City of Burlingame requires 2 covered parking garages, which have been r* tD a provided. In addition,the twenty-five (25) foot backup can hold 2 additional cars. There �"' 0 D is also a space next to the front door entry that could be used for additional parking (please refer to the Landscape Plan). This is not an apartment rental or student housing. C This project is being built as a single-family home in R-1 district under the zoning code. Any future problems you may possibly have in the future could be addressed to the w proper authorities for enforcement. y a CD SUMMARY — We believe that most of the concerns you have raised can simply be mitigated with some landscaping on the side. We are willing to meet with you at any time to discuss 0 the proposed project and to address any concerns or questions you may have. Respectfully, Denham LLC Alex Mortazavi Cc: City of Burlingame . RE CE k' 1AN 0 V 2009 OF FOURLI,GAME ;-,P_px 2,6 H 3 lac(, I vac.. Dr. ARTHUR J. LABRIE, JR. ..� .-..... . 2839 ADELINE DRIVE CDMIMN G`�4TION1ZFCEIYED BURLINGAME, CA 94010 4&1 - � January 8, 2009 01 .12.09 PC Meeting Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Height Variance for 2843 Adeline Drive Dear Sirs, My wife and I have enjoyed the peace and tranquility of Burlingame Hills since we bought our house in 1981. We are now concerned that the proposed development project will violate our privacy rights if a variance to the height restrictions is permitted. We adamantly oppose the proposed design and development for a number of reasons: HEIGHT A. PRIVACY: The lot line that separates our property and the proposed development lot is on a very steep slope with the ridgeline being about 20 feet into the proposed development lot. The ridgeline is about 30 feet higher than our back yard. It is almost a cliff. Any structure built on the ridge will be looking directly down on our pool. The proposed deck on the top floor will be like an observation platform looking directly down onto our back yard and pool. (See A03. The man standing on the deck) B. SUNLIGHT: The proposed structure will also block out the afternoon sun during the summer. Height of the house will significantly reduce the amount of sunlight hours we presently experience and enjoy in our back yard where our swimming pool is located. LOCATION OF GARAGE The current design shows the driveway making a 180-degree turn into the 2-car Garage. The Garage is situated adjacent to the side of our house where our dining room& kitchen is located. During the summer months we leave our windows open to create a cross breeze that comes in from this direction. Since cars will be coming into the garage and backing out of the garage, the exhaust fumes will be blowing directly into our windows. DESIGN We feel that the design of the house doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. The left elevation(see A03) would be the view we would have towering over our back yard. This view looks like a commercial office building. We do not want to feel like we're living in an office complex. WATER RUN OFF The length of the main house is laid out across the natural slope of the land. During the heavy rainstorms the water will have to run off either side of the house and down the hill. Since the lower side of the house is adjacent to our lot and is on a ridge we are concerned that the water runoff will flow down our hill causing erosion or a mudslide. Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item #10 01.12.09 PC Meeting Page 2 EXISTING SHRUBS AND TREES A. SHRUBS: The previous owner of our house planted privacy shrubs on the natural ridgeline of the land. These shrubs are very beautiful and their roots act as a stabilizing factor to the hill during the rainy season. There is no mention of preserving these shrubs, and we are concerned that they will be destroyed during construction. The company that did the surveying for this project already destroyed some of them. B. TREES: According to the proposed Landscape Plan(see A01c), there is an 11-inch Pine tree that is scheduled to be removed. The Landscape Plan is incorrect. THE TREE IS ON OUR PROPERTY! Not only is it a beautiful tree,but it also provides shade for our house during the hot summer months. THIS TREE MUST NOT BE DAMAGED OR REMOVED! DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION The excavation for this project will be enormous. The dust & dirt will blow directly into our yard, pool and windows. The heavy equipment required will cause the ground to shake and possible damage to our house, pool and walkways. Will there be any guaranteed compensation for damage and inconvenience? Or will we have to go to court to recover? PARKING: This is a 5-bedroom house. It is naive to think that a family with 5 bedrooms will only have 2 cars. The husband & wife will have one each. The two "au pair"rooms have separate entries and are separated from the main living quarters. Who is to say that these rooms won't get rented out? What about guest parking? There is virtually no parking on our street. Also, there is no pedestrian access to the house from the street. SUMMARY: There are many other reasons we object to this project, but we feel that we have covered the most important ones. We are not negative people, and we recognize that this property will be developed eventually. We feel that the original plan for this property submitted last year was a much better design aesthetically, environmentally and economically. We supported that proposal then, and we would support it again if it were re-introduced. We also didn't feel that the developer's request for a setback variance from the street was unreasonable. Sincerely, Arthur J. Labrie, Jr. DEW- Page 'RVEv 2of2 cn X .a CL p Tim Auran Michael Brownrigg o ca City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road n -* Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 CD David I � David Cauchi, Chair Jeff Lindstrom w a �� City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission W 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road D CL Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones, Vice-Chair Stanley Vistica, Secretary CD City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 0 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sandra Yie William Meeker, Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 January 9, 2009 Re: Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit 2843 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA (APN: 027-093-310) Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Meeker, Alex Mortazavi forwarded to us the letter that he sent to you dated January 6, 2009. It is true that Mr. Mortazavi sued the County of San Mateo in an effort to revoke the valid building permit issued by the Planning and Building Department of the County of San Mateo(after the County conducted a thorough one year review) for our home at 24 Vista Lane. The County of San Mateo stood behind the legally valid building permit that it had issued. Moreover, in the Prelirrninary Injunction Order issued by the San Mateo Superior Court,the Court held that we could continue construction of the building that is now our home. Nonetheless, in an effort to move forward,we agreed to settle such litigation with Mr. Mortazavi. Under the terms of the settlement,we agreed to the following: "Schefs 's Support for Denham Variance. Denham intends to seek a variance for the development of the Denham Adeline Property, Burlingame, California,to locate the building finished floor at said property at an elevation at or about 256 according to the contours used for the development of the Schefsky Property, or as high on the Denham Adeline Property as the City of Burlingame will allow for a variance. The Schefskys shall submit written support to the City of Burlingame in favor of said variance." RECEIVED .JAN 0 9 2009 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. It was our understanding from reviewing the renderings posted at 2843 Adeline Drive that Denham was not seeking a variance for the development of the Denham Adeline Property to locate the building finished floor at said property at an elevation at or about 256 according to the contours used for the development of our property at 24 Vista Lane. Mr. Mortazavi asserts that we are mistaken, and if so,we hereby kindly withdraw our objection to said variance. Furthermore,to avoid confusion,we hereby kindly support a variance in accordance with the following: "Schefsky's Support for Denham Variance. Denham intends to seek a variance for the development of the Denham Adeline Property, Burlingame, California, to locate the building finished floor at said property at an elevation at or about 256 according to the contours used for the development of the Schefsky Property, or as high on the Denham Adeline Property as the City of Burlingame will allow for a variance." Regards, St ve Schefsky Eileen Schefsky,Attorney at Law Received After 01.12.09 PC Meeting Agenda Item 10 - 2843 Adeline Drive Page 2 of 2 'RECEIVED .JAN 0 9 2009 2 CIN OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. `f" ?008 Michael Brownrigg DIT°Gr `3'"-Rf Tim Auran NINJC+DEP r City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 David Cauchi, Chair Jeff Lindstrom City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones, Vice-Chair Stanley Vistica, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sandra Yie William Meeker,Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 January 6, 2009 Re: Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit for 2843 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA(APN: 027-093-310) Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Meeker, The Commission has received letters of opposition from three neighbors in the vicinity of our property at 2843 Adeline Drive. This letter will provide background information and context related to extensive litigation and a settlement agreement between Denham and Mr. and Mrs. Steve Schefsky who reside at 24 Vista Lane. The settlement agreement and judgment was signed and entered on January 4, 2007 by the honorable Judge Marc Forcum of the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo. Paragraph 7 of the judgment reads as follows: "7. Schefsky's Support for Denham Variance. Denham intends to seek a variance for the development of the Denham Adeline Property,Burlingame, California,to locate the building finished floor at said property at an elevation at or about 256 according to the contours used for the development of the Schefsky Property, or as high on the Denham Adeline Property as the City of Burlingame will allow with a variance. The Schefskys shall submit written support to the City of Burlingame in favor of the issuance of said variance." Under this judgment,the Schefskys effectively waived their right to object to this development/variance request. In fact, under terms of the settlement agreement they are ED JAN 2003 J\4i!NG DJEPT. obligated to support it. In the process of obtaining this judgment.,Denham was placed m a position of having to accept a loss in property values on its home at 20 Vista Lane adjacent to and above the Shefsky's new domicile at 24 Vista Lane. The diminution in property value results from a substantial loss of privacy and long distance bay views now obstructed due to the construction of what could best be described as the.Shefsky's massive structure at 24 Vista Lane. To summarize,the purpose of this "exchange" (settlement agreement)was to allow the Schefskys to build their new home in return for the peaceful development of the Adeline property by Denham. The Schefskys were fully aware of this provision in the agreement prior to the construction of their home, and agreed to development of the Denham site on Adeline in writing and in*open court. 1. Background Denham purchased the property from the Sisters of Mercy approximately 7 years ago with the intention to build custom homes. Denham quickly discovered that life was anything but simple on Vista Lane and Adeline Drive. The neighbors adjacent to 20 Vista Lane, Mr. and Mrs. Art Thomas 16 Vista Lane,planted trees on the Denham property and claimed some form of property rights or easement. Mr. and Mrs. Thomas also encroached approximately 4 feet along the entire length of the Denham property. It took about one year of legal battles to establish and clear the title on Denham's properties from the Thomas' claims. A settlement was reached and Denham was able to reclaim most of its property. Since Thomas is not affected by development of the Adeline site,we must question their letter of objection to same. The Schefsky's property was previously owned by the late Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones tried to adversely possess over a quarter-acre of Denham's property. Dr. Jones fenced off and landscaped the property claiming some form of property rights. Another legal battle ensued and Denham was able to recover its property in full. Dr. Jones then passed away and the Schefskys purchased the property at a very low and favorable price from the heirs. In the spirit of cooperation, Denham requested many times to meet with the Schefskys regarding their proposed development, but they were unwilling to do so. Denham later discovered that the Schefskys were p�,�Tsuing a constriction plan that would effectively block a substantial portion of Denham's view(see attached pictures). Further, Denham raised questions regarding potential violations of San Mateo County rules and regulations that apply to the parcel in unincorporated Burlingame Hills area.. Denham took legal action against the County of San Mateo and the Schefskys., resulting in an injunction. During the court proceedings,Denham, San Mateo County, and the Schefskys reached a settlement which, among other things, included attorneys fees in favor of Denham as well as the provisions agreed upon for the development of the Adeline property referenced herein. Denham gave up substantial rights to build the long- awaited development adjacent to the Schefsky property. Despite Denham's rights under the judgment, a plan was submitted to the City of Burlingame for the development of the Adeline property that would have been closer to Adeline Drive. By this point,the Schefskys had already reaped the benefits of their rights JAN 'r 2008 under the settlement agreement and finished their massive home without any interfekdi&- �N DEPT by Denham. But, a neighbor across the street at Adeline Drive objected to Denham's p proposed home. Several Planning Commissioners provided direction to Denham, encouraging the placement of a residence at the upper portion of the lot. Commissioners also expressed their inclination to support.a variance in order to relocate the residence at a higher elevation. The city arborist strongly recommended that the oak tree in the middle of the lot be preserved. Denham made its best effort to place the home in a location that would not impact the tree. Denham believed that this plan would satisfy the neighbors on Adeline as well as the Planning Commissioners.Now,the Schefskys and two other neighbors are objecting to a project where Denham's proposed height is not even close to violating what was agreed upon in the settlement. II. Conclusion and Request It has been a virtual_7-year nightmare for Denham to develop its property. Our property rights have been continually violated by neighbors, and we have had to overcome a series of legal battles in order to simply use and enjoy our property; and now even that is being threatened. Following the March Commission meeting, We have done everything possible to address concerns raised by members of the Commission as well as neighbors in revising our proposal for development of the Adeline site.. The variance argument has been submitted in a separate packet and will be considered by the Commission. In closing,we would note the objections raised by Art Thomas and Aleksandr Zeltser( 2°'4 T " *��___ _aa_� a .o �+ +? claiming their views are being obstructed have no merit as their views are entirely unaffected by the proposed project. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Sincerely, Denham LLC Alex Mortazavi +N`.}^'�,{*„rN `� 1 "y, A�1,rM• ,`, fe._yam• 1.si. �4s � dr '� � ai���Uk�� �.� t?v' � A F+� � ', r,��,�,n�'*�y� ' ,� n ,i'n, ' \�'; 111^�'rN"" P p.".• 7'.y'y�., T f• r °rr i� "-..'"' +T ,*,y`r + k„ t �• aar JX 044 M 16 r i A �' 4Yy4 b r �v,��"II ti Y i,. � �ph��,�:.4 "♦ sq �'✓.• "W}',.. ��.�r � � �u '�` TMfrdk �'�€",�? '�"�s�r' �� �;, c�t 9 m^ r� i ! A'. A�I � +n..n... +� �' ,MWY�� AU I I✓'A � � � J 4 �� s � nn r.�'��' �•� �°�� fr. I q ii ilk SIM f.�� �I� °,:�. ' �• �� k I � t .h h. V Ik r e. i Qy f N` w i d7 r ae � ^M - • r tr, f „ i • ,r ! •. f _ + :!�` ems., � ii'-, v ' '1 - Jam[� •,,, "" •' '' , • 1*1"S,� •. • ;;K''•^• T { �i�y.I.,,S�yy� '��Il•+M .', "icy,� i�, � `� "� 7 >< � .. .t:..b� ,�paY �.� - j+' -r• �.x .4,'1�+"sa�"" li'�$ g. ry a• law Ilk •. �yN,+"�Y .`, r � `r ^r � ay J `•' • � •,,,,, t�f I .i.•.JM r'• 'Q��SS,%%''i /� ~ti'..."'�'.. Z • y. S a".♦ �•�.I'"'N�!' ( {'- ` t` �„+ *!y A't s� l -7l .� .,�.y-ti Y• 1+.;',fir- (,•.. 4 .t1' �^;-• �.� 't.•�• ���Yir•.�i44.. Ii �I , .i, `r1 r�- •4L �r. � 1rGp. \ •. �Yd�) i`- y•a% .. ♦tK •'' f4 i Yf�yy�rq'y^,5,`�7�.1�• *' •+ , T x "� P I .^,`, ".yw F i 1°�°a ,��•�� r �� ,!Y 1 •r,�~ yy%''J�(1� {_f� �' t l", p� '^�IYC NFFF. 'I � * ,,��j�•I`-?,, 77 Y•r,.t?" '� �.•,,? �p/l//f h. �r1 y�y:y1��y r�� 'y ♦ j�` ��I,i F.• pit,ff.r .J 1� 63Z�f 1,�+_! �,� *�,• !�1 i ?•�, . y { L.- � :4', ,-.Sys ' - M1 I, ' �. i 111' � � •'♦,� . fy�wl f �i yy �• ® r � r ��' ;�+f y� t 11.A'Y�' �'�• �Yf I � 1� [: � 1; fJ •.ti`s:' ,:r .rf ;'� January 5, 2009 Tim Auran Michael Brownrigg City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 David Cauchi, Chair Jeff Lindstrom City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones, Vice-Chair Stanley Vistica, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sandra Yie William Meeker, Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2843 Adeline Drive Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit Dear Planning Commissioners, This letter relates to the Public Hearing Notice and Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, 3-1/2 story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive zoned R-1 (the "Proposed Project"). I am enncerned with this Proposed Project, as it will have significant environmental and public safety impacts. Before filing the application for this Proposed Project, the applicant must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The law clearly provides that "discretionary" projects are subject to CEQA. CEQA defines a "discretionary project" as "a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances or regulations." CEQA Guidelines, Section 15357 (Emphasis added). Here, the Proposed Project is "discretionary", as the Height Variance, Design Review and Special Permit all require the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public = EES.'` JAN - 5 ZOO& CITY OF BU'RUNiSAME1 PLANNING'':-EPT. agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity. Thus, the Proposed Project is subject to compliance with the requirements of CEQA. There are certain categorical exemptions of CEQA found at Section 13500(c). However, even if the Proposed Project were to arguably fall within any of these categorical exemptions, the exceptions to such exemptions would remove the Proposed Project from an exempt category. After all, this Dwelling is proposed to be constructed high up on an extremely steep lot in an erosion control area adjacent to Adeline Drive (i.e. a primary road access). Prior to even applying for this Proposed Project, CEQA requires that the applicant complete a full analysis of potential environmental impacts, including without limitation, the preparation of an initial study, a negative declaration, a public hearing and a comment process. Even after complying with CEQA, the Proposed Project at 2843 Adeline Drive is subject to obtaining a Hillside Area Construction Permit. Prior to issuing a Hillside Area Construction Permit, the Planning Commission must review the Proposed Project to ensure that it does not obstruct existing distant view of nearby properties. Here, my existing distant views would be significantly impacted. Therefore, I kindly request that the Planning Commission deny the necessary Hillside Area Construction Permit for the Proposed Project. In conclusion, based upon the foregoing, I kindly request that the Planning Commission deny the Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, 3-1/2 story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive. Sincerely, 4 Aleksandr Zeltser Concerned neighbor at 2878 Hillside Drive, Burlingame e sa�,aE s� � I !AN R5ME- 2 OITY OF Bl RLINGAME pI..nNING DFr-T. Tim Auran, Burlingame Planning Commission Stanley Vistica, Burlingame Planning Commission Michael Brownrigg, Burlingame Planning Commission Richard Terrones, Burlingame Planning Commission David Cauchi, Burlingame Planning Commission Jeff Lindstrom, Burlingame Planning Commission Sandra Yie, Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 William Meeker, Community Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 January 5, 2009 Re: 2843 Adeline Drive Application for Design Review, Variance for Height and Special Permit for Attached Garage Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Meeker, We purchased our home at 16 Vista Lane in Burlingame over 35 years ago, and we have now lived on Vista Lane for the past 35 years. We are writing to you about the Public Hearing Notice that we received, which relates to the Application for Design Review, Variance for height and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, 3-1/2 story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive. We are very concerned with this massive single family dwelling for a number of reasons. First, the applicant is required to first give notice to us to seek a Hillside area construction permit, as the 2843 Adeline lot is clearly identified on the Burlingame map attached to Ordinance 1448 . This permit is required to be reviewed at the same time as the proposed variance. To obtain a Hillside area construction permit, the proposed dwelling cannot obstruct our existing distant views. (See Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 25. 61.060. ) Here, we have existing distant views from our home and this proposed massive dwelling would destroy these existing distant views. Second, the applicant is requesting a design review for the proposed dwelling. We believe that this proposed massive dwelling is not at all compatible with the architectural style or the mass and bulk of existing structures, as it is required to be to pass design review. Instead, the proposed dwelling is massive and [E-CEIVED �N; - 52008 1 C,TY UP BURLINGAME PLANNIN 3 DEPT bulky with an unnecessary extreme height in relation to the other surrounding homes on Adeline Drive. Third, significant grading would need to be done to the lot at 2843 Adeline Drive in order to build this massive dwelling. This grading will cause significant erosion problems and present extreme public health and safety issues. Finally, there are no exceptional circumstances that apply to 2843 Adeline Drive. Instead, the property at 2843 Adeline Drive is just like all of the other surrounding properties in the Burlingame hills. All of these properties are on hilly lots and these other property owners build homes in compliance with the Burlingame Municipal Code. If the applicant wants to build a dwelling on 2842 Adeline Drive, the applicant should simply do so in compliance with the Burlingame Municipal Code. We kindly request that the Planning Commission deny the application for the Hillside area construction permit, design review and height variance for this massive dwelling at 2843 Adeline Drive. Sincerely, Art Thomas (1CLo Eileen Thomas C E !AN - 5 2008 2 LAITY OF BURLINGAVIF Tim Auran Michael Brownrigg City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 David Cauchi, Chair Jeff Lindstrom City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Richard Terrones,Vice-Chair Stanley Vistica, Secretary City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sandra Yie William Meeker,Development Director City of Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 January 5, 2009 Re: Application for Design Review,Variance for Height and Special Permit 2843 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA (APN: 027-093-310) Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Meeker, We are writing to you regarding the application for Design Review and Variance for Height for a new 3 %z story single family dwelling at 2843 Adeline Drive in Burlingame, California(the"Proposed 3 1/2 Story Adeline Dwelling"). We have some issues or concerns with the Proposed 3 1/z Story Adeline Dwelling. The entire side (i.e. approximately 204 feet) of our property at 24 Vista Lane in Burlingame shares a common boundary with 2843 Adeline Drive (i.e. the location for the Proposed 3 1/2 Story Adeline Dwelling). in addition, our property at 24 Vista Lane goes from Vista Lane(at the end of the Vista Lane cul-de-sac)to Adeline Drive, so t ha*�Adeline Drive is the rear border of our property. Prior to identifying our issues and concerns with the Proposed 3 1/2 Story Dwelling and application therefor, we would like to provide you with a bit of background. I. Background Steve was born in Burlingame and his family (including siblings, parents, grandparents, aunt,uncle and cousins)has lived in San Mateo County for the past 100 years. Steve's grandparents raised his father in Burlingame,who attended McKinley Elementary School, Burlingame Intermediate School and Burlingame High School. .JAN 1 �t `trt ,a���V�vlt�?{{I 4 Steve is employed by the College of San Mateo as the baseball pitching coach and has worked in this capacity for the past nine years. Eileen is an attorney, employed as a Legal Director and Associate General Counsel of Sun Microsystems, Inc., located in San Mateo County, and has been employed by Sun Microsystems,Inc. for the past ten years. We purchased our dream property at 24 Vista Lane in January 2004, after looking for a "view"property in Burlingame for approximately 10 years. We were focused exclusively on Burlingame in our search, as we have two young children(ages 5 and 7 years old)whom we wanted to(and now do)attend the Burlingame public schools. II. Careful Review of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Prior to Purchasing Our Property at 24 Vista Lane Prior to purchasing our property at 24 Vista Lane, we very carefully reviewed Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code,the Zoning Ordinance,so that we would fully understand how the neighboring properties could be developed or improved upon. We paid a significant premium for our property at 24 Vista Lane because of its distant views. When Denham LLC proposed the subdivision of the acre lot at 12 Vista Lane (which it had purchased from the Sisters of Mercy),it showed a much smaller single-story family home being built on the lower portion of the lot(i.e. the lot now known as 2843 Adeline Drive). We did not object to the proposed subdivision because we understood that Denham LLC would build homes on each lot that would conform to the R-1 Zoning requirements in Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. A. Height Limitations — Section 25.28.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code We understand Section 25.28.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to provide that "...on a lot that slopes upward more than twenty-five(25)percent from the front property line to the rear property line,no structure shall exceed thirty (3 0) feet above average elevation as measured fifteen(15) feet behind the front property line of the lot at the intersection of the front and side setback lines at each side of the lot." (See Section 25.28.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code attached as Exhibit A.) We understand that the lot at 2843 Adeline Drive slopes upward more than twenty-five (25)percent from the front property line to the rear property line,thus, we understood that no structure would exceed UH y (30) feet above average elevation as measured fifteen(15) feet behind the front property line (i.e. Adeline Drive). B. Hillside Area Construction Permits Section 25.28.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that"... new construction and additions to residences on lots in specified hillside districts are subject to the requirements of the Hillside Area construction permit as defined in Chapter 25.61." (See Section 25.28.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code attached as Exhibit B.) Further, Section 25.61.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code defines the Burlingame areas affected by the Hillside Area Construction Permits as "...all areas in the city designated on the map attached to Ordinancek g 2 JAN - 5 200$ aiTY OF B��r;'s_INGAME: ?f_,a,S.NP','G DEFT. 1448, on file in the office of the city clerk, and to any parcels contiguous to such areas which are annexed to the city after January 1, 1992." (See Section 25.6 1.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code attached as Exhibit C.) The lot at 2843 Adeline Drive is clearly included within the designated area on the map attached to Ordinance 1448. (See map attached to Ordinance 1448, attached hereto as Exhibit D.) 1. Procedures for Hillside Area Construction Permit Section 25.61.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides that"If such construction requires a variance, conditional use permit,or special permit under any other provision of this code,the hillside area construction permit shall be heard at the same time as the variance, conditional use permit, or special permit;the review criteria of Section 25.61.060 shall apply." (See Section 25.61.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code attached as Exhibit E.) Here,the Hillside Area Construction Permit for the Proposed 3 '/Z Story Adeline Dwelling must be heard at the same time as the Variance and Special Permit(i.e. at the hearing on Monday,January 12, 2009). In addition, the review criteria of Section 25.61.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code shall apply. 2. Review Criteria for Hillside Area Construction Permit The review criteria of Section 25.61.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code apply for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and they are as follows: "Review by the planning commission or city council shall be based upon the ohslrvelioar by the construction of the erisliag dislaal views of mearhy properties.Emphasis shall be gives to the ohslrueflax of dislaw views frog habitable areas withia a dwel1lmg Argil." (Emphasis added.) (See Section 25.61.060 of the Burlingame Municipal Code attached as Exhibit F.) In our situation, construction of the Proposed 3 '/z Story Adeline Dwelling would virtually destroy the existing distant views from the following habitable areas within our home at 24 Vista Lane: living room,dining room, office, kitchen, family room, certain bedrooms and powder room. We paid a significant premium for these existing distant views when we purchased our property. C. Design Review Section 25.28.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that"Construction of... second and taller stories of structures in the R-1 districts shall be subject to design review as provided in Chapter 25.57." (See Section 25.28.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, previously attached as Exhibit B.) Section 25.57.030(e)of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides in relevant part that: "A design review application in an R-1 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; ... (3)Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; (4) Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties." (See Section 25.57.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code attached as Exhibit G.) In the instant case,the other surrounding homes on the east side of Adeline Drive are much closer to the road and therefore,they do not have the incredible mass,bulk and height of the Proposed 3 1/Z Story Adeline Dwelling. c N JAN _ 5 2008 3 Cin OF BURLIvc AMV PLANNING DEPT D. Variance A Variance for Height for the Proposed 3 1/2 Story Adeline Dwelling has been proposed. With respect to Variances, Section 25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides that: "The variance may be granted prorlded that the rplairRhyArl coirnsissioir fl"isds, after a full hrpestigatiois aard public hearixg, that all the fallow1mr Is tree: (a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity." (Emphasis added.) (See Section 25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code attached as Exhibit H.) Since the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that all of the foregoing is true, we will discuss each one in turn. 1. No Exceptional or Extraordinary Circumstances or Conditions ARR11cable to 2843 Adeline Drive Section 25.54.020(a) of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that"There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properly-11-1theSame dis ict." in the instant case,there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to 2843 Adeline Drive that does not apply generally to property in the same district. Rather,the property at 2843 Adeline Drive is exactly like the other properties on Adeline Drive(i.e. it is a hilly property). If the Planning Commission were to grant a variance for the 3 %2 Story Adeline Dwelling, it would create a precedence for every property owner within the hills to request a variance. Instead,the Burlingame Municipal Code took into consideration the hilly properties within the Burlingame Hills and developed a method to determine the height of all dwellings within R-1 Zoning. RECEIVED JAN - 5 2008 4 CITY OF:URLINGAME PE.AEv NI;DEPT- 2. Granting of the Variance is Not Necessary for the Preservation and Eniovment Prouerty Right Section 25.54.020(b) of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that"The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship." In the instant case,the granting of the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,nor to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. Indeed,Denham LLC can simply build a house at 2843 Adeline Drive that conforms with the R-1 Burlingame Zoning Requirements, as the property owners of the other Adeline Drive properties are required to do. In addition,the City of Burlingame has already granted Denham LLC's proposed subdivision of the lot, allowing it to now build two homes on the lot instead of only one. 3. Granting of the Variance Will Be Detrimental to Property in the Vicinity Section 25.54.020(c) of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that"The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience." In the instant case,the granting of the variance would be extremely detrimental to our property at 24 Vista Lane (i.e. property in the vicinity), as it would virtually destroy the existing distant views from the following habitable areas within our home: living room,dining room, office,kitchen, family room, certain bedrooms and powder room. In addition,the location of the Proposed 3 %2 Story Dwelling (i.e. far up the hill)will significantly diminish morning and afternoon sun and natural light into our home. 4. Use of Property Will Not Be Compatible with the Mass. Bulk and Character of Existing and Potential Uses of Properties in General Vicinity Section 25.54.020(d)of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that"That the use of the property W ill be compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity." In the instant case,the Proposed 3 V2 Story Adeline Dwelling will not be compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. The other surrounding homes on the east side of Adeline Drive are much closer to the road and therefore,they do not have the incredible mass,bulk and height of the Proposed 3 V2 Story Adeline Dwelling. Thus, as Section 25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that all of the foregoing four conditions are met and in the instant case,none of the conditions are met,we respectfully request that the Height Variance for the Proposed 3 Y2 Story Adeline Dwelling be denied. � �. Ca 5 !AN 4.. 5 2008 ETw OF-13UR INGA"AIE ?LAti��ING DEPT� III. Conclusion and Rearrest In conclusion,prior to purchasing our property at 24 Vista Lane,we very carefully reviewed Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code so that we would fully understand how the neighboring properties could be developed or improved upon, and we relied upon this. We paid a significant premium for our property at 24 Vista Lane because of its distant views. Thus,we respectfully request that the Hillside Area Construction Permit for the Proposed 3 1/2 Story Adeline Dwelling be denied. In addition, as Section 25.54.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code requires that all of the four conditions of such Section are met and in the instant case,none of the conditions are met,we respectfully request that the Height Variance for the Proposed 3 1/2 Story Adeline Dwelling be denied. Instead of requesting a variance,Denham LLC can simply design and build a dwelling on 2843 Adeline Drive within the requirements of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Last year, a representative of Denham LLC showed us renderings of a lovely proposed single-story home on the property at 2843 Adeline that seemed to fit in very well with the surrounding homes. If you have any questions,please feel free to telephone us anytime at 650-248-9218. Regards, Steve Schefsky Eileen Schefsky,�Attney at Law RECEIVED 6 AN -, 5 2D8 ;ITS'OF BUIRt ING",NO a? AKHN11r1;f1_.nrp- EXHIBIT A R , 'AN - 5208 CITY OF BURLING/VvIt-, PLANNING DEFT City of Burlingame Planning Department■501 Primrose Road■650.558.7250■Fax 650.696.3790■www.budingame.org (g) Conformance to this chapter. All the development requirements of Chapter 25.28 �` y lot dimensions and requirements shall apply , to lands hereafter subdivided in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map7tivo>Eftft-om"a 7 d. '/iirFloot Act of the State of California; provided, Hntises with!three stories require a variance from the however,that the planning commission and 'Planning�ommzssion."If3�Qu ask for a three-story hezght variance,rem ember w include a second ezit the city council may, in the considerations from the rhtrdfloor:per theCalifornia wilding Cade. and acceptance of any tentative or final map submitted pursuant to the provisions of said S�eCiari'�errnuforlleiglzt Subdivision Map Act, approve or accept any A specral p rmi maybe obtained fo>r"structures between 30,;;and 36'irz height. such tentative or final map wherein one or more lots or parcels of land do not conform weight ori:a;F1at Lol to all of the provisions of Chapter 25.28, The erght.limn is 30'..or Z12 stories,(whichever-is when the planning commission and the city less for a,flit lo%It:is measured from:tlie"average'top council find that by reason of exceptional or °fm` b at the"street, to the roof ridge: extraordinary circumstances the approval or Height oi�a:Sloped Lat acceptance of such maps will not adversely OhIhu°with 25%or�gre`ater dowmvard •wope to the° affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the rear;the height limits two stories or 20'. On lots that city. the rear the,height (h) Minimum lot size for lands annexed after shallbe 3b'as"measured from,theI5'front'setback ITne _ 1960.No lands annexed to the City of Burlingame after May 31, 1960, which are thereupon classified for residential uses shall be divided into lots having areas of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet each. #AX• Err. 25.28.060 Height Limitations (a) No structure in an R-1 district shall �r�+rrr exceed two-and-one-half stories or thirty (30) feet in height, whichever is less, as "`AP, measured from average top of curb taken from the corners of the lot extended, except as follows: Err. (1) A structure between thirty (30) and yE,oP� rox thirty-six(36) feet upon approval of a special permit under chapter 25.52. �orrr 2 A structure of sETWK ( ) thirty-six(36) feet or HVI&HT ON 5LOMD I T 6 taller upon approval of a variance under chapter 25.54. (b) Notwithstanding subsection(a) above, on a lot that slopes downward more than twenty-five (25)percent from the front property line toward the rear property line,no structure shall exceed twenty (20)feet in height above average top of curb taken from the corners of the lot extended. (c) Notwithstanding subsection(a) above, on a lot that slopes upward more than twenty-five (25) percent from the front property line to the rear property line,no structure shall exceed thirty (3 0) feet above average elevation as measured fifteen(15) feet behind the front property line of the=III C L i VE at the intersection of the front and side setback lines at each side of the lot. g " SAHANDOUTSIR-1 District Regulations.doc Page 4 of 12 ,iA N — 5 2008 PLANNING DEPT. EXHIBIT B R EC E` ` JAN - 5 CITY OF�+r City of Burlingame Planning Department■501 Primrose Road■650.558.7250■Fax 650.696.3790■www.budingame.org 25.28.040 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permits Construction of or additions to second and taller stories of structures in the R-I districts shall be subject to design review as provided in chapter 25.57. Certain new construction and additions to residences on lots in specified hillside districts are subject to the requirements of the Hillside Area Construction Permit as defined in chapter 25.61. 25.28.050 Lot Dimensions and Lot Requirements (a) Lot dimensions: ►A (1) Lots of 6,999 square feet or less must have an average width of not less than fifty (50) feet and all such lots or parcels of land shall have a Mfor i�'idrh Frontuge frontage of not less than fifty (50)feet on a public mz»tum size, ; The minimum res; annal dot size is 5000 street; to i0,Q00 square feet clepetrding on"the (2) Lots of 7,000 square feet to 9,999 square feet toeatton ofrlie lot•wrthin fhe cify.Each must have an average width of not less than fiftylot nust,have a inrnimum yvtdth i�f 5a feet (50) feet and all such lots or parcels of land shall andpope street frontage of not less have a frontage of not less than fifty-five (55)feet than 50.to 60 feet. on a public street; and (3) Lots of 10,000 square feet or more must have an average width of not less than fifty(50) feet and all such lots or parcels of land shall have a frontage of not less than sixty (60) feet on a public street. (b) Lots facing on a curved street: Lots or parcels which face on the curve of a curved street, where the radius of such curvature is less than forty-five (45) feet,may have a lesser frontage than required above,but not less than: (1) Thirty(30) feet for a 6,999 square foot or less lot or parcel; (2) Thirty-five (35) feet for a 7,000 square foot to 9,999 square foot lot or parcel; or (3) Forty(40) feet for a 10,000 square foot or larger lot or parcel. (c) Lot sizes shown on Ordinance 712. On the map adopted by Ordinance 712 and as subsequently amended, (1) All lots shown in white shall have an area of not less than 5,000 square feet; (2) All lots shown within a border of horizontal crosshatching shall have an area of not less than 7,000 square feet; and (3) All lots shown within a border of vertical crosshatching shall have an area of not less than 10,000 square feet. (d) Dedication of easements to public streets. Where frontage on a public street is impossible or impractical,the planning commission may recommend to the city council an easement or easements providing ingress from and egress to a public street in lieu of such street frontage. In any case,the City of Burlingame shall be made an owner of such easement. Recommendations of acceptance may be conditional. (e) Variances. Variances may be granted, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 25.54 of this code, only to the provisions of subsections(a), (b)and (c) above. (f) Effect on lots or parcels recorded before 1958. The average width, lot frontage and minimum areas provided for in subsections (a), (b) and(c) above shall not apply to any lot or parcel of land of smaller dimensions appearing of record in the office of the county recorder of the County of San Mateo, or of the city engineer of the City of Burlingame,prior to June 18, 1958.No building permit shall be issued for the construction of any building on any lot divided or subdivided after said date which does not comply with the minimum requirements set forth above, except as RE C N ED varied by subsections (d) and(e) of this section. SAHANDOUTM-1 District Regulations.doc Page 3 of 12 JAN — 5: 2008 1 'Jl E311RUNGANA.a EXHIBIT C , . E N JA.N d 5 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 61.010 Affected areas. 1(4(09 6:23 PM AS 9 U, Previous Next Search. ri;n t No Frames Title 25 ZONING Chapter 25.61 ADDITIONS TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF RESIDENCES IN HILLSIDE AREAS 15.61.010 Affected areas. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all areas in the city designated on the map attached to Ordinance 1448, on file in the office of the city clerk, and to any parcels contiguous to such areas which are annexed to the ;ity after January 1, 1992. (Ord. 1388 § 2 (part), (1989); Ord. 1448 § 1, (1992)) RECEIVED _ JAN - 5 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. tgcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic=25-25_61-25_61 010&frames=on Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT D R E C I V CIE D JAN - 5 2003 CITY OF B pRLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, oaw CD V1, Z NCR LL .1 A c-a- ZO 6N, All 02 X,T. I - - - fZ V / ':n�\ .s �.Ca c""� ,�i. c 1 /1.6r+ �� �r v7ri;..a. v 5,,e 'f=t•� '�'r i � i�.� �'V+' ,,�� uj Z .'y0 ugi,25 T*.'.. Kl�"'QZ CY) f} r MWE -y . U) U WOW cr Ag'. 7 i . 3 F ago J. Z < 0 41 2 Lu .Ain L3 J CU) N9;." Mai X m -A4 K.- - NOR .0, 01 Tin Wl ,; Al AN- qw KA ki ........ ........... EXHIBIT E Batt`BVED JAN 2008 -'ITY OF BURLINGAME '�"ANINING DEPT, LUIMMUrldl use permir,or special permit required. 1/4/09 6:23 PM Up Previouq Next Main Search P t i ri 11 No Frames Title 25 ZONING Chanter 25.61 Anr)mr)Ki(z TO no MODIFICATIONS OF RESIDENCES IN HILLSIDE AREAS 2.5.61.030 Procedures when variance, 'conditional use Permit, or special Permit required. If such construction requires a variance, conditional use permit, or special permit under any other provision of this code, the hillside area construction permit shall be heard at the same time as the variance, conditional use permit, or special permit; the review criteria of Section 25.61.060 shall apply. If such construction does not require a variance, conditional use permit, or special permit the procedures hereinafter set forth shall also apply. (Ord. 1388 § 2 (part), (1989); Ord. 1603 § 40, (1998)) E --0 i,YE C."E= t D JAN - 6 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAMIE PLANNING DEPT. q code.us/codes/bu r1ingame/view.ph P?topic=2 5-2 56 1-2 56 103 O&frames=on Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT F JAN ® 5 20000 CITY OF PUPUN"GAJAE PLANNING DEPT, 61.060 Review criteria. 1/4/09 6:24 PM EJ p PYQ ,V IN ext Mam, sezr&q PF-int No Frames Title 25 ZONING Chagter 25.61 ADDITIONS TO OR MODIFICATIONS OF RESIDENCES IN HILLSIDE AREAS 25-.61-060 Review criteria. Review by the planning commission or city council shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from iabitable areas within a dwelling unit. (Ord. 1388 § 2 (part), (1989)) JAN CITY OF lqcode.us/codes/bu r1ingame/view.php?top1c=2 5-2 5 61-25 61 060&frames=on PLANN�'f":(3 J- ' Page 1 of 2 E: u EXHIBIT G J'AN - 5 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME. PLANN)NC,Opp-r, ;.57.030 Design review process. 1/4/09 6:24 PM -v— r. Previous Next. Main Search Print No Frames Title 25 ZONING Chal2ter 25.57 D—ESIGN REVIEW 25-57-030 Design review process. (a) Any person seeking approval Of Construction to be reviewed under this chapter shall submit an application for design review to the director of community development in the same form and containing the same signatures as provided in Section 25.16.040 of this title. The schematic design plans submitted with the application shall demonstrate the architectural details of the proposal, and in the case of an addition, of the existing structure and the addition. (b) Upon completion of the application, the schematic design plans and the application shall be referred to the planning commission for study. The study meeting shall be noticed in accordance with the provisions for notice in this title. If at the study meeting, the planning commission determines that formal design review is not required for the application or that only minor changes are needed, the planning commission may order that the application not be subject to subsection (c) below and will proceed directly to hearing under subsection (e). (c) If the commission instead refers the application for further design review, the plans submitted shall be referred by the director of community development on a random basis to the appointee professional described above for review and comment. The appointee's analysis shall be forwarded to the planning commission. (d) No prior mailed notice of the appointee's review is necessary. However, notice of the commission's review of and hearing on each application under this chapter shall be given a provided in Section 25.16.050. (e) A design review application in an R-1 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (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 consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; (4) Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; (5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and (6) In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure is remodeled. (f) A design review application in a C-1 or C-2 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for ,he following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of he street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing levelopment and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among L7 FiECEIVED .//qcode.us/codes/burlingame/view.php?topic-25-25_57-25_57-030&frames-on Pa 1 f2 jAN - b,20008 .-TY OF et-qi INGAME PLANMWI.r,,g:Dr .57.030 Design review process. 1/4/09 6:24 PM primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. (g) The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the planning commission that the applicant's design and project comply with the design criteria set forth in subsections (e) or (f) above, as applicable. The commission may deny, deny without prejudice, approve, or approve with conditions any application under this chapter. (h) Decisions of the planning commission under this chapter shall be subject to appeal to the city council and the effectiveness as provided in Sections 25.16.070 through 25.16.130, except that the determination of the commission shall become final and conclusive in seven (7) days from the date of the commission decision if no appeal is filed with the city clerk. (Ord. 1602 § 2 (part), (1998); Ord. 1620 § 2, (1999); Ord. 1626 § 2, (2000); Ord. 1652 § 6 (part), (2001); Ord. 1806 §§ 24, 25, (2007)) E .E IE !A.N - 5 2008 CITY OF BIURLINGAtuli= PLANNING DEPT. /gcode.us/codes/buriingame/view.ph p7topic=25-25_57-25_57_030&frames=on Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT H C E iv E D JAN - 5 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAW PLANNINC,-DF�-- .....•- --P�u,vai ninces—t-onartions for granting. 1/4/09 6:22 PM Up Previrmis Next Title 25 ZONING Search Print No Frarnes Chapter 25 15.54.020 Power to grant variances—Scope Of a varinCeS--Conditions for granting. ........... mg. Subject to the provisions of this chapter, the planning commission may vary the application of the zoning egulations theretofore or hereafter established and may impose reasonable regulations as conditions to granting 'ariances and exceptions and such requirements shall be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this tle. Performance requirements for permitted uses are not be subject to review or appeal by the planning DMMission. Performance requirements for conditional uses may be subject to review or appeal by the planning Dminission. Variances shall ran with the land and may be for a specific time. Variances may be granted, as herein provided, with reference to, but not limited to, the following: restrictions to time for the use of the property; the type or nature of the buildings; plans therefor; materials for the use iereof; size thereof, including limitations as to height and area; building line restrictions; front, side and rear ird requirements; lot coverage; parking and motor vehicle storage requirements; persons who may use buildings -premises in accordance with any variance or exception which may be granted; and provisions for the time and anner of the return of such building, or other use or condition, to the former condition of such property. The variance may be granted provided that the commission finds, after a full investigation and public hearing, at all the following is true: (a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved it do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property ;ht of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the -inity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing I potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. (1941 Code § 1944, Ord. 539, (1954); Ord. 1037 § 4 art), (1975); Ord. 1078 § 18, (1976); Ord. 1378 § 9, (1988); Ord. 1543 § 4, (1996)) AN - ; SCO CITY OF BURU,,NG".:,G PLANN'il rj-p-, � :ode.us/codes/bu r1i ngarne/view.php7topic=2 5-25 54-25 54 020&frames-on Page 1 of 2 06/30/2008 MON 15;23 FAX 415 394 8767 EDI Architecture Inc. 0001/002 iu'i,�tNc-�Mr. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT•501 PRIMROSE ROAD•BURLINGAME,CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 •www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review ❑ Variance ErParcel#: 0Z"1 to ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: -5 A L7f� fA Please indicate the contact person(or this project APPLICANT project contact person a" PROPERTY OWNER project contact porson❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents 1 OK to send electronic copies of documents 0 Name: G7 L ��t: <� j I TGG`-"'_1 tr" i ('�lG. Name. 12, 1'J t r Address: •7 #t-7,SO Address: moo" 1 ,2E�Qvi tv (�Gz/k`.f7 '121E" - I City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip: Phone* Qf S :��. .. �rr fir, »� Phone: `'f Fax: � -r R _ �4� G�� Fax: w E-mail: r-c-, �� i -� • G�w` E-mail: r L�i ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person 0 OK to send oloctronic copies of documonts 0 Name: _ �'A.�� A-,- Address: City/State/Zip: _ shone... .........................._......................................................................_...................................._............................._.......................--................................................. -... ...._-._.._... i=ax- I 'nno E-mail: * Burlingame Business License PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 5 T 3:;� ULIl � a G , �d AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby c nder p�al of perjury that he information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. -'' ,�' Applicant's signature: r` �'"~ f�� — Date: I am aware of the propped application and hereb authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: 3 Date submitted: /-'• '.�D � c �ri it Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. [] Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S:\HandoutskPG Application 2008-5.handout Z- cP c 1 ��c mel — A. Explain why 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. Most of the existing structures on Adeline has attached garage. The proposed project garage is placed up the hill similar to most of the existing surrounding homes on the same side of the Adeline drive.The proposed project is designed and placed in the middle and upper portion of the lot which is least visible from the street. B. Explain how the variety of roof line,fagade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The neighborhood is a mixed bag of architecture. The varieties of materials, designs, and construction methods have been used. Some structures are built in 40's, 50's and 60's with no marked architectural significance. The proposed project is detailed and follows the modern era of architecture which takes advantage of natural contours and blends in to the hills. All structures around the subject site are located in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County which has very liberal standards. C. How will be the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City (C.S.25.57)? The project as it proposed is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City. D. Explain how the 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. Vizat mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. The removal of heritage trees has been avoided. The trees that are being removed are allowed by the City per Chapter 11.06 Urban reforestation and tree protection. The city arborist has reviewed the plans and the arborist report have been prepared per his request and submitted. A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The applicant purchased one acre of unimproved land between Adeline Drive and Vista Lane about six years ago from the Sisters of Mercy who had annexed the property in the 1960's along with other parcels they owned,wanting to keep all of their holdings within the city limits of Burlingame. This decision created a unique circumstance with a parcel of land under City jurisdiction and the surrounding properties on both side of the subject site remaining in the unincorporated area belonging to the County of San Mateo. The subject parcel was subdivided two years ago. The lower portion of the subject site is served from Adeline Drive. Adeline Drive is in the unincorporated area of San Mateo County. With the exception of the subject property, all other properties adjacent to the subject property are in the unincorporated area and under jurisdiction of the County. This has created a unique situation. This situation becomes an underlying issue as the city considers the applicant's request for variance. Several properties on same side of Adeline have access from the upper streets of the County. Under the County's liberal rules, the property owners are allowed to access their properties from the upper streets and build on the upper portion of their lots. This enables them to take advantage of their views. There are some houses that are accessed from Adeline. Those property owners are able to construct their homes at a higher elevation due to the liberal height limits and methods of measuring heights from finished grades within the County. Similar approaches are not allowed under the City of Burlingame regulations. The City of Burlingame has strict regulations regarding height limits and set backs. The building height policy was adopted to make streets more uniform in an organized urban setting; specifically, in small lots on the flat land areas. This also was to protect the neighborhood's enjoyment of light and air. Under the city rules the maximum height is 30 feet from the average curb elevation. The unique setting of this site does not allow the applicant to comply with this rule without undue hardship. Adeline has a mixed bag of homes with various set backs, access and height allowed by the County. The condition described above is an exceptional, unique and extraordinary circumstance which applies only to this property in the City of Burlingame. B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from denial of the application. There is an undue hardship present because the proposed house exceeds the height limit standard. The lot size is approximately half an acre (much larger than most lots in the City of Burlingame). A variance is necessary in order to minimize tree removals and building a structure close to Adeline drive. Pushing the house up the hill and around the existing trees will avoid the bulk at the street level. With a variance the property will be able to be developed more safely and with minimum impact on the surrounding lots. Additionally, there are due process concerns since neighbors on either side are able to develop their properties in accordance with what is being requested in this variance, whereas the subject property is restrained by a regulation which was not intended to apply to this particular parcel and that was created as part of a unique circumstance. Without a variance, the ability to use and enjoy the property is effectively diminished by the incompatibility of County and City regulations in this unique situation. The scenario described above will create an undue hardship on the development, use, and enjoyment of the subject property if the application for variance is denied. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety general welfare, or convenience. Properties throughout the surrounding area, whether in the unincorporated County or City of Burlingame, consist of single family detached homes. The proposed house is therefore consistent with the neighborhood character and will not be injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Furthermore public health, safety, general welfare and convenience are better served by the approval of this variance than if the requirements of the City were imposed on this particular parcel. The proposed single family home does not have an impact on public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. A How will the proposed project be compatible with aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed project is designed in a way that it's aesthetic, mass, bulk, and character is compatible with those in the general vicinity and will comply with all Burlingame policies, rules and regulations. NPA oA Peninsula Tree Care Inc. Phone (650)-349-9367 Fax (650) 593-9369 , { Lic. 674160 Upon your request to examine two trees at 2843 Adeline in Burlingame, to see about the safety of the trees around the areas of construction to be preformed. Upon arrival these were my findings: Tree number one located about in middle of property is a Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) which stands about 25'in height and has a dbh of approximately 17". This tree has poor structure with an uphill lean. There are many signs of borers through about the first ten feet of the base of tree. This tree is in fair health. The work that is scheduled to be done around this tree according to plans presented is shown to be preformed at approximately 13'from the base of this tree. Tree number two located on the right side of property line is a Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) which stands about 25' in height and has a dbh of ,.��I., ���� rh;r trnn hnc nnnr strtirt►,re with nn unhill lean. Tree is in fair approxIML-T clr - health. The work that is scheduled to be done around this tree according to plans presented is shown to be preformed at approximately 15'from the base of this tree. Tree number three located on the right side of property line is a Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) which stands about 18' in height and has a dbh of approximately nine inches. This tree has poor structure with an uphill lean. Tree is in fair health. The work that is scheduled to be done around this tree according to plans presented is shown to be preformed at approximately 17'from the base of this tree. Tree number four located on the right side of property line is a Coast Live Oak(Quercus agrifolia)which stands about 26'in height and has a dbh of approximately ten inches. This tree has poor structure. Tree is in fair health. The work that is scheduled to be done around this tree according to plans presented is shown to be preformed at approximately 19'from the base of this tree. Tree number five located on the right side of property line is a Coast Live Oak(Quercus agrifolia)which stands about 31'in height and has a dbh of approximately 17". This tree is co dominant by two leaders at about nine feet up, tree has poor structure with an uphill lean.Tree is in fair health. The work that is scheduled to be done around this tree according to plans presented is shown to be preformed at approximately 19'from the base of this tree. 1 did not do any type of trenching nor root excavating to determine if there are any roots big enough to endanger the health of this tree where the construction is to be done. Conclusion: 1 did not find any roots surfacing in the area or surrounding area where the construction is to be preformed. Suggestion: Barrier fencing should be installed around all trees at about seven feet away from base of trees.Fencing should consist of six foot stakes and no less than 4'chain link fencing.No tools or equipment should go inside of this fencing at any time during construction.Any digging done near trees should be done by hand, if any roots encountered an arborist should examine before any root pruning is involved. Arborist should check on fencing throughout construction. r Sincerely, X -,7, 761 1 Certified Arborist WE-7720A Xj ri .1 I�.._ _f 1, .t^I �srt f ..R �r 0� w.tA, a �...•.�tl •1 f..Y�w��.jfi.. Ota ./,x__.. y a�'t-,��.'.. '! v �`•yie�F -�' .l•}Y " ii I,` +r.. �•� �" �., .►. Fr(k L da••�' (} /�,►',;si,-� ,�'r.C•/rt.:e�•;.^` .r y•\r �:-`v c\I'Lr. �` :!'.S` offr'tt ��• �'. A,,) t .y� .<': V..•� +t., `ys •y ,J'. .'h.' .• i '�"+.f.�.- � 7k .:.r. /;•jr a\ 3, .A ?.`�. 7 e'l 1 .(, t., ,: i N ,�.:/.. D 1.>•!. Mf 9 .: �'.t. .Z� + ^c- -�� � - F -ib, r •� =_I�] .�+L�q f.w�kC';'Y�, ��%z�A/ya(•� •t-.7~�.�� ......',d ��.t .�-., L +!/ o t+• :,•'^ _- � .�: i k IS•-' la a..�C;Tir,l / r�J'"",•v ;a��w,5'C3 'a:cs �'' ,:�, � .�-��,($���y „6��,,'� ,x�'•�� ..\ �' '.•:�'t°� 2S� +r�?�i,: _ '�f�{37� �.,�; �..�i..C'-'C•,•�y��„�'���f l�'s'�• t- ''�.;�'`' p t f 7a•'w'r¢,y .r .i/r•' N••; ^7. ••"��- w'".Y.` x•: F.,_x,31•r,t,M 1., r,�`p•T" 1•:�,', 1. t ,1S.lv,'1 Y4J5 �},1. xY rt>�,•w`� .�t.� '`�`_ ref"7 t� "moi' w �n`1 .N A. i �.�'-I t-6�,4 5 -`,.,,. { I' a K••s�`f`h{�"1•r,'4a d, t `�'!}riy l�!1tr�',`,*� _t• � ,ll�- i �� ��/� .�,N.',w,y � `_t; / r,'.. '�t� ,.. ) '/. ¢tit E"#r.F.n•• ,,'...5.. �.+ � r •yK N. ' _ ,•r,: .F4F)"?'y� R. `,sj •;9'� �}w�` a 7•`J?'�i il' �\ ,t`�1 'y -1 ,Y, fir. �-yt..°ti i' /h ��./��' i'E p'L•�✓ re ..� h1a i - ,� ��I k R: r. et^ial �Sj.�}y' r°rri . r.•It 9�p�17.i'+' ^„fit '�Rt���r��q �4'�ti�F?((��;'��at"`j �.x�r�.�-` ti",/: •• •�}, .� v ;, !.�.. ;a x� �l , i•� es •r lrt.;i'. ;�'Yy'�� �T�c;•('ox�y 6i •i y? yi �'l�''`'"z''dr�� '� r .: ti '�:f; t _ - ''Icrdl;`p�+►Y�V � ",t�' �S 1�'� ��ri,:�� 'r'�rn �����, �"•1.,� ��� _�� rrf r�Q `, ''t ti �' +/'"57a/�1��'7 } � ��1 �'-', �`�` r 9 �'� -�• {•Ft i t ,$ sut'�+. .. y, , i Sa•aa t d t�+"' : tx >: e4 ' sly .� � I .a F �i '0� N � �,•��` �r�`:.�,`t ti yr �� Oro,*fpe. .t S`��� .tom.};of„� '.f :�'�.�• .•a. •{.- .� 't•.5, : , fit, � �!�`,:. ��. +i!:• 'r`�.'.:`. ..- tt_ rf 3� �jd • +.' � rI'-- ryf t c. _ �1 ,_ s .1 + � }. •yt! ,,/ t. j. ti.. i,t �, t{ 6 •'sr°i V .., 1 j ..�'+• W yt ;,.� r yy�}'� yi'. (� .�'��'}�'�S 'x�s� ]J �j' �'/F •.I `�. •:�',t• ' ,t,. Er t F �j� /t.3:. �•.� +',����, +7/ 7"!i •'•. 1 � � ts`�iio 51��`` �a,:l � i -.� � � r Y. �.t }�_ J �:�1� ' ``�'�¢�:'°x � t'dr 4.+ ,r .;-tri�',�,t;+! �' ./ ��' ,�+,I+i ,s"5,,• 7 ;t, �'F, '!. t�•1(, i .:t .j'�4z d F>rhtW"§ i� � i7 y i�^' ��a) t }- ,d ,,� a �y 'y' �.: ,r•:: e I�� / � �r �" t- ���i'�t + � •.r. ,V�•1: .t- `.' _ ''t halt- '_I•• t � a'•' � 4 1t :;a�,'24A.';��.h=f`if'J�e}`T�4_ s� ti•,;t 1R1..a :, � .S! •��J - _�'Flt�.t," �r� � � ruY.+�. '�' / ;iy } �-x��. 4 '� ,,;.,. a,��� / l^.s• r'.r,..'$�'� :-C; J;n .+'/+.y`''•,';�r;'+i to :�s,ar.�� a�'�•. F `Sri�o,�i.a Y.. �r ,,�1:.+G, b4. .,t. ':il �°`'r .�Z 1. ��f:•i.^�% •Y''f Vx I( n s ,¢�;.d!+t=.• a..��Ite..�•� �"' '.,R Sr!•� .''T4 .i I '�'r. c• :"•K�'• y, w .'¢+ �:� +1+aar�pt - ... y,�' - ,� �.� . i.��yy !�•'`•� PC���d:°'Y-�'�'•i :�. ,.,sSr 45l>^:�.`fr.l�a,,l 'ry, 'FJ y�.61' �,7Sr�^,may�ey' , _'moi�R" .�, ''2�'r' is.. ;,I t A .t�•...."..•;`I�*, tp��.a 'N ! 1 C'r� J •�p E.. �. • J.1 +:1,. eis :r :v .� I . .W4!1 '.l' - 'a' -�. ^,x kWt 4h v.}y +..'" Vf. 0 Y•t .r. �� r.7ai'���.�;,r�l ` �c�, f;".v,.+,;CMa'Q�r'Y�"' 1 `br;ftL��t vW 0dII � � � •��/x r , t��s� �. ,�� d M1 \K•. 'y w: ,� `� "1'i•„�, :'3r'�` i ro �t>f� wr. y. 'aa f7F;�It'' �T :i�c-A'1� .�" / 1 csd t jsa"�' ,(,`. •ri. -.� ',�� t�t��q'� • �. i? j , 6 t �:.nfS7 !',t. •t',. �/� ,n,•;,eke:,j;5� �v: � ./.1 ea a .� �[.,!" .'th-S., � ,# •�• •.�. � S r r9'�.p a; � ^r,Y••.r. ,;a b'J';. r Y:,ff •�S:a,. .:+� _�( ,x Jt� �.. $ :Jf ,�•t•�},i t` f;[�j'jfY,, •+rs .N.!I t �(' r l��p� .�• ;�° .iti' �'-';f.•, .� �, 1 -yj:,_.,7I11. ,. -s.•f'•.' a- wra�„a^' f b !'r•�s v!:i.. .4 ..•IK 'Ry[' "s!'i 5-� i + .:t. Y y,7•n•i + .• � I�'� I �� � M .+'1t► �.!� w � �f t e 'Aa { •, f r. f 5't�+ft.- a„5��� y../Y �-i / y.Y� v �. ,; ,o �,{�� n_ ���}� / 3 tk?�x/��, •�.4-�,i•�' %:P, a !-liYly '�y �k.t' r�'�'{i �* ..f ��* a�.�� � ° fit (• e. �i ur "i w� ! J trif �na 3 1 � <i� Mf t tI �� f � a - x•:. " 7J'�i ':�v �"n.. s, '` t - 'R+ t -;' F♦ t' D' S _� `.t"Ya' �r 12`i t , "_ ` �`.. �i I�•a4Y 2 Y,y It/'-' L'a��! 1�t� ♦� �+ :+.Y�k ril�, �'.',•, �ii{�'a.F U! 1 ' S!v .` f,�F� y. f ' _ L� 1 i , �f. 4{���: . f•� SI.' �t(Il t .r•, .•♦ ,-f. ." t�, r i+N � 1�W,''t�n r7f i°f 7 a�lJ�.�`( � rI l •eY�*: 4 s- * 1�rtk "9T�r rtE'+ ..t�. �, i�` i'c:M1, s= �• }rr/ •'n a;•.sxS t xix +� -1� ,r. *Peninsula Tree Care, Inc License 674160 Covering All Phases of Tree Care December 7, 2007 Site: 2843 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Upon request to examine one Coast Live Oak tree.at the address noted above, the following are my findings: This tree stands approximately 25-30' in height with a DBH of approximately 27". Tree has a lot of old wounds that seem to have been caused by old spur marks. Tree is in fair health. Which in future will cause further decline in health. Recommend protective barrier fencing be installed around tree during construction, consisting of six foot posts with a four foot high cyclone fencing, as close to drip line as possible. Signs should also be posted on fence. If any work to be done inside drip line. Recommend an Arborist be on site in case any roots are encountered and can be assessed at that time. If roots are encountered, roots should be cleanly cut and not torn out by equipment. Sincerely,, William C. Kieinheinz, Jr Certified Arborist WE-7388A wNbm C.Ki ominz,Jr. WEM88A �� r � �i ': .tit .•� >. �� t' r ,J� '�,ae� r 'YAra . 'k�0 `.f't •� ..'^ R !►- t , J v''c y ��. �'�� ��'y,, k 4. .:,�° `� •b t+J �'J y ` ' �L,Y! r,�f 1.-.. <� i cif. R Y ��' }yam L /��Y ` 1 '?� f •L iP >' - _ 'K.i �.��'' 4 r J y.tik S'F •�, ''7 '�- J`tl� > IAt JR,nY .r r R �;•7 ,. L f r� .. �y, ' : Y � ">I, tai 9t y. ,A�s•� + All Pr r - � ..-. i. ►�t d'�i''� fir s'S'_'�eavY� �4 it r Y�"t" y�` .� qq_` •Y. b'. r 1 N i qt / S.I. 'vr'P�i.$F r' • � \�„ �� r low VZI .. t ti� •r, r I 4t r- �# e t ��1,i X23)�i�: •'��..�► � '�! r _ V i - CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 24,2008 12. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 24,2008,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Alex Mortazavi,851 Burlway Avenue;represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Provide a more complete history of the property,particularly during the time that the property division was being considered,when returned for action. Recalled that there was a discussion of retaining the Oak tree canopy on the property;would be important to build the home behind the trees;though you would need to weave through the Oak trees. Typical of a house this size to have a winding driveway. • Would like front entry to be emphasized more;the driveway is the predominant feature;provide a more architectural treatment for the entry. • Two rows of Camphor trees on the landscape plan are too large;need something smaller scale;the Palm trees are unusual in Burlingame;not sure how they would do on the property if the soil is too wet. Perhaps eliminate the Palm trees. Choice of vegetation is not appropriate for the area;need larger scale trees as well. • Could be more amenable to considering a height Variance, rather than placing home at the proposed location. There is a pretty clear natural hardship for the Variance;shouldn't let the height limit drive the decision. Public comments: • Art Labrie,2839 Adeline Drive;Mike and Donna Gaul,2838 Adeline Drive;and Ginny Wright,2811 Adeline Drive;the neighbor to the left feels the location of the home is perfect. Placing it further up the hill would impact his light. Agreed with many of the Commission comments;there is ambiguity on the height of the structure. Would rather see the home pushed further back,and request a height Variance. This is a situation for a Variance. Is really close to the street. Agrees with story poles for the front facade only. If you're doing a spec home,take a close look at the other homes in the area. Palm trees are not appropriate in the area. Would like to see a flag lot and build one home on the Vista Drive lot. Shocked by the size of the home. Surprised that it is under consideration. Some neighbors did not receive notices. She did not have time to prepare,did not receive a notice. Planner Hurin noted that broader noticing would be provided for subsequent public hearings. Additional Applicant comments: • John Ward,792 W illborough Road;noted that the proposed home falls far below the maximum FAR for the lot.The applicant is not trying to maximize development of the site. They are attempting to balance the environment while still allowing the development of the site. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 Additional Commission comments: • Left and right setbacks are pretty close to the edge of the lot; causing the home to appear sprawling. • Design review would be appropriate for the project; perhaps the right design reviewer could assist with determining if another entry to the lot could work; and help make the design a little less bulky. • The design doesn't take advantage of the natural contours of the lot. There are other styles of home that can meander around the site; that could be a more appropriate approach for a site of this type. • Rendering may not accurately represent how the home will look from Adeline Drive; could benefit from having story poles erected for front elevation to show visual impact upon Adeline Drive. Chair Cauchi made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at 9:44 p.m. X. OMMISSIONERS' RE RTS The were no Commission 's Reports. XI. DIREC R'S REPORT Commissio Communications: • April 3, 2 8 Joint City Council tanning Commissio eeting has been celled. Reminder o e April 5, 2008 Joi ity Council/Plannin ommission work pr ram meeting for the upcoming fis year. The meeting ill be held from 9 a. to Noon in the Lane mmunity Room. • Community De opment Director Me erthanked outgoin ommissioner Ostedi or his years of service to the Pla ing Commission a the community. • t Giorni, 1445 Ba a Avenue; presen Commissioner Gi i with a departing gift. Actions fro Regular City Co cis meeting of Ma \2008: • None FYI: 1535 Los Mo es Drive: Pulled for discussi Ad ' ional comments: • ff was requested to pre re a Commission ' report regarding a Downtown Spe ' is Plan, pa larly for those Comm, ioners that have n et been involve the process. • Staff requested follow-up m staff regarding desk item recei d this evening reg ding Con struc hours. • It was note at two (2) Commission s will have potenti conflicts regards the Mercy High School matte gendized for April 14` . • Commissioners ere reminded to file th ' Fair Political Prac ices Committee ' closures by April 1 5, 18 Project Comments Date: July 1, 2008 To: Y City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Variance for height for a new two-and-half story single family dwelling with attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 093-310 Staff Review: July 7, 2008 1. See attached. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. 3. Driveway approach appears to extend beyond property line projection to the street. The entire driveway must stay within the property line projection to the street. Reviewed by: V V Date: 7/22/2008 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS ' B Project Name: S'-( ilm4y 0"+m( - Project Address: The following requirements apply to the project 1 A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the / building permit issuance.) 2 " The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 Aanitary sewer lateral AM is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. ( ) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Pagel of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions / in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 / No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 v The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject / to City Engineer's approval. 22y The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMR4ENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMNIENTS.doc Project Comments Date: July 1, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Variance for height for a new two-and-half story single family dwelling with attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 093-310 Staff Review: July 7, 2008 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2007 California Building Codes (CBC). 2) Prior to applying for a Building Permit the applicant must obtain a change of address from the Engineering Department. The County records show this parcel address as 12 Vista Lane. The correct address must be referenced on all pages of the plans. 3) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 4) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 5) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 6) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 7) Comply with the 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential/non- residential buildings. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 8) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 9) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 10) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 11) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 12) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet. Sec. 2113.9 13) NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 1, 2, and 8 must be re-submi ed before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed by `� Date: Project Comments Date: July 1, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 R-C-ity Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Variance for height for a new two-and-half story single family dwelling with attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-310 Staff Review: July 7, 2008 Reviewed by: Date: 7/-7 o�aY------ c Project Comments Date: July 1, 2008 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official d Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Variance for height for a new two-and-half story single family dwelling with attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027- 093-310 Staff Review: July 7, 2008 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly— Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall ho nnrycrl by the FiranPnnrtmant prinr fin inctniintinnnn . The furthest point of the structure shall not exceed 150 feet distance from approved fire apparatus access. Provide fire apparatus access 20 feet wide to the structure consistent with §503, IFC 2006. Driveway maximum slope shall not exceed 16% and the angles of approach shall not exceed 5%. Turning maximum turning radius shall comply with Central County Fire Department's standards. Engineer shall ensure at least fire hydrants can provide at least 1 ,500 gpm fire flow for 2 hours and a fire hydrant shall be accessible within 400 feet of the furthest point of the structure along fire apparatus access. Reviewed by: / Date: Project Comments Date: July 1,2008 To: City Engineer Recycling Specialist (650)558-7230 (650)558-727 Chief Building Official Fire Marshal (650)558-7260 (650)558-7600 City Arborist ✓ NPDES Coordinator (650)558-7254 (650)342-3727 City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for attached garage, and Variance for height for a new two-and-half story single family dwelling with attached garage at 2843 Adeline Drive,zoned R-1,APN: 027- 093-310 Staff Review: July 7,2008 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size,shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices(BMPs)during construction. Include a list of BMPs and erosion and sediment control measure plan as project notes when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochures for guidance. For additional assistance,contact Eva J.at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: .FT Date: 07/07/2008 Remember: The property owner and the contractor share ultimate responsibility for the activities that occur on a construction site. Yqu will be held responsible for any environmental damages and associated clean-up costs. San Mateo oun"de Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program aK T Nfy San Mato Co n attr pD od,8111 Budf ma),,,idc Sw 'Prt>E1am Partici tAdlMlon.8eln hots D[muS Cohn DJTGIy,Ga,t Palo Alb,PtNler Cily,HdfMuon Bay,HiH,hopoogh,Menb Ptlrti.Millbrae,PotifieM1 Porlola MHley„ � Poglltion Prevention Pmgnrn Redwood GIS San arvno,Sen Cehl Sm Makk south Sm prwwi[c%wIu,&ide,Coolly of San MNca Pollution Prevention It's Part of the- Plan B ol . .. . to It is your res onsibili to do theJob right! Runoff from streets and otherpaved areas is a•naajor source of pollutionin local creeks,San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Questibns? Construction activities can directly affect the health of our waters unless contractors and crews plan ahead to keep dirt,debris,and other Call the Office of construction waste away fi-om storm drains and creeks.Following these guidelines will ensure your compliance with local stormwater Environmental Compliance Generalordinance requirements.Remember;t ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed controls is csueial to proper implementation. .(650)342-3727 Construction Heavy Earth-Moving Roadwork & Paving Fresh Concrete Painting&Application Landscaping, & Site Supervision Equipment ActMes & Mortar Application of Solvents & Adhesives Gardening, lA.na P4npK,.a.errn PM.rkn Operation vad. POand Pool Maintenance Sd_' . ca. .W LrWl•,. 1 M.w dry ,l Dana p•riuk To &..1.6,,J. 1.yrgr.lbx orP"otiou prm mnvob W.10 p r.lnbg6l.. ,� rtvh and P.rr Y.ra dial,4 dor MraJry d dr �' GrM 1h. rhawlbowl.f IBarbawrtral,ob4 ' 41 rhe.eoor.xJr mrb,)•.w nine Y (•P•l•Ry dab,.errbo)hyv,Ioab.lm adn,ro- 0 rryapavxnmldnb.F dhdte rbmn era na._ - • ✓Dacbp mul byd.,tm.arbnbdkmd.tool ploy ra .rovM balm Rdae.wmr.r-- '.r.Ney . .,, roWvy o,td•r,ir,oa.. � '� ���� .ft..d ,`•T"">da dm..bum won ✓Sdxaok.or.b.mod anm,wrh for dry waJor_ Duu Ios c r.m.rin. ✓Ll,ckrl yrlm,nl sur WA.W raPtr 6N.,gsipn..l rllr r kr►..i m �.. �. 'Trail y.0 eegl.r. A mbe.trod.r.)AA. ✓RwwaedWKt.,e•dw mlyrhm obohmlyvera- M^rY,dl. Con.../l.WmiYsdow' ✓Key aA 9"14 point prWudr oW w.tir w.T rota nla hind-aa.+.Na4rrrc.y.•.wb...or#,Drib eery. J trtxm xupr lmbbxmq rcphr od w\bt,rpxl MPua.NrQ4.W ices a..W,l1gnN..�ld.n fmn .am no,'" he I.I.nbcaaaml.mato no ok. .rat...y'- -V e..n,..M r1c J Bob a ywyr.l W b.r vaa4o JtS Jim not. rJa4tNmrarukma Llu^�.nd doll,brdr re ✓P"act..clgtdm W b,dr.,in,n mansk tram trhd W boo d, wr wrr�naa m:'c•P,a_ .r h.mrann.116 ad.b dlq•ava of..luynlna rain b>,nrin[Ih:n War lupi or aevd a ,I:md arraw.rn Omar W►b sla 1 W bide of lora.•rr J Wkmrt d aMkb try(mini tea• ��' ✓ouau�: �^`"d"`r ✓ 1ummotMb^wnrjvrNn.6to.dloody al^n •xr Iouil ""'rbc nunBW mns[Pmraar>n:l.li.k rmm.dad. .nom a � ^` Ord F.x.dap/K Pnrdrs lam cow Wftou 0wy ... Aacv..eac- ,tam.whva.rola to.n. .. dy Mond. A. sonut nlptrt a-Ir.lid>marh,a r...,..y Necdon kh yarltral tlanwY. ,Ito sYM1 n.R awry nus rtmnrmmdrok lMm, 6m.nm BermWadi p•,ra)• J 5lpn potkuo,Yenl nctrad abr eb,nol,bdmnv 'DeNuraoner.rf th d IA.. 4r•N. faw.W aq,kvwla,.dky,rawYvy,oW maim JSmnbgramrol Jlcbq.,.yw B. bra„ - i.mrdor nvnp obits prldpyd4k rd rd rwlde JProhat auwu't°P•dn4.,.ato.q nn.a4Wavn c>Dexodl...l Nlu kmrlorrrbr,y.pa,ata wbd.Wawra.[ '. tld,, gobntcr p.vda.w.y fnr[arra ran P•p.nr dd.wq orb..exroutnl,aNN..a ieeldbwdlawry y3lded gdPnermima.nn riz m Wmktry Wn,,rgrrrAnhuPr.bti JN JR`LL dr.iar.oN6Rndtrolt ✓Moto de.a bmrYuM doe pods toNncur.Bina ✓Seheduk pu]b/Weaorubn p.aiao ra dry name.. rlan.mexarn:,oi.kbis„Whax,d Ysm.- b.m,4a.rmrn dr.iaiM nNm apda uxv d(krwin,ee,ver,bnd.n nlarK.te mal, note,u.rn droh.,r,bon. r•,T N.F.on/ar ry,rn on'Jrc ✓MobadJw\icb rldhmvyyop.11ntlapat fit- .rb...rrpe..bin Bondy Ib.d rq•.Y la4 J Tni b 4 bas I FM.d,ra eo,.+u.oAa.°ntr b de,l,onkd w.mo.t.a.a ✓the lo.pwvy Book A,ru nr mil:..r ai.m nnrn'an trs.wl ra..R byruyrd,wbrrlb wr.rl/nae b modm,m J Fa wow4so d P Wn, awn out h to I4 rnmt from..na dnin. 'Rcp rla4b.r.f l6r era- ✓Un chd du,xrmrrhrwd.enrrtrunmE neer mt .v^wx pr.:don '] or.ad.N.n oi14 ow1e! C.rr dsx.W ana,d rot by a. pnbk.Rime b as money rma wa yo.h.w .od apa•d pone.( J P.bm+olio wdrmnrce,nnNr/^h W Mk4 ad D.dxt C.ma.di. lnnh row dim Id<o.aaw Fon rd d �i aBacw.a.cin,r.kbvlbpWdc.Wboa .glp.,.r.vFlr„•[Yew. JA,.it P,hgc NTercrvpm llM1 recycle.w.ban h,pwq•b, ponN.b.tiont lb toolt.nw.w aea•.u.udrriry. ✓Pmno.W..drNn bid.rib hry W. beat tihouw. Ie,r,Pmy rvoA ✓ Co. d,11.anti aeomad.dl oilh..ne.d r.,o oo Pt'k,t W.d r-dr,4wr.w..a•.r.r.A.r r.b M.ut mOur rota He cbpnr.r.".,ho 1. N..vpw Pladaww.m num..h,41 616 bol auk toil Loc tier or. rr•n`r."n pN4heb M r.P.,d..bra Pl.r[ooh one Pbude reek., P'a1er the rrtd•d•rr dnlrq drJu,e dkYq er rlreawr. -. .-rd Jlfyw nr& ..x.%.dnnb N(Wi.kok.toh ✓Coni oW Yr mice MNr ud nublp w11r1 'tat,pow mt bwloa to mr nma Re, ot.".b..r.rd k.l l.r n.r c Ao...,lel f. W'_/_'Ir{rvTer6.YaaW lion a►rb aNkl•uI 4 p[krr hldl Y axS oa by pN a d oA•hkl N� drop ek,dtr. ' ✓ rmp.ty wak..od v.btr.JamJw ad.dhnat ar aa.Nmy••S M..r... J>r.rend px.. ✓ ¢ old,drhnoW rr•ia.bamrlyet naM.amab cevv.l. Jona rale d...,a.me..rl.rwromann.aYvonW Dorpq,PosmAm nto,, clew winbbnouloWcn Diu. rmr.iar. Dry Nhe 'Dry rwcq P.d,a4w,,rr Ouse..,..ar.M4 ✓D.IY.,bynm awl m.on.w u.rcatM yw will Yibr udrn.a mbnm Waol..er,Dlyn.r.tem. Iq,WN eambrlf.and wcrrk.bel.rrQ PrblM1a .awdertn erne,achmrk loPvk* .vo,hdi.oto tw h,o h} RgoWrWmYlo[nkvdmr mnn 1w,cy4r�[' Jc.M✓,.rr..no omab p.b a.aa tna,.ignn.oy ym.rl.W Baan.rf• ., -1maNm...ote J r+p.ly.y-nr.'b... "umny. .d4,.,n on..nb ✓No.. ."MorI tvvuh "out, .u:poweottmLre m.- _ __ awmpoR®[, b ma bol.mrmr.nr mlkpri V aur a rear u,rran i..o vat r ran hra CN_ ✓Sa y W y...rmJl m6..w nyx.r hour pe,M: fJrr ra....l J W ton,W i-d.,r. fnr n�.oi,- 'Oe.. Rio- op ink;dtrp.W Jha J D.wNo.e did W b hMior rrb..gvipmra sr = led ad nry[k,w aigar.dn.w ` pr yah tela "'o o p. J Caro d9'cbdn ✓-dl dyn.W dal rnm o.rh•ooran.dry of dpP4, orJrcn b tb roti. t�4e.mnrei.rW r,rx.rdw.a a6n .r.dPdtW olMmmmraw v.ladk.rhh ova aW Yan 4 W..w prrxd.ab:Um do churn,•.6.6 4..nd a.•iu.Ih.ak. Matk,.rt Pwc,nom rNrJrlod rynr••lttrf>witl J Kohn,deal gop ollsdth . u,ridcw.b me.racti - K^`•> (eu oo�pn up a nlbced Iv M..te ✓RrcYdr.nep ailck b.a,ia t.q,sn'ry r.r(r ldnac,ha.W bra M1 dR ober na men..d o(o trul J Diywa of W uW pedcide.Ivndo.a.nc tAn.w pawl. Ilya wl m.who,aja J SdoMle®ndm W F'di•,wart for ary toner wa , \xmH niton.w dv d.,..eK 4^•r'ul v ion. " wt r. h a kw,"o,dot a•.n ✓Crdt&to 6.Pia trkk drip p.arboorbout...db,. aB.drill e 9' pJn p.M., od.eWdjnrad dm[ GmlmWdMK,pmi, ott and'CurW andlW dtoplrr�p !ftqdy(a .quynrgrnou` dun 11 .a (elet .,; mo,.d .ah [Inue ea•n o".per.rpotub o .brd,I-I Iim,nhtt tip aaeanry.nod ay [ one Iain rba drynrn.du y.b.w,.r tom orP Cl • ow Pa. A,eoyan JMon opa,pikand (trtdl ✓Picea. wnd bon dries.Iirad.catnlmioo N.mol be m. a pbak.I do,am.d.aeW We.Wdo orbs ✓Naoko.dons'dlnp-Pamav[a hrgrn . JtN,.,rkolq.rnlcwrablde/.pyvsiarboo,a,a l.m +,abq oorni.lhy�a di,up Wrnoare oa.mL nam dWn./4a Kpr .tooth pm.6n �1O1Oaofub.adom wuet A.q.tn.npiordctrrbnmam.dcdrp,..wi aabm wdn daAkuuo*Wod U,adrrdevrpo� be dommdte work tohuumepkhdyhcaJ.ra..oy ardoox .esW l..dot JIV\mn' Jon wlpkeeyud ac;•p,n.>Io.onua,.4.vid. -DtloMorhnilrnri.Ir,e+iNa.order rotr)wkurcw J('dknd 'pr' ryrpbt ore4nly bruin;ulni.n wN•hid- r.,brar yud van.raycliu[.lr+rc dept^v ud pon,nt 1"ot11 ll, oMna odlott dxnprlcr by - tla,n run drJ.. reyck.yl.yriWydl,,w Korn P.m.. ..bbd M.m:m,Mm t,a.w..mot .nee rnr k b Nb amembrn urn ut: bole N -dodo. Ifyw nvndw.b,.e}m a...,\lakey imlve pnrelaad M.loop W.rsia.mu.,t.rode da.000p.b .e,od.pod.i..m/:Doe rhh dr bolwut.w.r 1..1"611 th., n,00. T 4 awn w 14 c.ah.db..aM1 er a..d.wr JD•.wac mmol Ni n hdv4r.re4a grrype•t. J/,wW a.yplaiu.o by tom e,-[,I.hr meed (,rap or aie Y•,a torn. 'hb4..o Pr.INe take m<mdrd.dd[u•d Pru np..e,ar,sfforry;K svrrrw.mtbbn k,..cb.a uoenca.rbdry.rad wt Yym v.mnm a 000WW"r Orb r.o,av)hnddht,d K"a,nil 1.14 rN J0.out M.w.r r.hc 4.+ Kto.lhr•I-L b d•ta„e'rryerdaW.eau w:ra r..r tbrrwdDit JS.mp9,WilW dry nrridr hnbtrmvely.Neer._ lYn' P•✓W d.ar Ar A+pIrJoL.nmarRwnJ dryer tn'> r,,. k.ki n.a.rPnpny,Churl W4a.Ynq.ally fnr twgn.'tiath dim ow,q-vie unto,u,bay ban r..rdxaL •-rko,. J pweW®riot,.dao ohn bmkin,y,h.ha^alt- r^"�t•,mM1„v/mc woanry4lcgtdmd b.obt mr Ian ua u[Iudt r a post"lea dot awed. .erc Jtvhm hmHK TP•NK,4.aa arMd T.9 the peon m+rno.ruemr,mtwdodryb m.kb,d dahbn rwl/F.prJMP.WJrrmnee lrrrlJrdwur a redl.t limy dear medhl.xr.eduality et fa o.rarinrlu. ud diger prq.Ay. Jl+.w mx cfiiri,ntd 1 W aatsGmr Rgen.i lira footed 11mrL J Anuh.ale,y.N Prost b rue.n.on on este you a opo w..r a ncet o 'To-.re...rte rd.n4. .1,dur la w..ovho J C4.n dusk.W d.yrWmr 6p- putµ, rim,Benin y yn.on mot orae ry meLIK 9 W P,a.dr Pk'a foo me rho. 1..t"*.),niK DNu nN14 intoe yw rd d'epml.adron.mlaad roll JMad rut:bid.. Iden•a mn.4 cor.awh\ JRa]ek kr,ecl..i.(brvkn mnoeru.bd111L ✓Reeyela adbpu:afro.w.lai.elpWln• n144\4.}b • U.rd maoWhb,n,,mndonu.r4.W. p"v"`o hoabN,none.walemnmia.!lirr..raae q,. JlYben nry,ryln[.pur a.nl Mrtlwirc di.ah.rc liuJn RrPtY1e arr4b tn,ron.er marl analf. rD.e uoMm Ansa,[ Jnlat Ja+dn-e yllbrMyy.m h,r N • wh..aw,.a u.a..p...a r... JD'.rwa. 1ot1to.wn,n.(nano drY wnaa.vaut {Vhm rby..e dodo,amy,oor psi., nMtd ]4ya.Thc.nayc4 aelcby dninlntt[roatJty.ntn, M P4k-1 n0'k-N.v.bb Dei•a o•nor, ro •^ ny^c "wdb J M1;m rerby Vm dnY Nm Ani,vw�ar.ybn.ri y error b tb IrWa bm o„d •ped•I.er8n,1,Ya.r r.q.had by 3,[..yet . Burial and ml,...fro,•,tl•e 64 R', dry dill•ry 4 di�,a,d a'.pa- Iw,d.cyvd aro a m.i.du dcdbriard..urn n.raw hazed,,d,bd,,sou\ r J"•Y rq••i bpbotrinry brdul dein .Tb.raw.yu..l rl.s Apw,.n.d..,.d.y. .uNa.ato•.nVw... - .wrriK Me4mK JNaa h.ywW ae.•dmw..:nt..:l eriNl,PTa.md[,ud rrkNellrl..nte n.daiah oA TatglalalpD�mgih WLaw(IIL a,eFCp: 1)Did IWter\aa d+.n araa.eir+p lnd<d dht l)ce dry .1R.nc kfi-. .rd pall.Diy,n.a erre.Ih,e10. 1CMbdut d true m.y 4,•&,reamed to thr..4i w n i.a.u.riw..w.4 pa.pr+ry. Yv("�r1 Odlu a Swim\VrN -•w•-aJ• i W Nlnyewrhayorr.crirp rtdtmau eon4 �� K be.ia>..0 hr.dou,torte rrtrtr(Y.Uoto,d by the btai>rmar trrabn[pl alNpfily)E meyekd Crxq(Rdh)LT3-7}7a(1ahw.) reninp�clO�^•n''• xhpu audliyrF, .•r.v korp Wcbrhrtr htrO[I-OMOC�M ,Y*I*kit JSou. on yky,-ra.dw.W nl,ak wid•U. 'Wo.Mu. r4no h.Jw. huh W cw. t„r1 CnwyEnimnummlHo"D;VWunrs in, ,.d q a.l a l,.e.,awa wr di.{wr, J D...l one c J.r,ca.l Idu Dead.l 11,.'MuvbkW 4hrb rh.r on.aM Td•,a w.vt ' W [•.AM,a Pal d,_i 1. h-uo&uunont. ,itc l.nwR 0,outoedafo ' ✓umpoud en..(min,try4.bk to br m..d.mr r4.C.ppe b b..(ul t••qulk likoarn..a4 k..rwr w.te Mr.n h.ly tonin nNerdk elan Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day. polnlveWnr.,O k oxh ds endo,rK.db,ion Tor>. cr.,Wdy reonred hylhe, u,,In.00.l pent. bol-pdky. WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION? "```'rix'`' Nature slowly wears away land, but human activiti --�„�u�:�. Y Y es such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,p 00 times a that a mount. When we remove vegetation or other .:::,any�.;b'.;=r;r.r:g.rrr:,::;: ' 'z.'�;:::q."�='�.`"�; & '."n;;`2=�.1,'�•�.:cc.ii:'s-FT-s`.`.'ss: objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water / and increase its chances of eroding. The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re- wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. servoirs. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had a year. to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of$750,000. NEED MORE INFORMATION? ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion addresses problems and solutions as they apply to called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries 841-9730. and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. ABAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur- . face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to with designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- provide more information on specific erosion problems. ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. ASSOCIATION EAST BAY REGIONAL cove NMEN+s PARK DISTRICT },kleF9lars�snt givd. B Oal�lemd�C-946#9 ���9 �—t� .�ick ,� o-1L PROTECTING z' YOUR PROPERTY { 11y. •5'yY {tt til t. FROM EROSION EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT FUTURE HEADACHES f` Vegetation-stabilized Bare Slope: Headaches rfi �r) J t Slope:Security and Liability f'�• (� • soil in place • mudslide danger '�� • minimum of loss of topsoil erosion • clogged storm • fewer winter clean- drains, flooding •;�•• X; u problems P P problems r' • protection for • expensive house foun- cleanup f r•' �y dations • eroded or buried house ��•' Iryfoundations Il�l//(/�) �'iI%r`�?r44�y,ry I h� `• ti.•? :i• r�"<< COP TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNER "Winterize" your property by mid-September. Don't Seeding of bare slopes wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need • Hand broadcast or use a "breast seeder." A typical winter protection. Final landscaping can be done yard can be done in Iess than an hour. later. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, Inexpensive measures installed by fall will give you bark chips or straw. protection quickly that will last all during the wet • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. season. • Check with your local nursery for advice. �^Yk. In one afternoon you can: Winter alert • Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water awn ' Check before storms to see that drains and ditches Y are not clogged by leaves and rubble, from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will necessary. hold seeds. Spot seed any bare areas. WHAT YOU CAN DO TO on all areas that are not to be paved or Otherwise covered. CONTROL EROSION AND PROTECT' , YOUR PROPERTY / v- Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol- lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains, channels,lakes and the Bay. Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- You can protect your prop ing access roads and driveways. erty and prevent future headaches by following these guidelines: TEMPORARY MEASURES TO �iE�fi`s--• STABILIZE THE SOIL BEFORE AND Grass provides the DURING cheapest and most ef- fective short-term ero- CONSTRUCTION Sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To • Plan construction activities duringspring and summer, I \ find the best seed mix- tures and plants for so that erosion control measures can be in place when ` ( � your area, check with the rain comes. your local nursery, the U.S. Department of A - • Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of .._:;_;__ _ '? . ,: nculture Soil Conserva- the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site ::::=w tion Service, or the design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work. University of California • Preserve existing vegeta- Cooperative Extension. tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant =.. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide round protection removal to the areas ���==uy�t„��:� p g F under current construc from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi- .� °= tion. (Vegetation will ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain naturally curb erosion, mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips improve the appearance and straw and the value of your property, and reduce the Straw mulch is nearly 10()%effective when held in place by cost of landscaping later.) spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber(tackifrers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic. ing a netting over it. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- phalt or porous paving blocks. Commercial applications of • Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the wood fibers combined with earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded various seeds and fertilizers areas are exposed. (hydraulic mulching) are effec- tive in stabilizing sloped areas. • Minimize the length and. Hydraulic mulching with a steepness of slopes by tackifier should benching, terracing, or be done in two _ - constructing diversion separate appli structures. Landscape cations: the first " benched areas to stabilize composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch,the second the slope and improve its composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commer- appearance. cial hydraulic mulch applicators—who also provide other erosion control services—are listed under"Iandscaping"in • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation the phone book. • Riprap (rock lining)—to protect channel banks erosive from -•< - ' e w ater flow Sediment trap—to - stop runoff carrying ;= sediment and trap the ` -pin- sediment sediment MR- Mats of excelsior,jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef- fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Storm drain outlet protection—to reduce the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con- ;' a open ground or into a tainers or routed into lawns, planter boxes and gardens. natural channel Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos- quitos,too.Excessive runoff should be directed away from Diversion dike or perimeter dike—to divert excess your house. Too much water can damage trees and make water to places where it can be disposed of properly foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS • Straw bale dike—to stop and detain sediment from Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to small unprotected areas protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have (a short-term measure) time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it • Perimeter Male—to divert doesn't cause erosion. runoff from a disturbed area or to contain runoff within water from _ a To keep a m carrying soil from your site and dump disturbed area .......-s..:.-.:.�,.,.. , ,..;.:�;,:..>s.. ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some exam- Grade stabilization structure—to carry concentrated ples of what you might use are: runoff down a slope jute netting Iandscaping \ 'a"iMIti.l j`iklll)ri,� NI hydraulic mulch plastic sheeting : �- YK _ ermeter dike Lk� g a `"' - diversion,d'tcli bench ;•1 A. n'1 straw mulch sediment trap outlet protection �:ConservatTee f ry r ya 1°3 �a r s .a ��e� 'sdt .d:.: a��` - ga����;eF. � I:I '�I� I���I�`� I �j«"+sf�. ih.r '''- •� w�.,. r i m _ c t - - -� ,, ,ate ._� ����s z �.� � ,p•, a J.w�� r� 3.' w. fid{ t t .3 '."� 'ems.. � �l�" � .:8F ,l'. � ■•IIM u mow" I�IV I s" IIIWIIYI �u��r !�I rr � , y r: u I � t I xt+llt I :� ...'� ,,., ., m. �, x � � � ds� � .b..��.. .. '� .,.,tt'.xe n•.:fix ��,��`a..�ta_ x, , CITY OF BURLINGAME i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD `°' `_ '"° BURLINGAME, CA 94010 _ PH: (650)558-7250 • FAX: (650) 69 ( °a - n= LUZ t www.buriingame.org ,�.• �°, a - �� - � siai9?r:°rs;.�'.? _i ask Site: 2843 ADELINE DRIVE 'US POS°AGF The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following PUBLIC HEARING public hearing on MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 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, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variance for height and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, 3-1/2 story single family dwelling and ' attached garage at 2843 ADELINE DRIVE zoned R-1. APN 027-093-310 Mailed: April 10,2009 (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 raking Drily those iSSU-S you or someone else raised at the public i iear ii ig, 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 ART AND KEALANI LABRIE AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MARCH 9,2009, APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,THREE AND ONE HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 2843 ADELINE 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 9, 2009, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variance for height and Special Permit for an attached garage for a new,three and a half story single family dwelling located at 2843 Adeline Drive(APN:027- 093-310),owned by Denham LLC,851 Burlway Road Suite 710,Burlingame,California,94010;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's March 9, 2009 approval was appealed by Art and Kealani Labrie, and the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal on April 20, 2009; denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's approval. NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's March 9, 2009 approval of the application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,Variance for height and Special Permit for attached garage, based upon the Council's finding that the new three and a half story single family dwelling and attached garage is well-designed, is consistent with the mass and bulk in the neighborhood,that the architectural style is consistent throughout the house and that it will improve the character of the block and enhance the design of the community. Additional findings for the City Council's action are as set forth in the minutes and recording of the City Council meeting of April 20,2009. 2. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment,and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19,Section: 15303(a),which states 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,up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. 3. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variance and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"A"attached hereto. 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 City Council held on the 20`h day of April, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variance and Special Permit. 2843 Adeline Drive Effective April 20, 2009 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 27, 2009, sheets A02 through A09, and date stamped December 2, 2008, sheets A00 through A01c, A10 through A16 and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; 2. that the deck lying adjacent to bedrooms 2 and 3 shall be eliminated from the design; 3. that tree protection measures shall be implemented for the Oak tree across the street from the property (near 2838 Adeline Drive) during project construction; to the satisfaction of the City Arborist; 4. that the planting plan for the trees to be located along the left side of the structure shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 5. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 7. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 8. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Peninsula Tree Care Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department on June 30, 2008; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 2, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's July 22, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 7, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's July 30, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2008 memo shall be met; 10. 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; 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 12. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; EXHIBIT "A' Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Variance and Special Permit. 2843 Adeline Drive Effective April 20, 2009 Page 2 13. 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; 14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 16. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 17. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 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; and 19. 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. AGENDA ITEM NO: 6b BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 20, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: ZA0"_ DATE: April 10, 2009 APPROVED BY: �B�y FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-725 SUBJECT: 1008 — 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 — PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1 . Conduct a public hearing and consider all information contained in the staff report, and any written and oral testimony; after conclusion of the public hearing; 2. Adopt the attached resolution amending the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add a description of the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area; 3. Adopt the proposed ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add an R-4 overlay for certain properties in the C-2 zone district to allow multi-family residential uses as a conditional use.; and 4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. The public hearing for action was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation (San Mateo County Times) on April 10, 2009. CITY COUNCIL INTRODUCTION On April 6, 2009, the City Council reviewed the proposed resolution to amend the text of the General Plan, and introduced the proposed ordinance to add an R-4 overlay for certain C-2 zoned properties. The Council, by a 5-0 vote, introduced the ordinance, directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance, and set the date for the second reading of the ordinance on April 20, 2009. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS This project was reviewed as a part of the 2002 Housing Element update as an implementation program. The potential environmental impacts of implementation of the 2002 Housing Element Update was reviewed in Negative Declaration No. ND-520-P. This document determined that no adverse environmental impacts would result from implementation of the programs outlined in the 2002 Housing Element, and was approved by the City Council on July 1 , 2002. There is no new information or significant development which has occurred in this area since the approval of the Negative Declaration which would result in a change in this determination. Amendment to the Text of the General Plan and Ordinance to Create an R-4 Overlay Zone to allow Residential Uses on certain C-2 zoned properties along Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road April 20,2009 PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On February 23,2009,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal to amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to amend Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add an R-4 overlay for certain C-2 zoned properties. At that meeting,the Commission discussed the proposed requirements for setback and height limitations along the property line adjacent to single family residences. The Commission asked that the proposal be modified to clarify that the primary use of the 20-foot setback area would be a landscape screen, but to provide some flexibility should a developer propose some circulation areas within this setback area (refer to 2/23/09 Planning Commission minutes). The public hearing was continued to the Commission's March 9, 2009 meeting. The suggested changes were incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. At the March 9,2009 meeting,the Commission, by a 7-0 vote, recommended to the City Council adoption of the proposed general plan text amendment and zoning overlay(refer to 3/9/09 Planning Commission minutes). BACKGROUND As a part of the 2002 Housing Element update,this site, consisting of four properties,was identified as a potential housing site as part of the program to meet Burlingame's projected housing needs. To implement this program,the zoning which allows housing is required to be in place so that the site is readily available should the opportunity for residential development arise. This site was selected as a potential housing site because it is located between two existing residential areas: North Park Apartments to the north,and the single family residential neighborhood along Toyon Avenue and to the south. The site continues to be identified as a Housing Opportunity site in the 2009-2014 Housing Element update which has been sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and certification. In 2006,a new law went into effect that requires that any housing site identified in the last housing element cycle must have its zoning in place so that it is readily available during the current planning cycle. The deadline for complying with this new law is June 30,2009. If the zoning is not in place by this date,then the number of housing units which could be accommodated on the site would be added to the 650 units which are now required to be accommodated in the 2009-2014 Housing Element. Amendment to the Text of the General Plan: This area is now designated by the General Plan for Commercial Uses—Services and Special Sales. It is proposed that the commercial use of the site could still be retained,but that an overlay be added to allow for the conversion of some or all of the area to residential use. In order to accomplish this,an explanation of the potential residential use would be included in the text of the General Plan. The Land Use Section of the General Plan regarding Commercial Uses now contains descriptions of the Burlingame Plaza Area, the Broadway Center,the Burlingame Avenue-Park Road Center,and the Waterfront Commercial Area in the Bayfront area. It is proposed that the following language be added to the Commercial Uses section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to describe the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area(refer to attached Draft City Council Resolution): Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area. When the General Plan was first adopted in 1969,the entire area south of Broadway to Toyon, between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road was designated for service and special sales uses,and was zoned M-1. In 1963,the site of North Park Apartments(south of Cadillac Way)was rezoned to the R-4 zone district,and in 1972, North Park Apartments were built. This left a pocket of M-1 zoned property between North Park Apartments and the residential area along Toyon Drive. In 1992, this property was rezoned from M-1 to the C-2 zone district. The uses at the time were similar to those which exist today(automobile dealers and repair facilities). These uses -2- Am.ndment to the Text of the General Plan and Ordinance to Create an R-4 Overlay Zone to allow Residential Uses on certain C-2 zoned properties along Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road April 20, 2009 are permitted in the C-2 zone district, and it was felt that C-2 zoning would allow uses which were more compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Since this area is surrounded by residential uses, it would also be appropriate for residential development. In order to provide a transition between the higher density residential area to the north and the single family residential development along Toyon Drive, special setback and height standards should be considered adjacent to the single family homes. R4 Overlay Zone: In addition to the amendment to the text of the General Plan, it is proposed that an R-4 overlay zone be created for the Carolan/Rollins Commercial area, which would allow for multi-family residential uses by conditional use permit in addition to the uses now allowed in the C-2 zone. Because the area is adjacent to a single family neighborhood, it is also proposed that there be additional height and setback standards that would apply to the portion of the property adjacent to the Toyon Drive properties. A twenty-foot building setback would be required along the southerly property line. The 20-foot setback would consist of a landscape screen containing large scale trees. However, a special permit could be obtained to allow for A 30 foot height limit would be required within 100 feet of this southerly property line, with the opportunity to apply for a special permit for a height between 30 and 36 feet. The attached map outlines the area where the setback and height limit would apply. Following is the text to be added to the C-2 zone district regulations: 25.38.034 Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area — R-4 Overlay Zone In addition to the permitted uses specified in Section 25.38.020 and the conditional uses specified in Section 25.38.030, multiple family residential uses are conditional uses within the Carolan/Rollins Road Commercial Area as shown on the map attached to this Ordinance, subject to the regulations and restrictions of the R-4 zone district, and subject to the following additional standards: (a) Height of structures within 100 feet of southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 zoned properties shall not exceed two and one-half stories or thirty (30) feet in height, whichever is less, as measured from average top of curb taken from the corners of the lot extended, except as follows: (1) A structure between thirty (30) and thirty-six (36) feet upon approval of a special permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special permit for height shall be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall particularly focus on providing articulation in the building design to mitigate the impact of the taller structure on neighboring properties. (2) A structure of thirty-six (36) feet or taller upon approval of a variance under Chapter 25.54. (b) The minimum setback from the southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 zoned properties shall be twenty (20) feet. This setback shall consist of a landscape screen containing large scale trees selected from the Community Development Department Tree List for Private Property Planting. (1) Vehicular circulation and/or parking may be considered within this setback upon approval of a special permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special permit for vehicular circulation and/or parking shall be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall include a determination that a landscape buffer is provided and other measures are incorporated into the design to minimize the impact on the adjoining properties. Property Owner Contact: On December 10, 2008, a letter was sent to the property owners within the area to be rezoned with an R-4 overlay (see attached letter). Staff has not received comments from any of the property owners within the proposal area. -3- Amendment to the Text of the General Plan and Ordinance to Create an R-4 Overlay Zone to allow Residential Uses on certain C-2 zoned properties along Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road April 20, 2009 ATTACHMENTS March 9, 2009 and February 23, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Letter to Property Owners Negative Declaration No. ND-520-P Council Resolution Approving Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Section of the General Plan to Add a Description of the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area and to add Multiple Family Residential Development as an Alternative Land Use within this Area (Proposed) Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add an R-4 Overlay Zone for Certain C-2 zoned properties in the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area to allow Multiple Family Residential Uses as a Conditional Use (Proposed) Map of Proposed R-4 Overlay Zone S:IHousing Element ImplementationlCarolan ZoninglCouncil ReportslAction Carolan Zoning.04.20.09.doc -4- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009 ■ The site pla shows the existing buildi corner as originally shown. ■ Clarify t t fence shall be built at t existing location, unless a rvey shows otherwise, ' which cas , it shall be placed on the opetty line. Chai auchi called for a voice to on the motion to approv . The motion passed 6- 1 (Commissioner Br wnrigg abstained). App procedures were advised his item concluded at 9 6 p.m. 5. 1008 — 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) (92 NOTICED AND NEWSPAPER NOTICE — SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES 2/13/09) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 23 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ None. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council. The motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from participating with respect to Item 6 (1531 Columbus Avenue), since he lives within 500-feet of the site. He left the Council Chambers. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 4. 1008—1028 CAROLAN AVENUE& 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD,ZONED C-2-PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated February 23,2009,with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ Propose a 20'setback along the southern property line;should be landscaping, but perhaps exclude parking within the area against the property line; it would be good to have a substantial landscape area (20'-25') with no driveways and no parking. ■ If we ever want to see housing on this property; the more restrictions placed on the site, the more difficult it will be to promote housing; too much detail may unduly restrict and prevent housing development. ■ Clarified that property includes only four(4)legal lots;future subdivision would require Commission review. Public comments: Brian McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; spoke: ■ Be fair to the owners of the R-1 properties to the south; could have a discussion of the concerns now or in the future with a development proposal. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Concerned that none of the property owners within the proposed overlay zone have commented (Brooks — noted a conversation with one adjacent property owner that appreciated the greater flexibility for residential use). ■ The restriction from 35' to 30' will likely only apply to the southernmost property (Brooks — only affects the one property on the south). ■ There should be a landscaped buffer with no driveways and parking along the southern 20' of the area. ■ Sensitivity to the property owners on Toyon Drive should be noted in the General Plan language; (Meeker— noted the potential to allow non-landscaping within the area subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Brooks — perhaps indicate a minimum depth for landscaping). ■ Provide revised language before going to City Council. ■ Ensure that revised language is clear as to intent for buffer area. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the matter until March 9, 2009, with direction to revise the proposal based upon the Commission's comments. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Asked that when the item is brought back, staff clarify the landscape requirement for R-4 zoned properties. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1241 BURLINGAME ENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBARE A—APPLICATION FOR COMM DESIGN REVIEW AND CO ITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FOOD ESTA ISHMENT (JEFF .HAYWOOD, PE S COFFEE AND TEA,APPLIC T;TYBABB PARTNERS LLC, OPERTY OWNER; AND THE CH LES DOERR GROUP ARCHI CT STAFF CONTACT: ERI A STROHMEIER Reference tall report dated February 23, 009, with attachments. Com nity Development Director Meeker riefly presented the project des iption. There were no question of staff. Ch ' Cauchi opened the public com ent period. Clarified that Sakae rest rant must be closed to permit P et's to open. ■ Asked for an explanati why there is a limitation to on restaurant on this site (Meeker/Brook — explained that there rictions on properties contain in restaurants were set when Sub-Area as created). Jeff Haywood, 1400 ark Avenue, Emeryville; and erry Horn, 405 Primrose Road; re esented the applicant. ■ Indica d that Peet's is trying to minimi changes to the building facade. Commiss' n comments: ■ Asked about the difference in e size of the seating area betwee e Sakae restaurant space and / the proposed Peet's (Hayes od — roughly an increase of 100 s are feet). What will be done with tr receptacles(Haywood—trash a a will beat rear of property withilxthe purview of the property wrier; at the same location as th area used by Sakae). 7 ■ Asked if people will rive at the corner entry and leav out the side door (Haywood — at is the design intent). ■ People may wa to enter from the side giventh location of the parking lot; per ps provide a treatment abo e the side door to make it more ' viting, consider repeating the tr tment from the main entry. ■ Consider window on the Park Road fags e. ■ Outdo seating is good idea; has nice posure to the sun; will be popul r ■ Insta enough electrical outlets for co puter users within the tenant sp ce. ■ As ed if there is room for an additi al tree along Park Road (Hayes od —there are a lot of her ms along the sidewalk in the a; may be difficult to achieve; nt to keep the corner ear to provide view of signage). ■ Will the existing soffit under a awning be attractive and mai ainable (Haywood — pears to be workable; intend to restor it as original feature). CITY OF BfIRLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLE Planning Division City Hall —501 Primrose Road PH: (650)558-7250 Burlingame, California 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 December 10, 2008 Re: Potential Change to Zoning — 1008 Carolan &935 Rollins Road Dear Property Owner, The City of Burlingame is in the process of updating its Housing Element, a part of the General Plan which identifies potential housing sites and develops strategies for meeting the community's housing needs. During the last Housing Element Update in 2002, the area between North Park Apartments and Toyon Drive was identified as having potential as a future housing opportunity (refer to attached map). This area is now zoned C-2 and allows for a variety of commercial uses. We are now proposing that the zoning be amended so that it would also allow for residential uses. An overlay zone would be created which would allow multiple family residential uses, similar to what is now developed on the North Park Apartments property. Because the area is adjacent to a single family neighborhood, it is also proposed that there be some additional height and setback standards which would apply to that portion of the property which is adjacent to the Toyon Drive properties. A twenty-foot building setback would be required along the southerly property line, and a 35-foot height limit would apply within 100 feet of this property line. This proposal to add an overlay zone would not take away any of the existing uses that are ailo.^red on thpi site, but would provide an additional opportunity for residential use at the owner's discretion. Thisp-t ro osal will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and p consideration early next year. If you would like to comment on this proposal or have any suggestions for implementation, please call me at (650) 558-7253, or by email at mbrooksC@burlingame.org. Sincerely, Maureen Brooks Planning Manager Enclosure: Map Depicting Proposed R-4 Overlay Zone 9� � 9'1'5 Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.buriingame.org REEIV P ) BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION FEB - 4 2002 _ CITY OF BURLMGAft;t PLAI`,INMG DEFT File No. ND-520-P, General Plan Amendment to Update the Housing Element The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on January 9 , 2002, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental hnpact Report is required. Project Description: The project consists of the update of the City of Burlingame's Housing Element, a mandated element of the General Plan. The document includes programs and policies which address the housing needs of the community. The policies and programs include recommendations for changes in the land use regulations pertaining to residential development near transit stations, and recommends the use of overlay zones to provide for housing opportunities on sites now zoned primarily for commercial use. Any future changes in regulations, zoning changes and development of housing will be subject to environmental review per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and subject to public review and hearings prior to implementation. The specific recommendations for implementation of the goals and policies are outlined in the Draft Housing Element. There are no major changes proposed to the goals and policies of the current 1994 Housing Element. Since the Housing Element update is an amendment to the General Plan, the analysis of environmental impacts is being done on a broad scale. Many of the programs and policies can be implemented through the zoning code now in place. Analysis of the housing element update will assume development will occur under the existing code as well as the recommended code revisions, although these revisions are 1. ' 1 o a`7 a* thio time iiir! �rel-Ia iI_WL �n�.S'ts.� 4�- 4i.e1u aue._ Reasons for Conclusion: The City of Burlingame is a mature community with very little vacant land available for development. Most of the sites selected for housing are infill sites which are now underdeveloped and would be reused. The Housing Element update assures that sufficient, properly zoned land is available to meet the housing needs of all income levels. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings,it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. \\�� City Planner Date Signa4e of Processing Official Title Negative Declaration Housing Element Update Unless appealed within 20 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted: � U (012004 Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on ;J". D '2002. Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No ANN MUS O, CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME -2- INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: City-wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Burlingame 6. General Plan Designation: Various 7. Zoning: Various 8. Description of the Project: The project consists of the update of the City of Burlingame's Housing Element, a mandated element of the General Plan. The document includes programs and policies which address the housing needs of the community. The policies and programs include recommendations for changes in the land use regulations pertaining to residential development near transit stations, and recommends the use of overlay zones to provide for housing opportunities on sites now zoned primarily for commercial use. Any future changes in regulations, zoning changes and development of housing will be subject to environmental review per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and will require public review and hearings prior to implementation. The specific recommendations for implementation of the goals and policies are outlined in the Draft Housing Element. There are no major changes proposed to the goals and policies of the current 1994 Housing Element. The City of Burlingame is a mature community with very little vacant land available for development. Most of the sites selected for housing are intik sites which are now under developed ^-1 w 1A be reused. Since the Housii a Element UIDdate is an_ amendment to the General Plan, the analysis of environmental impacts is being done on a broad scale Many of the programs and policies can be implemented through the zoning code now in place. Analysis of the housing element update will assume development will occur under the existing code as well as the recommended code revisions, although these revisions are not being implemented at this time. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Housing Element update involves the entire City of Burlingame, a community with a population of 28,128 located about 16-miles south of San Francisco in San Mateo County. The City is bordered by the City of Millbrae to the north, the Town of Hillsborough to the west, the City of San Mateo to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. A major freeway, U.S. 101, and a State Highway, S.R. 82 (El Camino Real) run north/south through the City of Burlingame. Interstate 280 runs along the western border of the City of Burlingame. The topography of Burlingame ranges from steep hillsides on the western side of the City to relatively flat parcels to the east. Two square miles of the city are under the waters of San Francisco Bay. Several creeks traverse the City, and geologic constraints are not uncommon in the hillside areas. There is one active minor thrust fault, the Serra Fault,which runs through the northwestern corner of Burlingame and is considered to have common roots with the San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas Fault is located west of Burlingame, running along San Andreas Lake and Crystal Springs reservoir, less than '/2 mile from Burlingame's boundary along Skyline Boulevard. Therefore,hazards associated with earthquakes can occur in Burlingame. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Because it is an amendment to the general plan, the Housing Element is required to be reviewed by the City/County Association of Governments in its role as Airport Land Use Commission for San Mateo County. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following ages. Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards &Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology &Water Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects tha`remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant elect on tue environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in- an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE I II DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,t ! nothing further is required. Y. ft - 2 MargaretYroe, City Planner I Oate Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,3 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, 1,2,3 X local coastal program or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1,19 X natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly(for ..ample,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,3,9 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 1,3,9 X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the 1,3,9 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 6,7,8 X effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the 6,7,8 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seis—;-aground shaking? 6,7,8 X iii)Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? 6,8,8 X iv)Landslides? 6,8 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,6,8 would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of 6,8 X the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 1,6 X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X requirements? -4- Potentialty Potentially Less Thao No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table(e.g., the production rate of pre-existing 1,15 X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,6,15 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount 1,6,15 X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems 1,15 X or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,15 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped 15 X on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 15 X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a 1,15 X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR f. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air1,16 X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,16 X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 1,16 X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,16 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,16 X people? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 1,14 X the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 6,18 X 0 Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,17 , . X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. 2 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 12 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,9 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,9 X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,19 X b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,19 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 1,19 X etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,19 X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? -6- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat 1 X Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,6 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general 1,6 X plan, specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. 1,9 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 20 X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter 1,20 X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 20 X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of _ a p --_c airport or public use airport, would the project result 1,17 X in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the ( ! project area? 1) For a project; sn t::e vicinity-f a private airgt;ip, _ 'd the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or 1 X working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 1,12 X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where 1,12 X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess 1 X of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? -7- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Lesa ThanNo Significant Significant Significant Impact us.. Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 1,9 X groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 1 X the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,9 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 17 X where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? i f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would 1 X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,12 X b) Police protection? 1 X c) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? I X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTHXr1ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,10 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or = 1,10 X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the 1,10 X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1,10 X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 1,10 X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,10 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? -8- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,10 X related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 1,9 X of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1,9 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,9 X historical resource as defined in§15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,9 X archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,9 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 1,9 X of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood 1,9 X and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,9 X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 1 X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? -9- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but I X cumulatively co7able? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 X -10- 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan,Burlingame,California,1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame,Municipal Code,Hale 25-Zoning,Burlingame,California,1995 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council,Housing Element,City of Burlingame,Burlingame,California,1994. 4 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan,adopted by the Burlingame City Council on May 4,1981. 5 1990,2000 Census 6 Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,San Francisco Bay Region,Sheet 3,1:125,000,Revised 1981. 7 E.Brabb,E.Pampeyan,and M.Bonilla,Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County,San Mateo County, California,1972. 8 Perkins,Jeanne,Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking,U.S.G.S. Map MF,San Mateo County:California,1987. 9 Draft Housing Element,City of Burlingame,November 2001. 10. Cii,$ngineer. 11 Chief Building Official. 12 City Fire Department. 13 Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area,adopted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission on January 21,1982. 14 Burlingame Traffic Analyzer,1988 Edition 15 Map of Approximate Locations of 100-year Flood Areas,from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps,September 16,1981 16 BAAQAID CEQA GUIDELINES,Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans,December,1995 17 San Mateo County Comprehensive airport Land Use Plan,San Francisco International Airport,December, 1994 18 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program,1997 19 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance,San Francisco and San Mateo Counties,California,State Department of Fish and Game 20 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sues List,April 1998 c U.•IHa—g ElrmentW.oasing Elawnt initial Stady.Zo _l l_ Land Use and Planning Summary: The Burlingame General Plan designates a certain portion of the community for residential use, and anticipates new residential growth within these areas. The existing Housing Element adopted in 1994 proposed the addition of 1244 housing units to Burlingame's housing stock. Since the adoption of the 1994 Housing Element, 117 new units have been built. The 2001 Housing Element update proposes to accommodate 565 housing units. This is well within the growth anticipated by the General Plan, and is below what was anticipated in the 1994 Housing Element. The 2000 Census indicates that there are now 12,869 housing units in Burlingame. The addition of 565 housing units, which would represent an increase of approximately 4.4% , is not considered to be substantial. The Housing Element update proposes to change the zoning on some sites, and to add an overlay zone on other sites to allow residential uses in areas that are now primarily office commercial. The Housing Element update also proposes changes to the zoning code regulations for housing development near transit hubs. Some of these individual changes will require amendments to the land use eler"ent of the general plan, and all will require additional environmental review when they are considt z:.d for adoption, as will any projects proposed in the future as a result of changes in zoning. The General Plan, in addition to designating the land uses allowed in particular areas, includes goals and policies for Burlingame. The general plan goals which relate to the need for housing are as follows: Goal: To assure that Burlingame will continue to be a "well-rounded" City with residences, schools, business, industry, and space and facilities for social, recreational and cultural facilities. Implementing Objectives: ❑ Maintain or increase the variety in uses of land in the City; ❑ Encourage assembly of small lots in suitable locations to provide larger sites for apartments, office buildings and commercial enterprises; ❑ Keep codes and standards free of arbitrary or obsolete provisions that would tend tc -'Mbit construction of sound buildings in suitable locations to house a variety of uses. Goal: To maintain and enhance the identity of the City and encourage a maximum sense of identification by residents with tine City. Implementing Objectives: ❑ Maintain and enhance rational relationships among functional parts of the City (residential areas, business districts, industrial areas, public areas, transportation, etc.). Goal: To encourage mixed commercial uses to provide a transition between districts fully commercial or residential and to provide housing opportunities for those dependent on transit and desiring a pedestrian-oriented living environment. Population and Housing Summary: According to the 2000 Census, the population of Burlingame is 28, 158. The Association of Bay Area Governments projects that the population of Burlingame will increase by about 1500 people by the year 2005. Based on an average household size of 2.6 persons, Initial Study Summary Housing Element Update 2001 the 565 additional units proposed in the Housing Element would be needed to accommodate the anticipated population growth. The Housing Element update would serve to meet the projected unmet need and reduce the impacts associated with a lack of housing. Therefore the project would not substantially affect population growth or exceed regional population projections. There would be no displacement of existing housing as a result of implementation of the Housing Element. Geologic Summary: Some areas of the City of Burlingame are impacted by geological constraints such as expansive soils and susceptibility to landslide. However, the areas proposed for new housing in the Housing Element update are primarily areas which are on level land and have previously been subdivided and developed with urban uses. Any new construction will be required to comply with the California Building Code and meet any geological and earthquake standards of the current code. Water Summary: There are seven creeks running through Burlingame, which provide drainage from the hillside areas to San Francisco Bay. Water quality in these waterways is potentially threatened by common urban pollutants in stormwater runoff. The revrsed zoning code provisions anticipated by the Housing Element update will not alter the quality or quantity of that runoff. Any new development would be subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Air Quality Summary: Increased density can result in increased traffic and consequent impacts on air quality. However, the areas proposed for higher density development are all within one-half mile of a major transit hub (Caltrain or BART). It is expected that the increase in density will be offset by the increased use of transit, thus reducing any potential impact on air quality. Transportation/Circulation Summary: There is adequate capacity in Burlingame's transportation/circulation system to accommodate the additional housing units proposed by the Housing Element update. As noted above, the potential increase in traffic from new development will be offset by an increased use of transit since all of the proposed housing sites are located within one-half mile of a major transit hub. ylol�jgll.ai 1��7V ur Q'.a�.0 �•w u.^.:ar f: Burling-=e 'S a 2.:t1-7 '�'^VeI:SpC�•d i.'bar� _nmmi�nitc7 c:7it1� c7e1'V �1tt�P .. a native plant and animal life. There is no record of any rare, unique or endangered species of plants or animals in the areas on the sites proposed for housing development in the updated Housing Element. There is no farmland in Burlingame. Because these areas have already been disturbed through urban development, no significant changes are anticipated in the diversity or number of species of plants or animals, or in the deterioration of existing wild life habitat. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The increase in energy use attributed to the new housing units is expected to be within the capacities of the existing sources and is not anticipated that development of new energy sources would be required. Hazards Summary: Any new housing built as a result of the Housing Element update is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected to create a health hazard. -13- Initial Study Summary Housing Element Update 2001 Noise Summary: Increased density may result in increased traffic and consequent impacts to noise levels. Additionally, development of new housing along the rail corridor may expose new residents to increased noise and vibration levels. Any new development would have to comply with California Building Code insulation standards and will need to be designed to keep interior noise levels at 45 dba. Increases in traffic are not expected to be significant since the sites identified for housing are located near transit hubs, and it is expected that many new residents will use the transit services available for some of their transportation needs. Some of the sites identified for new development in the northern portions of Burlingame are within the 65 CNEL noise impacted areas in the vicinity of the San Francisco International Airport. The San Mateo County comprehensive land use plan for San Francisco International Airport states that residential uses are conditionally compatible when located within the 65 CNEL noise contour. New construction is required to incorporate noise insulation features into the design, and an analysis of noise reduction requirements is also required. Public Services Summary: The project is not expec -,'-to have a significant impact on the provision of other public services, as this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. The City of Burlingame is almost built out and public facilities in place are adequate to serve existing and proposed development in the Housing Element. There are two public improvement projects which have been completed in the last 10 years which have removed any constraints to new residential development,particularly at the north end of the city. Most of the sites identified are located in the northern portion of the City. Sewer Treatment Plant Improvements: In 1994,major improvements were made to the City's wastewater treatment plant facilities. As a result of these upgrades,the capacity of the plant was increased to accommodate the ultimate population anticipated in the City's General Plan. According to estimates made by the Association of Bay Area Governments,Burlingame's General Plan buildout would accommodate an additional 817 housing units above what is shown to exist Burlingame by Census 2000. Therefore, there is adequate capacity at the wastewater treatment to-handle the projected 565 units proposed. Sewer Interceptor Project: In 1998, the Public Works Department completed a major sewer interceptor project which included installation of new sewer collection main along California Drive from the City's 'V m_ t t PlIa 4• This projectt 3rr�rSr � a tlno n w-ithr oftbe c_Ptx_rPr 1nrth ini�n�? c, to Erie W a.C..tFiiFPa.�C� Treatment i^LL. r_'1�4r�_�t_�.lo �rlS albs vcaY savla. 1V1 Lll V fall ' ' collection system and provided sufficient capacity for development in the north end of Burlingame, including all the sites selected north of Peninsula Hospital. Aesthetics Summary: The adoption of the Housing Element update will have no impact on aesthetics. Any future housing development will be required to comply with the zoning code requirements regulating mass, bulk and height of buildings, and therefore would be compatible with the areas in which they would be developed. Cultural Resources Summary: Since any sites proposed for development have already been disturbed, it is not expected that future projects would have an impact on prehistoric or historic archeological resources. -14- Initial Study Summary Housing Element Update 2001 Recreation Summary: It is expected that the increase in population from any new housing units can be accommodated by the existing park and recreation facilities in Burlingame. None of the proposed housing sites would displace any recreation facilities. U.(Housing ElementWousing Element Initial Study.doc -15- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE WITHIN THIS AREA RESOLVED,BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, as a part of the 2002 update of the Housing Element of the General Plan, properties between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road south of Broadway were identified as potential housing opportunity sites;and WHEREAS, the 2002 Housing Element Update identified the need to amend the zoning on these sites to facilitate potential future residential development;and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2009, and March 9, 2009, the Planning Commission held public hearings and reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented to the Commission regarding this amendment to the text of the general plan and proposed zoning overlay district;and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council that the text of the General Plan be amended to describe the Carolan/Rollins Commercial area and to allow for the residential use of these properties. The Planning Commission also recommended to the City Council adoption of an R-4 overlay zone with special standards for this area. NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The City Council hereby approves the following amendment to the text of the General Plan to add the following description to the Commercial Uses Section of the Land Use Element: Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area. When the General Plan was first adopted in 1969, the entire area south of Broadway to Toyon Drive,between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road was designated for service and special sales uses, and was zoned M-1. In 1963, the site of North Park Apartments (south of Cadillac Way) was rezoned to the R-4 zone district, and in 1972, North Park Apartments were built. This left a Docket of M-1 zoned property between North Park Apartments and the residential area along Toyon Drive. In 1992,this property was rezoned from M-1 to the C-2 zone district. The uses at the time were similar to those which exist today(automobile dealers and repair facilities). These uses are permitted in the C-2 zone district, and it was felt that C-2 zoning would allow uses which were more compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Since this area is surrounded by residential uses, it would also be appropriate for residential development. In order to provide a transition between the higher density residential area to the north and the single family residential development along Toyon Drive, special setback and height standards should be considered adjacent to the single family homes. Council Resolution — Amendment to the Text of the General Plan Land Use Section to Add a Description of the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area to the Commercial Land Use Section and to Add Multiple Family Residential as an Alternative Land Use Within This Area Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 day of , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk S:IHousing Element ImplementationlCarolan ZoninglGPA.CC Reso.doc 2 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME 3 MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY ZONE FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 4 USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE 5 The CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. This ordinance is intended to implement the 2002 Housing Element update of the 7 Burlingame General Plan to allow an opportunity for multiple family residential uses in a C-2 zoned area 8 between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road south of Broadway. 9 Section 2. A new Section 25.38.034 is added to read as follows: 10 25.38.034 Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area— R-4 Overlay Zone 11 In addition to the permitted uses specified in Section 25.38.020 and the conditional uses specified 12 in Section 25.38.030, multiple family residential uses are conditional uses within the Carolan/Rollins Road 13 Commercial Area as shown on the map attached to this Ordinance, subject to the regulations and 14 restrictions of the R-4 zone district, and subject to the following additional standards: 15 (a) Height of structures within 100 feet of southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 16 zoned properties shall not exceed two and one-half stories or thirty (30)feet in height, whichever is less, 17 as measured from average top of curb taken from the corners of the lot extended, except as follows: 18 (1) A structure between thirty (30) and thirty-six (36)feet upon approval of a special 19 permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special permit for height shall 20 be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall particularly focus on providing articulation in the building 21 design to mitigate the impact of the taller structure on neighboring properties. 22 (2) A structure of thirty-six (36)feet or taller upon approval of a variance under 23 Chapter 25.54. 24 (b) The minimum setback from the southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 zoned 25 properties shall be twenty(20)feet. This setback shall consist of a landscape screen containing large 26 scale trees selected from the Community Development Department Tree List for Private Property 27 Planting. 28 (1) Vehicular circulation and/or parking may be considered within this setback upon 29 approval of a special permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special 30 permit for vehicular circulation and/or parking shall be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall 31 include a determination that a landscape buffer is provided and other measures are incorporated into the 32 design to minimize the impact on the adjoining properties. - 1 1 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 2 3 Mayor 4 5 I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 6 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2009 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 7 of , 2009, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 9 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 10 11 City Clerk 12 13 S:IHousing Element ImplementationlCarolan ZoninglCarolan Rollins Overlay.Ordinance.doc 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 EXHIBIT"A" ORDINANCE NO. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON .z 02 'J9 1019 Y 30 foot T/ height limit100� v within 100 feet . ' of southerly . . property line; up to 36 feet with C,2 -; Special Permit T 71 u r Tf 20 foot o x setback from southerly 1 U4U~ property line 1.1 102$ �` 44- 1016 T1-0-q8Tr` r ix PROPOSED R-4 OVERLAY ZONE For properties zoned C-2 on Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road - ", Would allow multiple family residential uses with additional standards to . k provide a transition to adjacent x neighborhood CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME STUDY SESSION ITEM# 6c MTG. "oAA�Eo NE b' DATE April 20,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI BY: DATE: April 20,2009 APPVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution Approving the Master Fee Schedule for City Services for Fiscal Year 2009-10 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Hold a public hearing to take public testimony on the proposed master fee schedule; and, 2. Approve the resolution implementing the master fee schedule for FY 2009-10. BACKGROUND: The City Council has adopted a master fee schedule as part of the annual budget process since fiscal year 2003-2004. Historically city user fees have been adjusted to reflect the annual increase in employee costs that is projected for the ensuing fiscal year. Fee adjustments are not automatic. They require annual analysis, review and approval by the City Council. The proposed fee schedule reflects adjustments to user fees based on employee costs that are part of the current 2008-2009 fiscal year. The fees that Council adopted last year were based on fiscal year 2007-2008 costs because the fee study used the 2007-2008 adopted budget to determine the fees. The only costs that were updated to reflect fiscal year 2008-09 hourly rates were for the Fire Department. The proposed budget for fiscal year 2009-2010 will not include any increases in wages because of on-going discussions with the city's labor groups to freeze salary increases in the upcoming fiscal year. Therefore fees are not adjusted for 2009-2010 given the expectation that costs will not increase. If the city is unsuccessful in reaching agreements with the city's labor groups and contractual pay adjustments are made, then the master fee schedule will be revised to reflect any increases in costs. Several new user fees are proposed to be implemented. The new fees are highlighted in yellow on the master fee schedule. In addition, a list of City Council approved exceptions to the "fully-burdened" cost recovery policy is also provided for Council. 1 DISCUSSION: California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for services if the use of the service is voluntary and the fee that is charged by the city is reasonable based on the level of service provided and the associated cost of providing the service. A user fee study was undertaken in fiscal year 2006-2007 and completed in fiscal year 2007-2008 to ensure that the city's user fees are compliant with the state law. The user fee study included the following process: 1. Review of department budgets 2. Identification of appropriate overhead cost allocations 3. Identification of services provided by each city department 4. Establishment of department staffing levels and associated fully burdened hourly rates 5. Completion of a time and materials survey for each service to determine fee 6. Completion of a user fee schedule showing fully burdened costs for user fees User-fees are priced at 100% cost recovery, with exceptions at Council's discretion. The proposed fees include the cost of direct labor (staff time spent directly on service); indirect labor (administrative and supervisory time spent directly on service); and central services overhead (other support for department providing service). These resulting costs are called "fully-burdened rates." User fee adjustments are effective July 1, 2009. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME,CA EXCEPTIONS TO THE USER-FEE RECOMMENDATION OF 100%COST RECOVERY City Depart Service/Application Full Cost Recommended Fee City-wide Copy of general city documents $1.08 per page $0.25 per general copy Building Resident Photo Voltaic Systems-Up to 300w $328 No charge Building Resident Photo Voltaic Systems-Over 300w Plan Check $103 per hour No charge Building Resident Photo Voltaic Systems-Permit $328 No charge City Clerk Copy of election documents $64.52 per document $0.10 per page based on FPPC Regulations City Clerk Search&retrieve election doc(inside City Hall) $69.29 per document $5 per request based on FPPC Regulations City Clerk Search&retrieve election doc(outside City Hall) $69.29 per document $5 per request based on FPPC Regulations City Clerk Filing of Nomination Papers $92.39 per candidate $25 per candidate per Election Code 10228 Comm Dev Anntenna Exceptions $946 $25(to promote compliance with permit) Comm Dev Appeals to the City Council from Planning Comm $716 $400(to not deter appeals from affected residents) Comm Dev Noticing-Second Unit Amnesty $101 $55(to promote compliance with policy) Library Lane Community Room Rental $88 $80.00 Library Audio/Visual Assistance $69 $30.00 per hour PW-Eng Block Party Permit $193 $50(to promote civic engagement) Police Burglar Alarm Permit $142 $49.50(to promote active registration) Parks Protected Tree Removal Application $146 $50(to promote compliance with policy) Additional exceptions may be added based on Council discussion and review of proposed fees. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE 2009 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame regularly reviews the fees which the City charges persons or entities for the use of City facilities or the provision of City services; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services and facilities is borne by the users of said services and facilities in a fair and equitable manner, the City periodically adjusts the fees for services and facility use to better reflect the actual costs to the City and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, the City engaged the services of Muni Financial to conduct a comprehensive review of the City's schedule of fees to ensure that the fees charged by the City to the users of City services and facilities do not exceed the actual costs of providing the services or facilities; and WHEREAS, MuniFinancial's study of the City fee schedule has resulted in numerous adjustments to ensure that the City recovers the full cost of providing services and facilities while at the same time not exceeding the cost of providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS, some City fees are being kept artificially low and below the level of full cost recovery to make certain services such as block parry permits and Planning Commission appeals more readily available to citizens; and WHEREAS, notice of the City's proposed fee schedule and of the April 20, 2009 public hearing in connection therewith, has been duly given pursuant to the provisions of State law; and WHEREAS, because the increased fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Divisions of the Community Development Department and the development fees to be charged by the Fire department and the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department cannot become effective until sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Government Code section 66017, the adjusted fees as delineated in the 2009 Master Fee Schedule shall become effective July 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, despite every effort to ensure that all City fees are contained in the 2009 Master Fee Schedule, there may be some existing fees in the City's Municipal Code, administrative procedures or elsewhere which have been omitted from the Master Fee Schedule and nothing in this resolution or Council action is intended to repeal those fees nor is this resolution or Council action intended to affect in any way any taxes or assessments of any kind; NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. All of the facts recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are true and correct and the Council relies upon same in adopting the Master Fee Schedule. 2. The City Council approves the 2009 Master Fee Schedule, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit"A". 3. The 2009 Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on July 1, 2009. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 20`'day of April, 2009,by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk CITY BURLIM91 ME X00 900 R ORATED JUNE 6 Cityof B Master Fee Schedule APRIL 20, 2009 EFFECTIVE ON JULY 1, 2009 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE CITY-WIDE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 $25.00 $25.00 Copying of Routine Document Resolution No. 33-2008 $.25 per page $.25 per page (Copies of sizes other than 8- 1/2" by 11" or 8 - 1/2" by 14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at cost) To be paid in advance Audio tape copies (except for Police) Resolution No. 33-2008 $15.40 per tape $16.55 per tape If blank tape supplied Resolution No. 33-2008 $15.40 per tape $16.55 per tape plus If no tape supplied plus purchase costs purchase costs of of tape tape CITY-WIDE FEES - 2 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ANIMAL CONTROL The following is found in Section 9.04.031 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (as of May 2, 2005): (a) License fees and penalties: (1)Unaltered dog (A) 1-year license $30.00 (which includes a$1.00 surcharge on all licenses for the Animal Population Trust Fund) (B) 3-year license $87.00 (C) 1-year license with senior discount $11.00 (D) 3-year license with senior discount $33.00 (2)Altered dog (A) 1-year license $12.00 (B) 3-year license $33.00 (C) 1-year license with senior discount $ 6.00 (D) 3-year license with senior discount $15.00 (3) Wolf-hybrid registration (A)Unaltered 1-year license $21.00 (B) Altered 1-year license $11.00 (4)Additional Penalties and Fees Dog/Wolf-hybrid (A) Late penalty $15.00 (B) Duplicate tag $ 5.00 (b)Redemption and shelter charges (1) Type A (large-size animals-horses, cows, etc.) (A) Impound cost $100.00 (B) Board cost per day $20.00 (C) Transportation cost $50.00 per animal (2) Type B (medium-size animals-hogs, sheep, etc.) (A) Impound cost $70.00 (B) Board cost per day $20.00 (C) Transportation cost $50.00 per use (3) Type C (dogs/wolf hybrids, cats) (A) Impound cost Altered/Unaltered (i)First offense, licensed&wearing tag $30.00/50.00 (ii)First offense,unlicensed or no tag $40.00/70.00 (iii) Second offense $60.00/ 80.00 (iv) Third offense $90.00/ 100.00 (v) Fourth offense $120.00/ 140.00 (vi)Fifth offense and up $150.00/ 170.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 3 (B) Board costs (i) Dogs/wolf hybrids $15.00 per day (ii) Cats $13.00 per day (4) Type D (small-size animals-birds, hamsters, etc.) (A) Impound cost $15.00 (B) Board cost per day $ 5.00 (c) Adoption Fees Dogs $70.00 Cats $70.00 Rabbits $40.00 Mice $ 4.00 Rats $ 5.00 Guinea Pig $12.00 Hamster $ 8.00 Pigeon/Dove $ 3.00 Duck/Goose/Chicken $ 5.00 Turtle $ 5.00 Pigs $35.00 (d) Surrender, Euthanasia and Dead on Arrival Disposal Fees Surrender Euthanasia DOA Disposal Dog/Cat $20.00 $40.00 $20.00 Rabbit/Small Animal $20.00 $15.00 $20.00 Litter of three or more $30.00 $30.00 $20.00 Bird/Fowl $20.00 $10.00 $20.00 All Exotic Animals $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Farm Animal $35.00 $50.00 - $100.00 $50.00 - $100.00 (to be determined (to be determined individually) individually) (e) Quarantine fee $35.00 (f) Dangerous animal permit fee $200.00 (g) Field return fee $35.00 (h) Property inspection fee $25.00 (i) Breeding permit fee $50.00 0) Fancier's permit fee $50.00 per household (k) The Division of Animal Control may establish license discounts for recognized animal rescue organizations and adoption discounts for senior citizens. CITY-WIDE FEES - 4 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BUILDING DIVISION SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $500.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $34.50 $35.50 $501.00 to $2,000.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $34.50 for the first $35.50 for the first $500.00 plus $4.80 $500.00 plus $4.95 for each additional for each additional $100.00 or fraction $100.00 or fraction thereof to and thereof to and including including $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $99.20 for the first $102.20 for the first $2,000.00 plus $2,000.00 plus $20.20 for each $20.80 for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to fraction thereof to and including and including $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $556.45 for the first $573.15 for the first $25,000.00 plus $25,000.00 plus $14.85 for each $15.30 for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to fraction thereof to and including and including $50,000.00 $50,000.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 5 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $916.10 for the first $943.60 for the first $50,000.00 plus $50,000.00 plus $10.10 for each $10.40 for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to fraction thereof to and including and including $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $101,000.00 to $500,000.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $1,413.20 for the $1,455.60 for the first $100,000.00 first $100,000.00 plus $8.50 for each plus $8.75 for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to fraction thereof to and including and including $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $501,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $4,595.35 for the $4,733.20 for the first $500,000.00 first $500,000.00 plus $6.90 for each plus $7.10 for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to fraction thereof to and including and including $1,000,000.00 $100,000.00 More than $1,000,000.00 Resolution No. 33-2007 $7,975.80 for the $8,215.00 for the first$1,000,000.00 first $1,000,000.00 plus $5.30 for each plus $5.45 for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103 per hour business hours (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum—one Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103 per hour hour) CITY-WIDE FEES - 6 SERVICE REFERENCE 7CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PLAN REVIEW FEES Basic Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 65% of Building 65% of Building Permit Fee Permit Fee Energy Plan Check Fee (where Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Additional 25% of applicable) Building Permit Building Permit Fee Fee Disabled Access Plan Check Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 35% of Additional 35% of (where applicable) Building Permit Building Permit Fee Fee Planning Department Plan Check Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 15% of Additional 25% of Fee (where applicable) (minimum Building Permit Building Permit Fee fee of$80.00) Fee Plan Revisions for Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 $103.00 Department Plan Revisions Subsequent to Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103.00 per hour Permit Issuance plus Cost of Any plus Cost of Any Additional Review Additional Review Engineering Division Plan Review Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Additional 25% of (where applicable) Building Permit Building Permit Fee Fee Imaging Fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of Additional 5% of Building Permit Building Permit Fee Fee with minimum fee of$5.00 Arborist Review Resolution No. 33-2007 Additional 5.75% Additional 5.75% of Building Permit of Building Permit Fee Fee CITY-WIDE FEES - 7 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE PLUMBING PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each plumbing Resolution No. 33-2008 $37.50 $39.00 permit# New Residential Building - Resolution No. 27-2006 $0.09 per square $0.12 per square including all plumbing fixtures, foot of habitable foot of habitable connections and gas outlets for area area new single- and multi-family buildings 1. Fixtures and vents—for each Resolution No. 33-2008 $16.00 $17.00 plumbing fixture or trap (including water and waste piping and backflow prevention) 2. Sewer and interceptors— For each building sewer Resolution No. 33-2008 $57.00 $60.00 For each industrial waste Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 pretreatment interceptor (except kitchen-type grease traps) 3. Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation alteration or Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 repair of water piping or water- treatment equipment For each water heater including Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 vent #Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee CITY-WIDE FEES - 8 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE 4. Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of Resolution No. 33-2008 $33.00 $34.00 one to five outlets For each additional outlet over Resolution No. 33-2008 $7.00 $7.00 five 5. Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices Irrigation systems including Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 backflow device(s) Other backflow prevention devices: 2 inches (50.8 mm) and Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 smaller Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 6. Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing: Public pool Resolution No. 33-2008 $196.00 $206.00 Public spa Resolution No. 33-2008 $147.00 $155.00 Private pool Resolution No. 33-2008 $196.00 $206.00 Private spa Resolution No. 33-2008 $147.00 $155.00 7. Miscellaneous For each appliance or fixture Resolution No. 33-2008 $33.00 $34.00 for which no fee is listed Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103.00 business hours (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum-one Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103.00 hour) Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103.00 specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) CITY-WIDE FEES - 9 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Imaging fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of Additional 5%of plumbing permit plumbing permit fee fee with minimum fee of$5.00 Plan review where plans are Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25%of Additional 25% of required plumbing permit plumbing permit fee fee MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each mechanical Resolution No. 33-2008 $37.00 $39.00 permit 4 New Residential Building- Resolution No. 33-2007 $0.09 per square $0.10 per square including all mechanical work foot of habitable foot of habitable including appliances, exhaust fans, area area ducts, and flues 1. Furnaces To and including 100 MBTU Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 Over 100 MBTU Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 2. Boilers, compressors, absorption systems To and including 100 MBTU Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 or 3HP Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 "Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee CITY-WIDE FEES - 10 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE 3. Air Conditioners Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 4. Air Handlers To 10,000 CFM including Resolution No. 33-2008 $33.00 each $34.00 each ducting Over 10,000 CFM Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 each $52.00 each 5. Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan attached to Resolution No. 33-2008 $16.00 each $17.00 each a single duct Each hood including ducts Resolution No. 33-2008 $25.00 each $26.00 each 6. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of Resolution No. 33-2008 $25.00 each $26.00 each equipment not specifically listed above Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103.00 per hour business hours (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum—one Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103 per hour hour) Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103 per hour specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of Additional 5% of mechanical permit mechanical permit fee fee with minimum fee of$5.00 Plan review where plans are Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Additional 25% of required mechanical permit mechanical permit fee fee CITY-WIDE FEES - 11 -7 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each electrical Resolution No. 33-2008 $37.00 $39.00 permit### New Residential Building - Resolution No. 27-2006 $0.09 per square $0.10 per square including all wiring and electrical foot of habitable foot of habitable devices in or on each building, area area including service ###Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee CITY-WIDE FEES - 12 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Swimming Pools 1. Public swimming pools and Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 $103.00 spas including all wiring and electrical equipment 2. Private pools for single- Resolution No. 33-2008 $74.00 $77.00 family residences Temporary Power 1. Temporary service pole Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 including all attached receptacles 2. Temporary power pole and Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 wiring for construction sites, Christmas tree lots, etc. OR UNIT FEE SCHEDULE Receptacle, switch and light outlets 1. First 20 units Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 2. Each additional Resolution No. 33-2008 $3.00 $3.50 Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliances Resolution No. 33-2008 $8.00 each $9.00 each including cooktops, ovens, air conditioning, garbage disposals, and similar devices not exceeding 1 HP in rating (For other types of air conditioners or other motor- driven appliances having larger ratings, see Power Apparatus below) CITY-WIDE FEES - 13 _T SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE FNEW FEE SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Nonresidential Appliances Self-contained factory-wired Resolution No. 33-2008 $8.00 each $9.00 each non-residential appliances not exceeding 1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage and ice cream cabinets; illuminated showcases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; etc. (For other types of devices having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Power Apparatus For motors, generators, air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial cooking devices as follows (ratings in horsepower, kilowatts, kilovolt-amperes, or kilovolt-amperes-reactive): 1. Up to 10 Resolution No. 33-2008 $25.00 $26.00 2. Over 10 to and including 100 Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 $52.00 3. Over 100 Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 $103.00 Notes: a. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. b. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats,relays, and other related control equipment. CITY-WIDE FEES - 14 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Photo voltaic systems Residential systems Up to 3000 watts Resolution No. 33-2008 $318.00 No charge Over 3000 watts Plan Check Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour No charge Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $318.00 No charge Commercial Systems Up to 3000 watts Resolution No. 33-2008 $318.00 $328.00 Over 3000 watts Plan Check Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103.00 per hour Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $318.00 $328.00 Busways For trolleys and plug-in type Resolution No. 33-2008 $25.00 for each 100 $26.00 for each 100 busways feet (30,500 mm) feet (30,500 mm) or or fraction thereof fraction thereof Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees 1. Signs, outline lighting, or Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 each $52.00 each marquees supplied from one circuit 2. For additional branch Resolution No. 33-2008 $16.00 each $17.00 each circuits within the same sign, outline lighting, or marquee CITY-WIDE FEES - 15 SERVICE REFERENCE, CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULE Services 1. 600 volts or less and not Resolution No. 33-2008 $49.00 each $52.00 each over 200 amperes in rating 2. 600 volts or less, over 200 Resolution No. 33-2008 $74.00 each $77.00 each amperes to 1,000 amperes 3. Over 600 volts or over Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 each $103.00 each 1,000 amperes Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, and Resolution No. 33-2008 $33.00 $34.00 conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth Inspections outside normal Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103.00 per hour business hours (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum—one Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103 per hour hour) Inspections for which no fee is Resolution No. 33-2008 $98.00 per hour $103 per hour specifically indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 5% of Additional 5% of electrical permit fee electrical permit fee with minimum fee of$5.00 Plan review where plans are Resolution No. 104-2002 Additional 25% of Additional 25% of required electrical permit fee electrical permit fee GENERAL FEES CITY-WIDE FEES - 16 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE SYSTEM FEE SCHEDULEe � � Appeal Fee to Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $277.00 $298.00 Commission from Building Official Determination Building Moving Resolution No. 41-2008 $299.00 $313.00 (Section 18.07.030) CITY-WIDE FEES - 17 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE CITY CLERK SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Video recording of City Council Resolution No. 33-2008 $78.46 per VHS $84.10 per VHS meeting or other proceeding that tape plus photo tape plus photo has been video recorded—to be service charge service charge paid in advance of copying recording Resolution No. 33-2008 $78.46 per DVD $84.10 per DVD plus photo service plus photo service charge charge Audiotape of City Council Resolution No. 33-2008 $15.40 per tape if $16.55 per tape if meeting or other City proceeding tape is supplied by tape is supplied by that has been taped—to be paid requestor requestor in advance of copying tape Resolution No. 33-2008 $15.40 per tape if $16.55 per tape if tape is not supplied tape is not supplied plus purchase cost plus purchase cost of tape of tape All Certifications Resolution No. 33-2007 $15.40 each $16.55 each Filing of Nomination Papers Burlingame Municipal $25.00 per $25.00 per Code section 2.20.020 candidate candidate (Ordinance No. 1703 (2003)) CITY-WIDE FEES - 18 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ENGINEERING SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Sewer Lateral Test Resolution No. 33-2008 $287.00 $303.00 Sewer Lateral Replacement w/o Resolution No. 33-2008 $287.00 $303.00 Sidewalk Water Service Connection w/o Resolution No. 33-2008 $435.00 $454.00 Sidewalk Fire System Connection w/o Resolution No. 33-2008 $535.00 $547.00 Sidewalk Curb Drain Installation Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 plus $170.00 (Sections 12.10.030/ $10.00 for every 10 12.08.020/ 12.04.030) square feet of sidewalk affected Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 sf Resolution No. 33-2008 $368.00 plus $.30 $394.00 (Sections 12.10.030/ for each square foot 12.08.020/ 12.04.030) over 200 Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Resolution No. 33-2008 $179.00 $192.00 Protection Traffic Control Resolution No. 33-2008 $244.00 $259.00 Block Party (includes up to 6 Resolution No. 27-2006 $50.00 plus $5.00 $50.00 plus $5.00 barricades) for each add'1 for each add'l barricade over 6 barricade over 6 Parking Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $127.00 plus $135.00 plus (Section 13.32.020) $10/space per day $10/space per day or meter rates or meter rates CITY-WIDE FEES - 19 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE GENERAL FEES Demolition Permit (in addition to any Building Department-issued Demolition or Construction Permit) Includes sewer and water Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,119.00 $1,171.00 replacement Add fire line Resolution No. 33-2008 $338.00 $336.00 Add curb drain Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 $170.00 Add sidewalk closure Resolution No. 33-2008 $199.00 $214.00 Add PG&E Resolution No. 33-2008 $232.00 $246.00 Address Change Resolution No. 33-2008 $304.00 $332.00 Transportation Fee Resolution No. 33-2008 $146.00 $158.00 Truck Terminal Section 13.60.120 $250.00 $250.00 Hauling Permit Section 13.60.080 $35.00 application $35.00 application fee plus 1 cent per fee plus 1 cent per ton per mile ton per mile SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Permanent structures, such as Resolution No. 33-2008 $528.00 $565.00 retaining walls, fences Right of Way User Fee based on Resolution No. 33-2008 $44.00 plus $2 per $46.00 plus $2 per square footage over 100 sf square foot in square foot in excess of 100 sq. ft. excess of 100 sq. ft. Non-permanent installations, such Resolution No. 33-2007 $284.00 Annual fee of$2.50 as tables, chairs, planters per square foot up Fee Modification from to a maximum of one-time to annual $500.00 recurring fee CITY-WIDE FEES - 20 SERVICE REFERENCE 7CURRENT FEE NEW FEE DEPOSITS OR BONDS FOR ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WORK Openings in Public Right-of-Way Resolution No. 33-2007 $300.00 $300.00 not in sidewalk or street Openings in Public Right-of-Way Resolution No. 33-2007 $8.00 per square $8.00 per square in sidewalk (not in street) foot in sidewalk foot in sidewalk area, $300 area, $300 minimum minimum Street Roadway Opening (AC Resolution No. 33-2007 $8.00 per square $8.00 per square Pavement Restoration) foot in paved area, foot in paved area, $750 minimum $750 minimum Water Main Modification Resolution No. 33-2007 $1,500.00 per $1,500.00 per connection connection Sewer Main Modification Resolution No. 33-2007 $1,000.00 per $1,000.00 per connection connection Storm Drain Modification Resolution No. 33-2007 $1,000 per $1,000 per connection connection SUBDIVISION MAPS Lot Line Adjustment Resolution No. 33-2008 $626.00 $664.00 (Section 26.24.090) Lot Combination Resolution No. 33-2008 $997.00 $1,057.00 (Section 26.24.090) Subdivision Map Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,251.00, plus $1,327.00 plus (Sections 26.24.090/ $200 for each $200 for each 26.16.151) additional lot in additional lot in excess of 5 lots; excess of 5 lots; plus actual City plus actual City consultant costs consultant costs CITY-WIDE FEES - 21 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Condominium Map Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,001.00,plus $2,116.00 plus (Sections 26.24.090/ $500 for each $500 for each 26.16.151) additional unit over additional unit over 4 units, plus actual 4 units,plus actual City consultant City consultant costs costs ZONING FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Design Review Single Family Dwelling Resolution No. 33-2008 $204.00 $213.00 All others Resolution No. 33-2008 Actual consultant Actual consultant cost and cost of cost and cost of city City staff time at staff time $105 per hour Environmental Review Traffic&Parking Studies Resolution No. 33-2008 Actual consultant Actual consultant cost and cost of cost and cost of city City staff time at staff time $105 per hour Creek Enclosures Resolution No. 33-2008 $1,182.00 $1,251.00 Drainage and Utilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $694.00 $736.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 22 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE, CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Duplicate business license Section 6.04.120 $10.00 $10.00 Application for first business Section 6.04.170 $35.00 $35.00 license Submittal of surety bond for Resolution No. 27- $150.00 for every $150.00 for every 15 transient occupancy after 2006 15 days bond is late days bond is late expiration of bond CITY-WIDE FEES - 23 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FIRE SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE CARE FACILITIES INSPECTION Pre-inspection of licensed Health& Safety Code § $50.00-25 $50.00—25 persons community care facility 13235 persons or less or less Health& Safety Code § $100.00 over 25 $100.00 over 25 13235 persons persons Residential Care Facility for Health& Safety Code § No charge No charge Elderly serving 6 or fewer 1569.84 persons—fire inspection enforcement Residential Care Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $278.00 $278.00 Large Family Day Care Resolution No. 33-2008 $147.00 $147.00 Skilled Nursing Facility Resolution No. 33-2008 $540.00 $540.00 Hospital/Institution Resolution No. 33-2008 $2,112.00 $1112.00 RE-INSPECTIONS Second re-inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $130.00 per $130.00 per inspection inspection Third and subsequent Resolution No. 33-2008 $328.00 per $328.00 per reinspections inspection inspection CONSTRUCTION FEES Building or Planning Plan Check Resolution No. 33-2008 $152.00 per hour $152.00 per hour Expedite Building or Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $152.00 per hour $152.00 per hour Check Fees (2 hour minimum) Consultation and Planning Resolution No. 33-2008 $177.00 per hour $177.00 per hour CITY-WIDE FEES - 24 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Fire Alarm Systems Permit for Monitoring System Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 $157.00 Permit for Manual System Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 $157.00 Permit for Automatic System Resolution No. 33-2008 $288.00 $288.00 Permit for Combination Resolution No. 33-2008 $417.00 $417.00 System Fixed Fire Extinguishing System Resolution No. 33-2008 $223.00 $223.00 Permit Standpipe System Resolution No. 33-2008 $288.00 $288.00 Permit Storage Tank (above or below Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 $157.00 ground) Permit SPRINKLER SYSTEMS One or two Family Dwelling Fire Sprinkler System(NFPA 13D) Resolution No. 33-2008 $419.00 - flat fee $419.00 - flat fee Permit including two including two inspections inspections (additional (additional inspections will be inspections will be charged at the charged at the hourly rate of the hourly rate of the staff who actually staff who actually perform each perform each inspection) inspection) Fire Pump Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 $157.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 25 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Residential or Commercial Fire Sprinkler System(NFPA 13 or 13R) Permit—Single Story(incl. T.I.) Resolution No. 33-2008 $681.00—- flat fee $681.00—- flat fee Permit- Multi-story including two including two inspections inspections (additional (additional inspections will be inspections will be charged at the charged at the hourly rate of the hourly rate of the staff who actually staff who actually perform each perform each inspection) inspection) Fire Service Line Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 $157.00 Alternate Means of Protection Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 per hour $173.00 per hour Review MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND PERMITS Vegetation Management Resolution No. 33-2008 $157.00 $157.00 Inspection Change of Use Inspection Resolution No. 33-2008 $166.00 $166.00 (usually triggered by new business license) CITY-WIDE FEES - 26 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Standby Service Firefighter Resolution No. 33-2008 $121.00 per hour $121.00 per hour (minimum of 3 (minimum of 3 hours) hours) Fire Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 $143.00 per hour $143.00 per hour (minimum of 3 (minimum of 3 hours) hours) Battalion Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 per hour $160.00 per hour (minimum of 3 (minimum of 3 hours) hours) Engine Company Resolution No. 33-2008 $506.00 per hour $506.00 per hour (minimum of 3 (minimum of 3 hours)plus hours)plus apparatus costs of apparatus costs of $1,136 per day as $1,136 per day as set by State set by State Photographs from investigations Resolution No. 61-2004 Cost of Cost of reproduction reproduction Fire Incident Reports (not Resolution No. 33-2008 $10.00 $10.00 including photographs) Work without a construction Resolution No. 33-2008 Up to 10 times the Up to 10 times the permit permit fees permit fees Emergency Response Costs for Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to Costs according to Driving under the Influence Personnel Schedule Personnel Schedule Below plus Below plus apparatus cost of apparatus cost of $1,136 as set by $1,136 as set by State State False Alarms Resolution No. 33-2007 $318.00 for 3 to 5 $318.00 for 3 to 5 $477.00 for 6 or $477.00 for 6 or more more Hazardous Materials Clean- Resolution No. 33-2008 Costs according to Costs according to up/Response Personnel Schedule Personnel Schedule Below plus Below plus apparatus costs of apparatus costs of $1,136 per day as $1,136 per day as set by State set by State CITY-WIDE FEES - 27 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Personnel Costs Administration Resolution No. 33-2007 $53.00 per hour $53.00 per hour Firefighter Resolution No. 33-2008 $121.00 per hour $121.00 per hour Fire Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 $143.00 per hour $143.00 per hour Fire Admin Captain Resolution No. 33-2008 $150.00 per hour $150.00 per hour Fire Inspector Resolution No. 33-2008 $131.00 per hour $131.00 per hour Battalion Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $160.00 per hour $160.00 per hour Fire Marshal Resolution No. 33-2008 $173.00 per hour $173.00 per hour Admin Support Officer Resolution No. 33-2008 $89.00 per hour $89.00 per hour Fire Mechanic Resolution No. 33-2008 $140.00 per hour $140.00 per hour Deputy Fire Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $151.00 per hour $151.00 per hour Division Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $156.00 per hour $156.00 per hour Fire Chief Resolution No. 33-2008 $178.00 per hour $178.00 per hour GENERAL PERMITS Aerosol Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Amusement Buildings Resolution No. 33-2008 $278.00 $278.00 Apartments, Hotels and Motels- Resolution No. 33-2008 $177.00 $177.00 10 or less units Apartments, Hotels and Motels- Resolution No. 33-2008 $214.00 $214.00 11 to 25 units Apartments, Hotels and Motels- Resolution No. 33-2008 $302.00 $302.00 26 or more units Aviation Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 f$441.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 28 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Battery System Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 Carnivals and Fairs Resolution No. 33-2008 $409.00 $409.00 Christmas Tree Lot Resolution No. 33-2008 $147.00 $147.00 Combustible Fiber Storage Resolution No. 33-2007 $245.00 $245.00 Combustible Material Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Compressed Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Commercial Rubbish-Handling Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Operation Cryogens Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Dry Cleaning Plants Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Dust-Producing Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Explosives or Blasting Agents Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Resolution No. 33-2008 $242.00 $242.00 Valves Fireworks Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 Flammable or Combustible Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 Liquids Hazardous Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 High-Piled Combustible Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 -20,000 square feet or less High-Piled Combustible Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $572.00 $572.00 -more than 20,000 square feet Hot-Work Operations Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Liquefied Petroleum Gasses Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 Liquid- or gas-fueled Vehicles or Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 Equipment in Assembly Buildings Live Audiences Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 29 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Lumber Yards storing in excess Resolution No. 33-2008 $343.00 $343.00 of 100,00 board Feet Magnesium Working Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Exhibits & Trade Shows- Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Display Booth Exhibits & Trade Shows-For Assembly Exhibits & Trade Shows-With Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Open Flame Exhibits & Trade Shows - Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Display Fuel Powered Equipment Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Resolution No. 33-2008 $207.00 $207.00 Stations Open Burning Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Organic Coating Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Ovens, Industrial Baking and Resolution No. 33-2008 $207.00 $207.00 Drying Parade Floats Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Places of Assembly Resolution No. 33-2008 $466.00 $466.00 Production Facilities Resolution No. 33-2008 $409.00 $409.00 Pyrotechnical and Special Resolution No. 33-2008 $441.00 $441.00 Effects Material Radioactive Materials Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Refrigeration Equipment Resolution No. 33-2008 $343.00 $343.00 Repair Garage Resolution No. 33-2008 $278.00 $278.00 Spraying and Dipping Resolution No. 33-2008 $278.00 $278.00 Tents, Canopies, and Temporary Resolution No. 33-2008 $373.00 $373.00 Membrane Structures CITY-WIDE FEES - 30 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Tire Storage Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 Wood Products Resolution No. 33-2008 $245.00 $245.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 31 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE LIBRARY SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Photocopies Resolution No. 33-2008 $.15 per page at $.15 per page at vending machine vending machine $.25 per page if $.25 per page if made by staff made by staff Internet/Database copies or Resolution No. 33-2008 $.15 per page if $.15 per page if printouts self-printed self-printed $.25 per page if $.25 per page if made by staff I made by staff Community Room Rental Resolution No. 27-2006 $75.00 $80.00 Audio Visual Assistance When Resolution No. 27-2006 $25.00 per hour $30 per hour Requested Outside System Book Loan Resolution No. 27-2006 Cost charged by Cost charged by lending library lending library PLS CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES Hold Fee Peninsula Library System $.75 per item $.75 per item Overdue Fee for Adult Peninsula Library System $.25 per item $.25 per item Overdue Fee for Child Peninsula Library System $.15 per item $.15 per item Maximum Fee Peninsula Library System $6.00 per book $6.00 per book Lost Book Replacement Fee Peninsula Library System $5.00 per item plus $5.00 per item plus costs of costs of replacement of item replacement of item Replacement of Lost Card Peninsula Library System $1.00 $1.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 32 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks&Recreation Facilities Usage. Group A: City of Burlingame, Burlingame School District Group A-1: Recognized Burlingame based non-profit youth sports groups accredited by the P&R Commission Group B: Non-profit groups or organizations with IRS Section 501c(3)tax exempt status Group C: Private parties,commercial,business,and profit-making organizations FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE 7CURRENT FEE TNEW FEE INDOOR FACILITIES Burlin ame High School Main Gym Group A and A-1 Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group C Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Small Gym Group A and A-1 Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group C Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD CITY-WIDE FEES - 33 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Other Indoor Facilities, except the Auditorium Group A and Al Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group C Residents of SMUHSD Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Auditorium Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $32.00 per hour $32.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $38.00 per hour $38.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $83.00 per hour $83.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $100.00 per hour $100.00 per hour Building Attendant' Resolution No. 33-2008 $39.00 per hour $39.00 per hour Field Attendant Resolution No. 41-2008 $39.00 per hour $39.00 per hour Weekend Custodian Resolution No. 27-2006 $80.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Weekday Custodian Resolution No. 31-2003 $25.00 per hour $25.00 per hour Extra,Non-Scheduled Hours Resolution No. 27-2006 $125 per hour $125 per hour Security Personnel` Resolution No. 33-2008 $118 per hour $118 per hour Tables/Chairs—up to 50 Resolution No. 33-2008 $8.00 per hour $8.00 per hour Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to andl hour after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or serving alcoholic beverages. CITY-WIDE FEES - 34 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Tables/Chairs—5 1-100 Resolution No. 33-2008 $16.00 per hour $16.00 per hour Tables/Chairs—over 100 Resolution No. 33-2008 $22.00 per hour $22.00 per hour Coffee Pots Resolution No. 33-2008 $12.00 per pot $12.00 per pot Wine/beer to be served Resolution No. 31-2003 $30.00 additional $30.00 additional TV/VCR Resolution No. 31-2003 $10.00 $10.00 Overhead Projector Resolution No. 31-2003 $10.00 $10.00 Microphone Resolution No. 31-2003 $10.00 $10.00 OUTDOOR FACILITIES Group A-1: Field Use per Season Resolution No. 33-2007 $10 per resident $10 per resident by Burlingame-based non-profit player per league player per league youth sports group. Must be per season; per season; accredited by the Parks & $30/non-resident $30/non-resident Recreation Commission player per league player per league per season per season CITY-WIDE FEES - 35 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Burlingame High School Stadium Field Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $30.00 per hour $30.00 per hour Group C Burlingame residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $50.00 per hour $50.00 per hour Stadium Track(Track only) Group A and Al Resolution No. 61-2006 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 per hour $15.00 per hour Group C Burlingame residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 per hour $25.00 per hour Stadium Lights Group A and Al Resolution No. 61-2006 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame residents $25 per hour $30 per hour Non-residents $25 per hour $30 per hour Group C Burlingame residents $25 per hour $39 per hour Non-residents CITY-WIDE FEES - 36 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Burlingame Hijzh School Back Field Group A and Al Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group C Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Burlinizarne High School Softball Field(#1 or#2) Group A and Al Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group C Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Burlingame High School Tennis Courts Group A and Al Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Group C Burlingame residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 Set by SMUHSD Set by SMUHSD CITY-WIDE FEES - 37 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Franklin Field Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Osberg Field Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Bayside Ball Fields#1 or#2 Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Bayside Field Lights $25 per hour $25 per hour CITY-WIDE FEES - 38 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Bayside Ball Fields#3 or#4 for softball or baseball Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $7.00 per hour $7.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $15.00 per hour $15.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 per hour $15.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $30.00 per hour $30.00 per hour Bayside Field Lights $25 per hour $25 per hour Bayside Ball Fields#3 or#4 for soccer Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Bayside Field Lights $25 per hour $25 per hour Cuernavaca Park Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour CITY-WIDE FEES - 39 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Murray Field Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $60.00 per hour $60.00 per hour Murray Field Lights $25 per hour $25 per hour Ray Park Ball Fields#1 or#2 Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Ray Park Tennis Courts Group A and A 1 Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 for 4 hours $15.00 for 4 hours Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $25.00 for 4 hours $25.00 for 4 hours Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $30.00 for 4 hours $30.00 for 4 hours Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $50.00 for 4 hours $50.00 for 4 hours CITY-WIDE FEES -40 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Main Ball Field for baseball Group A and Al Resolution No. 41-2008 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $20.00 per hour+ $20.00 per hour+ field attendant field attendant Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $40.00 per hour+ $40.00 per hour+ field attendant field attendant Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $40.00 per hour+ $40.00 per hour+ field attendant field attendant Non-residents Resolution No. 41-2008 $60.00 per hour+ $60.00 per hour+ field attendant field attendant Washington Park Lights $25 per hour $25 per hour Washington Park Bullpen Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $5.00 per hour $5.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $10.00 per hour $10.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 33-2007 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $30.00 per hour $30.00 per hour Washington Park Main Ball field Outfield for Soccer Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $20.00 per hour $20.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $40.00 per hour $40.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $60.00 per hour $60.00 per hour Washington Park Lights $25 per hour $25 per hour CITY-WIDE FEES - 41 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Washington Park Small Ball field Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $7.00 per hour $7.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $15.00 per hour $15.00 per hour Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $15.00 per hour $15.00 per hour Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $30.00 per hour $30.00 per hour Washington Park Tennis Courts Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $30.00 for 4 hours $30.00 for 4 hours Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $50.00 for 4 hours $50.00 for 4 hours Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 61-2006 $30.00 for 4 hours $30.00 for 4 hours Non-residents Resolution No. 61-2004 $50.00 for 4 hours $50.00 for 4 hours Pool—50 meter Group A and Al Resolution No. 31-2003 Lifeguard cost Lifeguard cost Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $125.00 per hour $125.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard Non-residents Resolution No. 27-2006 $188.00 per hour $188.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $225.00 per hour $225.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard Non-residents Resolution No. 27-2006 $288.00 per hour $288.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard CITY-WIDE FEES - 42 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Pool (small pool) Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 Lifeguard cost Lifeguard cost Group B Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 27-2006 $63.00 per hour $63.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard Non-residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $95.00 per hour $95.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents Resolution No. 31-2003 $125.00 per hour $125.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard Non-residents Resolution No. 27-2006 $188.00 per hour $188.00 per hour plus lifeguard plus lifeguard Pool Lanes (short) Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 Lifeguard cost Lifeguard cost Group B Resolution No. 31-2003 $10.00 per lane per $10.00 per lane per hour plus lifeguard hour plus lifeguard Group C Resolution No. 27-2006 $16.00 per lane per $16.00 per lane per hour plus lifeguard hour plus lifeguard Pool Lanes (long) Group A Resolution No. 31-2003 Lifeguard cost Lifeguard cost Group B Resolution No. 31-2003 $20.00 per lane per $20.00 per lane per hour plus lifeguard hour plus lifeguard Group C Resolution No. 31-2003 $25.00 per lane per $25.00 per lane per hour plus lifeguard hour plus lifeguard Lifeguard (minimum of 2 per event) Resolution No. 31-2003 $25.00 per guard $25.00 per guard per hour per hour Infield dragging and lining (subject Resolution No. 31-2003 Fees to be to availability determined by Parks Division based on conditions PICNIC PERMITS West-end of Washington Park New Fee N/A $300.00 + $175 refundable cleaning deposit CITY-WIDE FEES - 43 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Electrical Service Hook-up at West- New Fee N/A $75.00 end of Washington Park Small Picnic Area Burlingame residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $55.00 + $50 $55.00 + $50 refundable cleaning refundable cleaning deposit deposit Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $80.00 + $50 $80.00 + $50 refundable cleaning refundable cleaning deposit deposit Large Picnic Area Burlingame residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $110.00 + $100 $110.00 + $100 refundable cleaning refundable cleaning deposit deposit Non-residents Resolution No. 33-2008 $135.00 + $100 $135.00 + $100 refundable cleaning refundable cleaning deposit deposit Picnic Equipment Rentals (Daily New Fee N/A Fee) Tables $2.00 per table Chairs $1.00 per chair Tents $10.00 per tent Risers $25 per riser CLASSES Class Fees Resolution No. 31-2003 To be set based on To be set based on class provider and class provider and materials/facilities materials/facilities provided provided Registration Fees Resolution No. 33-2007 $8.00 $10.00 Non-resident Fee on Classes Resolution No. 31-2003 Add 20%to class Add 20%to class fee rounded to fee rounded to nearest dollar nearest dollar Senior discount—Burlingame Resolution No. 31-2003 50% off class fee 25% off class fee residents age 65 and over on classes held at on classes held at Recreation Center Recreation Center CITY-WIDE FEES - 44 FACILITY/SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Senior discount—non-residents age Resolution No. 31-2003 Waive non-resident Waive non-resident 65 and over fee fee Registration cancellation charge Resolution No. 33-2008 $7.00 per class or $7.00 per class or event event TREE AND PARKS FEES Memorial tree plantings and Resolution No. 33-2008 $175.00 $175.00 Additional street tree plantings New Fee N/A $95.00 Protected Tree Removal Resolution No. 33-2008 $75.00 $75.00 Applications Arborist's plan review for Resolution No. 33-2008 $163.00 $163.00 landscaping requirements on planning applications (See also planning fee schedule) Arborist check of construction plans Resolution No. 33-2008 $163.00 $163.00 and inspection of landscape requirements on building permit submittals Appeal to City Council from Resolution No. 33-2008 $146.00 $146.00 Beautification Commission decision (does not include noticing costs) Noticing, City Council appeal Resolution No. 33-2008 $85.00 $85.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 45 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT NEW FEE FEE PRE-APPLICATIONS Preliminary Plan Check, New Construction" Resolution No. 33- $245.00 $245.00 2008 Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel" Resolution No. 33- $145.00 $245.00 2008 APPLICATIONS Antenna Exception Resolution No. 31- $25.00 $25.00 2003 Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before Resolution No. 33- $885.00 $88.5.00 Planning Commission(applies to Planning, Fire, 2008 and Building requests) Amendment/Extension to Permits Resolution No. 33- $310.00 $310.00 2008 Appeal to City Council from Planning Resolution No. 33- $400.00 $400.00 Commission decisions (does not include noticing 2008 costs) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. 33- $1,400.00 $1,400.00 2008 Condominium Permit, 4 Units or Less Resolution No. 33- $1,345.00 $1,345.00 2008 Condominium Permit, 5 Units or More Resolution No. 33- $1,580.00 $1,580.00 2008 Design Review, Addition Resolution No. 33- $890.00 $900.00 2008 Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. CITY-WIDE FEES - 46 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT NEW FEE FEE Design Review, Amendment Resolution No. 33- $775.00 $775.00 2008 Design Review Deposit * Resolution No. 27- $800.00 $800.00 2006 Design Review—Handling Fee Resolution No. 33- $450.00 $450.00 2008 Design Review, Information Submittal to Resolution No. 33- $200.00 $200.00 Planning Commission 2007 Design Review,New Construction Resolution No. 33- $900.00 $900.00 2008 Fence Exception Resolution No. 33- $820.00 $820.00 2008 General Plan Amendment Resolution No. 33- $2,130.00 $2,130.00 2008 Minor Modification/Hillside Area Construction Resolution No. 33- $330.00 $330.00 Permit 2008 Rezoning Resolution No. 33- $1,950.00 $1,950.00 2008 Second Unit Amnesty Permit Building Official Inspection Deposit Resolution No. 33- $400.00 $400.00 2008 charged at charged at $130 per hour $130 per hour Special Use Permit Resolution No. 33- $1,400.00 $1,400.00 2008 Variance Resolution No. 33- $745.00 $1,400.00 2008 Plan Recheck Fee: More than two revisions to plans New Fee N/A $200.00 Major redesign of project plans New Fee N/A $450.00 Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing until actual time paid. CITY-WIDE FEES -47 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT NEW FEE FEE ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental, Categorical Exemption Resolution No. 33- $70.00 $70.00 2008 Environmental Initial Study Resolution No. 33- $865.00 $865.00 2008 Environmental,Negative Declaration Resolution No. 33- $2,090.00 $2,090.00 2008 Environmental, Mitigated Declaration and/or with Resolution No. 33- $2,495.00 $2,495.00 a Responsible Agency 2008 Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 31- 35% of 35% of 2003 contract, contract, deposit to be deposit to be determined determined by City by City Director of Director of Community Community Development Development Environmental Posting Fee,Negative Declaration Resolution No. 33- $240.00 $240.00 and EIR 2008 Fish& Game Fee for Negative Declaration, Fish & Game $1,876.75 $1,993.00 whether mitigated or not Code § 711.4 (fee set by (fee set by State and will State and will be increased be increased on January 1, on January 1, 2009) 2010) Fish& Game Fee for Environmental Impact Fish& Game $2,606.75 $2,768.25 Report Code § 711.4 (fee set by (fee set by State and will State and will be increased be increased on January 1, on January 1, 2009) 2010) County Clerk Processing Fee for Fish& Game Fish& Game $50.00 $50.00 Code § 711.4 CITY-WIDE FEES - 48 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT NEW FEE FEE PARKS Arborist Review when Required Resolution No. 33- $165.00 $165.00 2008 NOTICING Noticing, R1 and R2 Resolution No. 33- $140.00 $140.00 2008 Noticing, All Other Districts Resolution No. 33- $140.00 $140.00 2008 Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential Resolution No. 33- $195.00 $220.00 2008 Noticing, Design Review, all other districts Resolution No. 33- $195.00 $220.00 2008 Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside Area Resolution No. 33- $215.00 $215.00 Construction Permits 2008 Noticing, General Plan Amendment Resolution No. 33- $1,200.00 $1,200.00 2008 Noticing, Rezoning Resolution No. 33- $1,200.00 $1,200.00 2008 Noticing, Environmental Impact Report Resolution No. 33- $1,200.00 $1,200.00 2008 Noticing, City Council Appeal Resolution No. 33- $85.00 $85.00 2008 Noticing, Second Unit Amnesty Resolution No. 61- $55.00 $55.00 2004 Noticing—Replacement of Posted Sign New Fee N/A $56.00 SIGNS 50 SF or less Resolution No. 33- $32.00 $40.00 2008 CITY-WIDE FEES - 49 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT NEW FEE FEE over 50 SF and less than 200 SF Resolution No. 33- $65.00 2008 $80.00 over 200 SF Resolution No. 33- $95.00 $115.00 2008 Sign Variance Resolution No. 33- $1,350.00 $1,350.00 2008 Removal of Illegal Sign(Public Works cost) Resolution No. 33- $100.00 $100.00 2008 PUBLICATIONS Zoning Map Resolution No. 33- $1.50 $5.00 2008 General Plan Document New Fee N/A $75.00 Specific Plan Document New Fee N/A $30.00 Zoning Code (Title 25) New Fee N/A $30.00 Sign Code (Title 22) New Fee N/A $10.00 CITY-WIDE FEES - 50 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT NEW FEE FEE Bayfront Development Feel Office Ord. No. 1739 $2,064/TSF To Be (2004) Determined Restaurant $8,309/TSF Ord. No. 1739 Hotel (2004) $676/room Hotel, Extended Stay Ord. No. 1739 $657/room (2004) Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing $3,128/TSF Ord. No. 1739 Retail—Commercial (2004) $7,596/TSF Car Rental Ord. No. 1739 $48,205/acre (2004) Commercial Recreation $14,960/acre Ord.No. 1739 All Other (2004) $1,662 per p.m. peak Ord. No. 1739 hour trip as (2004) det'd by traffic study Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Ord. No. 1739 (2004) 1Bayfront Development fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area on the east side of US 101. One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested. Ordinance No. 1305 (1985),as amended,provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record(ENR)as of July 1 of each year. These fees are current as of August 2007,and will be updated in August 2008 when the ENR index is available. CITY-WIDE FEES - 51 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT NEW FEE FEE North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Feet Ord.No. 1751 $0.46 per To Be Rollins Road Area of Benefit (2005) square foot of Determined building El Camino North Area of Benefit Multiple family dwelling or duplex use Ord.No. 1751 $0.46 per (2005) square foot of building Any use other than multiple family dwelling or duplex Ord. No. 1751 $0.58 per (2005) square foot of building 2North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fees are charged to all new construction/development within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area.One-half of the fee is payable before issuance of a building permit and the balance is payable when certificate of occupancy is requested.Ordinance No. 1715(2005)provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006, based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record(ENR)as of July 1 of each year. These fees are current as of August 2007,and will be updated in August 2008 when the ENR index is available. CITY-WIDE FEES - 52 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Vehicle Release Resolution No.33-2007 $77.25 $80.00 Police Reports Report Copies Resolution No.33-2007 $1.00 per page up $2.00 per page up to $16.00 to $22.00 maximum Fingerprint Rolling Fee Livescan Fee Set by State $30.00 $30.00 of California Department of Justice Audio Tapes Resolution No.33-2007 $29.00/tape $44.00 per tape Videotapes/CD's/DVD's Resolution No.33-2007 $43.00 per $82.00 per videotape/CD/DVD videotape/CD/DVD Photographs Resolution No.33-2007 $29.00 per roll $82.00 per roll Clearance Letter Resolution No. 27-2006 $15.00 $22.00 Repossessed Vehicle Gov't Code § 41612 $15.00 $15.00 Bicycle License Resolution No. 31-2003 No charge No charge CITY-WIDE FEES - 53 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Preferential Parking Permits Issuance (up to 2 permits for Resolution No. 22-2008 $50.00 $50.00 same address) (Section 13.36.070) Resolution No. 22-2008 $50.00 $50.00 Annual renewal (up to 2 (Section 13.36.070) permits for same address) Resolution No. 22-2008 $50.00 $50.00 (Section 13.36.070) Charge for replacement of lost permit DUI Fees Resolution No. 33-2007 $113.00 per hour $118.00 per hour Resolution No. 33-2007 $113.00 per blood $113.00 per blood test test Resolution No. 33-2007 $62.00 per breath $62.00 per breath or or urine test urine test Resolution No. 33-2007 $57.00 per refused $57.00 per refused blood test blood test Booking Fees As set by County As set by County Security Service (Outside Detail) Resolution No. 33-2008 $118.00 per hour $118.00 per hour —minimum of four hours Alarm Permits Resolution No. 116-2003 $49.50 per year $49.50 per year (Section 10.10.110) False Alarm Charge 3 to 5 false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $50.00 each $50.00 each (Section 10.10.090) 6 or more false alarms Resolution No. 116-2003 $100.00 each $100.00 each (Section 10.10.090) Any false alarm for which no Resolution No. 28-2006 $150 each plus $150 each plus false alarm permit has been false alarm fee alarm fee issued Amusement/Entertainment Permit Resolution No. 33-2008 $95.00 $96.00 (Sections 6.16.050 & 6.16.090) CITY-WIDE FEES - 54 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Peddlers and Solicitors Resolution No. 41-2008 $276.00 for $276.00 for (Section 6.24.030) investigation plus investigation plus fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Curb Painting Resolution No. 33-2007 $52.00 for $52.00 for investigation investigation Tanning Salon Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus (Section 6.42.060) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 $100.00 plus $100.00 plus (Section 6.42.120) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $75.00 plus $75.00 plus (Section 6.42.160) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Massage Operator Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $250.00 plus $362.00 plus (Section 6.40.060) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 $150.00 plus $305.00 plus (Section 6.40.120) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $100.00 plus $185.00 plus (Section 6.40.160) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Massage Practitioner Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $250.00 plus $350.00 plus (Section 6.40.060) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $100.00 plus $200.00 plus (Section 6.40.160) fingerprinting fees I fingerprinting fees CITY-WIDE FEES - 55 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Model/Escort Service Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus (Section 6.41.040) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Sale or Transfer Resolution No. 41-2008 $100.00 plus $100.00 plus (Section 6.41.100) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $75.00 plus $75.00 plus (Section 6.41.130) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Private Patrol Company Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus (Section 6.44.050) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $75.00 plus $75.00 plus (Section 6.44.080) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Taxi Operator Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $38.00 plus $38.00 plus (Section 6.36.050) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $21.00 plus $21.00 plus (Section 6.36.190) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Taxi Driver Application Resolution No. 41-2008 $61.00 plus $61.00 plus (Section 6.36.050) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Renewal Resolution No. 41-2008 $55.00 plus $55.00 plus (ection 6.36.190) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Taxicab Annual Inspection Resolution No. 41-2008 $68.00 per vehicle $68.00 per vehicle (Section 6.36.120) Valet Parking Resolution No. 41-2008 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus (Section 6.30.040) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees Concealed Weapon Resolution No. 33-2008 $205.00 for $209.00 for investigation investigation Fortune Teller Resolution No. 41-2008 $150.00 plus $150.00 plus (Set by Section 6.38.060) fingerprinting fees fingerprinting fees CITY-WIDE FEES - 56 SERVICE REFERENCE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Unruly Gathering Section 10.70.070 Cost of Hours of Cost of Hours of Officer Response Officer Response Special Events/Street Closing Resolution No. 33-2008 $340/day City $353 processing Permit facility fee plus application fee plus $ 118.00/hour hourly rate for police officer fee security service and for traffic control equipment usage CITY-WIDE FEES - 57 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE SEWER SERVICE FEE REFERENCE SEWER CONNECTION FEES3 Single-family and Duplex $209/unit Section 15.08.020 Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI Multi-family $159/unit Section 15.08.020 Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI Commercial/Retail $332/thousand Section 15.08.020 square feet(TSF) Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI Office $72/TSF Section 15.08.020 Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI Warehouse $93/TSF Section 15.08.020 Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI Restaurant $822/TSF Section 15.08.020 Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI Hotel with Restaurant $524/room Section 15.08.020 Fee updated based on Engineering News Record CPI 3Set by Engineering News Record(ENR)Building Index for San Francisco over 1982 and adjusted every January 1. These rates are for year shown on schedule. CITY-WIDE FEES - 58 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Hotel without Restaurant $324/room Fee Section 15.08.020 updated based on Engineering News Record CPI INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE FEES**** Light Discharger, Annual $606.00 Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Moderate Discharger, Annual $1,660.00 Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Heavy Discharger, Annual $2,318.00 Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Non-Conventional Discharger, Annual***** $1,239.00 Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Groundwater Discharger Non-conventional Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Fee plus $6.98 per 1000 gallons discharged Application Processing Fee $160.00 Ord. No. 1786 (2006) ANALYTICAL FEES In-house Testing Cost Ord. No. 1786 (2006) Contract Lab Testing Cost plus 15% Ord. No. 1786 (2006) BIMONTHLY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES Single-family or duplex $8.27 per thousand Section 15.08.070 gallons; if less than thousand gallons, then $16.54 Multi-family residential $7.73 per thousand Section 15.08.070 gallons Restaurant, other commercial food-related uses $22.00 per Section 15.08.070 thousand gallons Moderate strength commercial $14.83 per Section 15.08.070 thousand gallons ***** Fee covers two(2)samples;additional samples charged according to Analytical Processing Fee Schedule below. CITY-WIDE FEES - 59 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Light strength commercial $9.13 per thousand Section 15.08.070 gallons Institutional $3.24 per thousand Section 15.08.070 gallons New Customers in Single-Family or Duplex Classification Number of Residents 1 $32.15 Section 15.08.072 2 $40.00 3 $48.95 4 $57.90 5 $66.11 6 $68.47 7 $74.45 8 $86.71 9 or more $101.65 CITY-WIDE FEES - 60 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WATER SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Monthly Charge for Meters 5/8" and 3/4" meter $27.01 Ord.No. 1784 (2006) 1" meter $45.93 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 1 - '/2" meter $89.17 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 2" meter $143.20 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 3" meter $270.21 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 4" meter $451.25 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 6" meter $899.78 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 8" meter $1,440.20 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) Water Consumption Within the City $5.88 per thousand Ord. No. 1784 (2006) gallons Outside the City $6.55 per thousand Ord. No. 1784 (2006) gallons Water Service Turn-on 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday No charge Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m, Monday thru Friday $20.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., Monday thru Friday $60.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) Saturday/Sunday/holiday. $60.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) Renewal Fee Not paid within 30 days of billing 1 - '/Z%penalty Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday $35.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday thru Friday $45.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., Monday thru Friday $60.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) CITY-WIDE FEES - 61 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Maintenance of Water in Fire Protection System $1.00 per month Ord.No. 1784 (2006) per inch of pipe diameter, with $2.00 minimum charge Flow Test 5/8" through 1" $50.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) 1 - '/2" and 2" $80.00 Ord. No. 1784 (2006) Over 2" $100.00 minimum Ord. No. 1784 (2006) (if over$100, cost of testing plus 15%) Temporary Water Service Meter charges (does not include water consumption) $750 deposit Ord. No. 1784 (2006) $43.00 per month for 1-inch meter $85.00 per month for three-inch meters Water Service Turn-on Deposit if Delinquent on City $50.00 or 2 months Ord.No. 1784 (2006) Water Account in Previous 12 months estimated consumption, whichever is greater Work on City Water System $60.00 permit Ord. No. 1784 (2006) $1,500.00 bond or deposit CITY-WIDE FEES - 62 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Water Line Installation(subject to adoption of ordinance) 5/8" bypass meter $350.00 Ord. No. 1805 (2007) 3/4" service with meter $4,100.00 Ord.No. 1805 (2007) 1" service with meter $4,135.00 Ord. No. 1805 (2007) 1 - '/2" service with meter $5,280.00 Ord.No. 1805 (2007) 2" service with meter $5,420.00 Ord.No. 1805 (2007) If larger than 2" or a length of more than 60 feet Cost plus 15% Ord. No. 1805 (2006) Meter Upgrade To 3/4" meter $223.00 Ord. No. 1805 (2007) To 1" meter $254.00 Ord. No. 1805 (2007) 4567 CITY-WIDE FEES - 63 STAFF REPORT 6I0 AGENDA ITEM# 8a MTG. DATE April 20, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: March 27, 2009 APPRO FROM: Parks& Recreation Administrative Secretary BY SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NOMINEES FOR THE 2009 WA K OF FAME RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the applications of Carl Reyna, Gloria Barton and Linda White for the 2009 Walk of Fame as recommended by the Walk of Fame Committee. BACKGROUND: On March 10th, representatives from the City's Beautification Commission, Civil Service Commission, Library Board and Parks &Recreation Commission met to review the applications for the Walk of Fame. The Committee members considered seven applications and approved three for recommendation to the City Council for inclusion in the Walk of Fame. The three, Carl Reyna, Gloria Barton and Linda White, were recommended for their long service and for establishing new organizations to the Burlingame community. • Carl Reyna's years of volunteer work, unending positive and encouraging attitude with Burlingame teams and players and noted that he was a fixture at the Burlingame High School sports events. His ability to bring forth the best in us all made him a wonderful role model. He was considered"Mr. Burlingame". • Gloria Barton's over 40 years of volunteer service included the PTA, Cub Scouts, Little League, and Beautification Commission and was viewed by the Committee as someone who made a positive impact in the community. • The Committee was impressed by Linda White's volunteer work with American Heart Association and her works with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce have enhanced opportunities for the Burlingame community. If the Council confirms the Committee's recommendation, the recognition of Carl, Gloria and Linda, per the Walk of Fame policy, a plaque recognizing Walk of Fame members will be placed in City Hall, plaques are to be given to the recipients or their families and a plaque will be placed near the honorees place of service. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of the recognition plaques will be approximately$500 ATTACHMENTS: A. Walk of Fame Committee's Meeting Notes B. Application Form and Applications Attachment"A" Walk of Fame Committee Meeting Notes March 10, 2009 Committee Members • Beautification Commission—Karen Dittman • Beautification Commission—Mary Hunt • Library Board— Sandy Towle • Library Board—Deborah Griffith • Parks&Recreation Commission—Laura Hesselgren • Civil Service Commission—Jeffrey Griffith Staff liaison—Joleen Helley(non-voting) Introduction Helley described: • The background of the Walk of Fame • Criteria for recognition • Recognition at Council Meeting Applications (reviewed by the Committee members in the order they were received) • Virginia Opperman—nominated by Broadway by the Bay Committee members appreciated Virginia's length of service for Broadway by the Bay, but questioned her direct impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals. The application did not mention any new programs or opportunities originated by Virginia. Although the committee feels that retired teachers deserve recognition and that Virginia is an appropriate role model who is still mentoring beginning teachers and is known for her gracious, thoughtful and generous spirit. Consensus of the group is to not recommend Virginia this year for the Walk of Fame • Don Dornell—nominated by New Life Community Church Committee members were very impressed with Don's service to the Service men and the Toys for Tots program through the Lion's Club. While Don did not meet the volunteer year's service requirement, the Committee felt Don should be recognized by the City in some other way for his good works with the Service men. Don's contributions have had a positive impact on Burlingame individuals by creating a sense of community and connection to those who are serving our country. Don is considered a wonderful role model to those in our community as an excellent example of bringing worlds though far in distance, close in heart. Consensus of the group is to not recommend Don this year for the Walk of Fame • Marc Friedman—nominated by Burlingame Girl's Softball Committee members noted Marc's ten years of volunteer service to the youth sports programs, but the application did not attribute any new opportunities for community members to Marc's volunteerism. The Committee appreciated Marc accompanying his children through the sports program,but did not see this as significantly more than many other parents in the community. Consensus of the group is to not recommend Marc this year for the Walk of Fame • Carl Reyna—nominated by Burlingame Youth Baseball Association Committee members all remembered Carl. He was ever present at Burlingame sporting events, was a wonderful inspiration and support to the kids and adults of the community bringing a feel that anything is possible. Carl read the morning bulletin at Burlingame High School for years. Carl's contribution to the community feel as a whole is something to be noted as special and valuable. Carl's ability to inspire other to be themselves despite any disabilities or challenges made him an amazing role model. Consensus of the group is to recommend Carl for the Walk of Fame • Gloria Barton -nominated by St. Paul's Episcopal Church Committee member were impressed with the integration of service in Gloria's life. She served on the San Mateo County Grand Jury, was a City of Burlingame Beautification Commissioner and City Council Member. She was instrumental in advocating the Interfaith Hospitality Network in Burlingame and once approved, she actively participated in the assisting families in the program. Her volunteer work spans forty years and includes St. Paul's Episcopal Church and groups such as the PTA, Cub Scouts and Little League. She also volunteered at the Burlingame Library and is honored with a statue outside the children's section donated to the City by her friends and family. She also was actively involved in the restoration and renovation of Burlingame High School and the Burlingame Train Station. Whether at volunteering in the community or beyond her work in appointed/elected positions, Gloria was viewed as someone who made a positive impact in the community and is considered an excellent role model. Consensus of the group is to recommend Gloria for the Walk of Fame • Doris Stirm—nominated by Burlingame Art Society Committee members appreciated Doris' commitment to volunteer work with numerous art societies that span the peninsula and the coast; and her contributions to the enhancement of and establishing an arena for artists to pursue and further their talents and careers. Although her contribution to the arts is impressive and appreciated, no other areas of volunteerism or program development were mentioned. She would be considered an appropriate role model. Consensus of the group is to not recommend Doris this year for the Walk of Fame • Linda White—nominated by American Heart Association Committee admired Linda's efforts in involving her workplace in the Start! Heart Walk thru her volunteer work with the American Heart Association. She also has contributed significantly in her work with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce in promoting new business in the community and enhancing the Chamber. Committee considered her overall contributions to the community of Burlingame to be positive and consider her an excellent role model. Consensus of the group is to recommend Linda for the Walk of Fame Committee's Recommendation • The Committee is recommending to the City Council that Carl Reyna, Gloria Barton and Linda White be recognized for the 2009 Walk of Fame. • CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY WALK OF FAME APPLICATION Organization's Namer� '�hC A Tax ID# " A s�z Organization's Address $51 bu rl W,-WR • 54e• 300 , V Lkr 11,n CSI ant e l A �y d 1 a Organization's contact: Name C i V1S+ e— PL4►'e I I& Phone# t650) 5-7q-5,565 )c Z l 6 Nominee's Name V► r6i i ri 16 Phone# a�5 ?�( � 655.65 X i Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community,including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. Vi r ► 1'5 arooAojow 13v fhe &V s 11 fe_ 5u P 20r4� S h6 hC15 been ay0601+eer �'vr( I years�aour Box ckF►�-e✓ runnim a s.5'a n iia so n -H► -s jo c ur-7Doo s t,u,b5Lri be-rs Gtre -11 Cl. d se I'I'1 -114 Ca.ris 4-o Vari0uS '10.ri�A��d n 'Adl,v+'d.t 1,,Cie-ef orders . 2. How did the nominee-ave a positive Impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? V ),ra l,n ia 1's a re �1'red +ta cher a,nd ha a pec is l �WaU of Aea.hi 1AAh OeOple, V-::�yeryda;y t� .n she spears w l* o u.re's expemej\j ctrnciIo ins and will 0L/,+ f her Iiv +v V� aV-em st-Lr-e ey' 2 rye ds have e n se i�tcFl`In e•ih 1- -t Cq rd5 {�o ca r►=h�s she e n n� es ►°YI h o 3. Why ould the nomi a be cons' red an appropnate role mo el? F.j (�h pamS rq Yl I Z 41 0"r► 1�-harn9h �'► r��"n i1 t5 bine 5hc un- noc5 +-o� be+[er 1 i�vets 441 rt) h her van a�n s �ods i n aid ��- �'vv� �a 4�©ri��'�19 or ,�j road w e she Ise tea t n 'n ��ea c he rs h o u.-F San a�Fe a C + �e I s cx ki'rnd person who cons�� l s•u.� or+s 0Wr Commune yyard ► S This nominationform, along with any supportin documentation, should be submitted to fhe"Or►e-clu, City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Vj hCi Ccx h no later than 4:00pm on January 31s' Joe I r ea+1 y ad m+real -(i r her hard work - CUld enorrnvuS ilea r4 . CITY OF BURLINGAME E C E � Is E B4,RUNGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POL SAN 3 0 2009 CITY OF BURLINGAME WALK OF FAME APPLICATION 2009 MANAGER'S OFFICE Life*� /'�� Qu - I Organization's Name N,Ev,/ oI�M VNI Tu (-+?+V 12C F!- Tax ID# ` ] ZO3 � Organization's Address 1430 PAL M J)f t 9)Q L 1 u U A M4& q04 o Organization's contact: Name lO A(L ( -k M(a S Phone# (-kV(— Fj Nominee's Name b6 N bole IV GL- Phone# Information re ag rding the Nominee I. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions,such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. A -T C-�+-�n 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? A�7T(A--cc (4 E D 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? A--T�-t ,4—( c-a-F b This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, no later than 4:00pm on January 30th January 30,2009 Gail Thomas 1033 Balboa Avenue Burlingame Ca 94010 650-401-6691 Burlingame City Council: Is bDorneis application Burlingame Walk of urlingame Adopt A Unit volunteers to nominate I hope my application does justice for the wonderful volunteer opportunities Don has created for our community. Please contact me with any further questions. Sinc rely, zqs� Gail Thomas 1. Please describe the nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. Central County Fire Chief Don Dornell reached out and pulled countless Burlingame citizens together to form a powerful, spirited group who made a difference in the lives of young Americans serving us on the other side of the world. Don stepped up without hesitation when the idea was formed to help a military unit and their families in May, 2004. Chief Dornell took the mission to heart and went above and beyond so that our fellow Americans would feel the respect and care they deserve while so far from home. His genuine concern and contagious positive attitude attracted a core group to gather ideas and a mission for the "Burlingame Adopt Unit" (BAU). Chief Dornell wanted the deployed men (all men since it was a combat unit) to know that they were not forgotten while away and he wanted to make their day to day lives more comfortable in any way possible. A group of at least 136 people were involved in gathering food, snacks, CDs, DVDs, magazines, toiletries, batteries, and other items to make the soldiers more comfortable to be sent about every 6 weeks. Please note that this group reached out to hundreds of other Burlingame residents to support this mission. Don also encouraged the gathering of personal hand written notes and cards to send. We found that this effort was more appreciated than we could have imagined. The soldiers were intensely moved by the notes especially from children. Don raised money as well. These donations were used to buy helpful equipment such as solar powered lights so our men could "seethe bad guys at night". Don sent heavy duty seat belt cutters so our men could be extracted from damaged vehicles in a more efficient manner. He gathered funds from the community for knee pads, and even boots for the new Iraq soldiers who had none. Don kept in close contact with the captain of our supported unit, Captain Billingsly, and his wife who lived in Ft. Campbell KY. Through Mrs. Billingsly, Don was made aware of the needs of the soldiers' families as well. One mother and 4 kids had the misfortune of their house burning down the day after Christmas. Don reached out to Burlingame and was able to send a great deal of help in the form of gift certificates to Target and grocers. There were instances of financial setbacks in other families and BAU responded. Don, again with his incredible empathy for the needs of others, took on the task of the deployed military's children and their bedtime stories. He formed another group of Burlingame citizens to collect children's books for the deployed fathers to read on video while overseas to their young children at home. The books along with the videos of their fathers reading the books were to be sent to children. Over 70o books were collected. These incredible acts of kindness would not have been possible without the drive and passion of Chief Dornell. It was he who was able to galvanize the citizens to make these things happen. Prior to Don's service to BAU he was very active in the Lion's Club and Toys for Tots. z. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? You will see how many organizations Chief Dornell contacted and communicated with in the enclosed letter written by Phyllis Ekerson. A Girl Scout troop, for example, hand made friendship bracelets that said "Girl Scouts Love Bravo Co". Each soldier received one and many kept them on throughout their tour. The girl scouts were dedicated to make a token of love that deeply touched some of the soldiers. Each girl was moved by the passion of someone like Don Dornell to reach out and touch someone they did not even know. The newspaper articles mentioned in Phyllis' letter are testimony to Don's impact as well. Don would speak to the volunteers after each boxing event. He knew details of the soldiers'and the soldier's families lives. He shared pictures of the unit happily opening their goods and standing in front of a "Burlingame Loves Bravo Co." banner which was provided and signed by BAU and was hung where the men ate their meals. It was a warm reminder of home according to one soldier to see the banner on a daily basis. Each BAU volunteer left every event feeling that they had accomplished something wonderful and motivated to do more. Sergeant First Class Pablo Cadena was a soldier injured while on tour. Don contacted him and kept in close communication throughout his numerous leg surgeries and rehabilitation. SFC Cadena and Don became friends, so much so that SFC Cadena visited Burlingame all the way from Texas. BAU hosted a reception for him and was blessed with the most enticing account of life as a soldier. Burlingame residents laughed with SFC Cadena and eyes filled with tears at times as he spoke. He made it clear that it would be impossible for us to understand how much of an impact the packages and letters sent by BAU moved the soldiers. He said "the fact that strangers took the time to gather this stuff, box it and send it" was more important than the actual supplies. Don worked tirelessly to arrange a personal visit to our sponsored unit in Iraq. He persistently sought the permission required to visit "our guys" from Senators, Congress and even our President. He wanted first hand knowledge of what the men were doing and what we could do to help them. He was never able to get clearance, but as he worked his way up the chain of command he made Burlingame and their accomplishments noteworthy to our politicians. Don was going to personally finance this trip because he thought it would be of such value to the men and to the Burlingame residents. Don had a significant impact on the residents of Burlingame as he helped us reach out to strangers on the other side of the world. Bravo Company returned to the United States right before Thanksgiving in 2oo8. Fifty two of the men would be returning to empty dorm rooms at Ft. Campbell KY while the rest would be with their families on the base or nearby. Don, once again keenly aware of the needs of others, addressed BAU with this fact. BAU arranged for gift baskets with bed sheets, blankets, gift certificates and toiletries to be there for the men when they finally arrived "home': Don is ready to support another deployed unit as soon as possible so his service continues. 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? Chief Don Dornell is a leader with compassion, intelligence and the ability to move people to do wonderful things. He has the gift of combining drive and determination with an understanding of the human spirit. He somehow knows what other people need. He knows how to rind out what other people when he doesn't know as well. His connection to Captain Billingsly required a skill that only a very intuitive person possesses. He was able to reach the Captain and build a trust. The Captain was able to relay his thoughts and needs to Don who was able to pass them on to us so that we could help. Captain Billingsly and Don communicated between very dangerous missions in which life and death situations occurred daily. Don was able to understand this and connect with him. He was then able to relay what was happening and connect with US, Burlingame. Amazing. F `-J G A Fth S t� Burlingame Adopt-a-Unit (BAU) Tax ID# 946000304 Nominee's Name: Don Dornell In March 2004 Burlingame citizens met to form a committee to look into the possibility of adopting a military unit through the America Supporting Americans (ASA) Program. Don Dornell was voted to head the committee. Right from the beginning Don showed his passion and determination to have Burlingame become involved in showing support to our military personnel no matter where they are stationed or deployed. Our motto, coined by Don, is and will always be, "It's about the people, not the politics." On May 3, 2004, the City Council of Burlingame formally adopted Bravo Company, V Battalion, 327`h Infantry Regiment, 101' Airborne Division (Air Assault). By the end of May 2004, Don had contacted the Captain of Bravo Company and arranged to have four members of Bravo Company represent the Unit and visit Burlingame over the July 4`h weekend to attend an outdoor luncheon sponsored by the Atria in Burlingame in honor of Burlingame's newly adopted soldiers. Plus the "Bushmasters" were invited to be the color guard for the Redwood City July e Parade. Don raised the funds for their air fare and convinced two hotels in Burlingame to provide the rooms. This was only the beginning of using his contagious passion and enthusiasm in getting things done for BAU! x + 5 Don, BAU members with Bravo company soldiers (Jon Ritt, Bobby Brooks, Pablo Cadena, Matthew Loheide) In the past four plus years, Don has spoken on behalf of Burlingame's Adopted Soldier Program to a variety of organizations on his own time. These organizations include the Burlingame's Lion's Club, Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, Burlingame City Council, Girl Scout Council, Girl Scout Troops, churches, and schools. He received replies of appreciation like the following, . . ."The community is very fortunate that there are people like your group making this happen and giving others an opportunity to join in the giving no matter how small. Thank you." That is a positive statement for Burlingame and Don's involvement! Don has been interviewed by the San Mateo Times, Burlingame Daily News and the Examiner regarding Burlingame's involvement to show support and appreciation to our troops. The editor of the San Mateo Times was so impressed he ended his October 26, 2005, editorial by saying, "If your city hasn't adopted a unit, encourage them to do so. If they have, volunteer to take a few minutes out of your day to encourage someone who is willing to sacrifice so much." Don has visited Bravo Company at their home base in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, at least five times. On the trips before the Unit's deployments to Iraq, Don would visit with the soldiers and find out what personal supplies Burlingame could send them. The supply list Don compiled resulted in over 1200 boxes being shipped from the BAU supporters to the Bushmasters in their two Iraq deployments since Burlingame's adoption of them! d k Has the City of Burlingame's involvement in the Adopt-a-Unit Program benefited by Don's leadership? It certainly has! In Bravo Company's newsletter, THE BUSH; News from Iraq, sent to military personnel, family and friends, Burlingame was featured in an article entitled, "Burlingame Strikes Again." The article tells how much our boxes filled with donations are appreciated by the men and ends with... "To all the generous folks of Burlingame, we say..."Thank You for the unconditional support of the Bushmasters!" Don has also received dozens of letters from the men of Bravo Company thanking us for what we do. This is an example of the letters: Dear Citizens of Burlingame, ...I really think what you guys have done for us while we've been deployed is awesome. Not only does it let us know that people in the states still care, it makes life a little easier because of all the useful things you guys send us. We all hope you guys understand how grateful we are..." These are testimonials received because of Don and his hard work and time given to one of his passions. ' y Ilk - �rlrr The Burlingame Adopt-a-Unit Supporters are truly grateful for his leadership and dedication. Don Dornell should be recognized for his Community Service. Sincerely, Phyllis Everson BAU Committee Member January 30,2009 Gail Thomas 1033 Balboa Avenue Burlingame Ca 94010 650-401-6691 Burlingame City Council: I submit this application on behalf of the Burlingame Adopt A Unit volunteers to nominate Don Dornell to the Burlingame Walk of Fame. I hope my application does justice for the wonderful volunteer opportunities Don has created for our community. Please contact me with any further questions. Sind Gail Thomas • CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POL kMANAGLR4 AN 2 2 2008 WALK OF FAME APPLICATION TY OF BRLINGAME S OffICE Organization's Name B u r Sq�fbe-A Tax 1D # qq 3 �� Organization's Address E o .• pj)Z( y 2 j U Y 1,G aAw_ -C - cv a to Organization's contact: Name In na Phone # L Nominee's Name I ' bc, FYI d m a"n Phone # (Q56 . 3 q L -`t'n 4s Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating oppo U-MLies for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. ( JCJT$-2-008) D(WfL h ai5 ba4 a nvtUcL + t 0 V-=6 aCc5 O. o ch '.odt -S ta_y- ('. Xli an hear k -FM i d-e,w6. ke_ Inas world «Tz* 'P+ ? + ilkc 65D • '-ec 4 v{ r 65 to u P rarr,� 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? iu-*t, k4-,6 uuolrua d c; l e 40 a W rMre i�u qIw- the a Is C., d nu u.e� a!� h°vU�uXceJ� , r 1 "rmykf�w webs k f� hates u `�-e� +) t�c,nd-Lsc� 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? ' fflaJTe i 5 R -�h "A 0VY- S (it haoI s t- C,AItahVP� to 4 j Ck�. CI rf_n � �jor(ALi m . H�, h,as Lc,Qsy 9-"d-at o sc un l bow m un Gxr + LOCHK�JCM15fan�(y 6yi IXVA(f of �-� 13o r Lf k1ole Ck-c arw , This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, no later than 4:06pm on January 31" no{- VlaUC -tom- �t-baU Ci�W yM.+ I Pr r&,tlkA + CU,�- SC tCZft UUM q0 no � be- (tA s s b7y� , lk i 5 a be lit-1,-M 1h,( -5ccne5 wm`a- , - ccfk51a KA- C�UVLA,\-5 -it a-Q-0 CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY WALK OF FAME APPLICATION 2009 Organization's Name: Burlingame Youth Baseball Assoc Tax ID # III - 3 16-7 3 Organization's Address: P.O. Box 1633 Burlingame CA 94011 Organization's contact Name: Hank Sauer Phone # 650-347-2303 Nominee's Name Carl Reyna Phone # deceased Information regarding the Nominee 1 . Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. Carl Reyna was an active member of our Burlingame sports community almost his entire life. Born with disabilities that left him both physically and mentally challenged, he endeared himself to our community, and became a fiVture at almost all Burlingame sporting events. He kept score for years at baseball games, and worked for the Park and Rec. Dept. 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? Though challenged, Carl always had a positive thing to say to everyone. His decades unending encouragement of Burlingame teams and players, proved to all that knew him what a positive attitude could do. Carl read the morning bulletin at BHS for years, and was a part of our sports community until his death. 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? On any winning team, there is always someone who, by their actions, raises the level of play of those around them. They may not be the team's best player, but they are the team's Most Valuable Player. Carl did that for Burlingame. He reached out to those around him, and our community responded in kind. He gave us all the opportunity to be the people we want to be. He gave us the opportunity to be friendly, caring, supportive, patient, loving and fiercely loyal. He helped to make us all better people. He was our MVP. This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, no later than 4:06pm on January 30th DECD CITY OF BURLINGAME JAN 2009 OWN BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLI CITY OF BURLINGAME MANAGER'S OFFICE WALK OF FAME APPLICATION 2009 Name Organization's I'v T l� i �5�� kTax ID 4 ."4 ,. Organization's Address t ' l ? 4,k wr / e- Organization's contact: Name P i J i1A145�k1 !��� one# V �`'�� G-1�� Nominee's Name ����a. 'Bair' Phone# k e cE> Information regarding the Nominee I. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? This nomination,form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Mar?agar's Qfice at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, no later than 4:06pm on January 30th � St. PAUL 3 Episcopal Church BURLINGAME FREv.THOMAS SKILL.INGS RECTOR January 29, 2009 We are pleased to nominate Gloria H. Barton for the City of Burlingame Walk of Fame. In 1957 Gloria and John Barton and their family moved to Burlingame, and from that time Gloria was involved in this community. Although she is well-known for her service on the City Council from 1978 - 1991 as a community leader, Gloria was equally involved in community organizations of all kinds that directly benefitted the people of Burlingame. As her three sons grew up, attending Washington Elementary and Burlingame High Schools, Gloria was active in the PTA serving as President in the late 1950's. At the same she was a board member of Cub Scouts and the Little League organization in town. When the boys grew up __ she turned her attention to the city, and between 1973 and 1978 serve on the city's Beautification Commission as a Commissioner. Shortly after their arrival in, Burlingame, Gloria and John became members of Saint Paul's Episcopal Church whose centennial year we are now celebrating. As an institution committed to reaching out to the community here and beyond our borders, Gloria actively promoted much of our good works until her death in 2004. In 197.4-75 she served as Senior Warden and during that time Saint Paul's adopted the Pham family who had escaped the war in Vietnam. Under Gloria's leadership and personal involvement the people of our parish arranged for local housing, provided household goods, food and other necessities to establish the family in the community. In the 1990's both Gloria and John were active with Habitat for Humanity helping to build homes on the Peninsula for low income families. 415 EL.CAMINO REAL,BURLINGAME,CA. 94010 w 650.348,461 1 - 650.346.2126(FAX) - wvAV.STPAULSBURUNGAME.COM In early 2000 there was a movement to establish the Interfaith Hospitality Network in San Mateo County. The purpose of this organization which is made up of churches of many faiths is to provide temporary shelter and meals for local families in church facilities on the Peninsula. Gloria was instrumental in advocating this program to the City of Burlingame. Subsequent to its approval,she actively participated in overnighting with the families when they were residing at Saint Paul's. IHN continues to be an effective community outreach program to this day. A brief list of Gloria's involvement which enhanced our life and community: 1990's-Served on the San Mateo County Grand Jury 1995-1998-Hosted UP FRONT WITH GLORIA BARTON-a local television talk show with interviews and discussion of current issues facing Burlingame and its citizens. 1990's - Volunteered at Burlingame Library. Actively involved in the promotion of the 75th Anniversary celebration of the founding of the library and is honored with a statue outside the Children's Section. 1990's - active in the restoration and renovation of Burlingame High School and in the restoration of the Burlingame Train Station. It is not difficult to see Gloria's impact on the community she loved over a period of 47 years. She was selfless humanitarian who was a positive force to promote all the good things about Burlingame. She was also a compassionate person who cared for the welfare of her fellow citizens. We believe she is truly qualified to be remembered and honored with a well earned place on the Walk of Fame. nD CITY OF BURLINGAME kAyN 3 0 2009 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION PO OF BURLINGAME M WALK OF FAME APPLICATION 2009 ANAGER'S OFFICE Fiscal Sponsor is Peninsula Arts Council Organization's Name Burlingame Art Society Tax ID # 94- 3260004 Organization's Address P . O . Box 1754 , Burlingame , CA 94010 Organization's contact: Name Lynne F l o d i n Phone # ( h 5 0 ) 347-6875 Nominee's Name naris Stirm Phone # ( 6 5 0 ) 347-0234 Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. Please see reverse side 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? Please see reverse side 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? Please see reverse side This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, no later than 4:00pm on January 30th Walk of Fame Application 1. Doris has spent 25 years teaching art in her home studio,studio on Broadway in the 80's for several years,and for the Burlingame Recreation Department. She has served on many boards of different art societies and is the current president of the Burlingame Art Society and an executive board member of the prestigious Society of Western Artists. She is a signature member and past president of this society and also a charter member of the Pastel Society of the West Coast. In addition,she has exhibited her art and served as Director of the Redwood City Art Gallery for five years. 2. Through Doris's involvement with the arts she has achieved the status as an accredited judge. Besides teaching up-and-coming artists she has juried many shows, art groups,the San Mateo County Fair(from the late 90's to 2005),and galleries for many years. In her capacity as a judge,as a director for the Redwood City Art Gallery,and president of various societies and boards she has been instrumental in establishing guidelines for judging works of art. She is always present giving encouragement and assistant to artists to help in their development. Many of our accomplished local artists have been taught by Doris. As recognition of her service to the art community she received the prestigious Diamond Award in Art Education by the Peninsula Arts Council two years ago. ODoris would be considered an appropriate role model because of her dedication to art and her ongoing volunteer work with art societies in establishing an arena for artists to pursue their aspirations and further their talents and careers in the art field. Burlingame Art Society P.O. Box 1754 Burlingame, CA 94010 January 27, 2009 City Manager City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Gentlemen: This is a cover letter for nominating Doris Stirm to the Walk of Fame for the year 2009. Doris is an outstanding example and role model for the citizenry of Burlingame. She had dedicated most of her adult life in teaching art to children and adults in our community. In her later years she continues to teach those who seek out her talent in her home studio at no cost. She always lends a helping hand to art organizations by volunteering her talent, experience, and expertise. In addition, she encourages younger artists to pursue their artistic dreams. Doris is a very gifted artist and encourages all to see the world through the artist's eye. In her words, "Painting is such a joy, is wonderful therapy, and a constant learning process. I feel so blessed to have the ability to see the beauty around me." Sincerely, Lynne Flodin Burlingame Art Society Enclosure cc: Randy Schwartz Director of Parks & Recreation Wn=j e � CITY OF BURLINGAME NZ BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLN 2 09WALK OF FAME APPLICATIO 0 Organization's Name American Heart Association Tax ID#_13-5613797 Organization's Address 1710 Gilbreth Road,Burlingame,CA 94010 Organization's contact: Name Annie Oliveto Phone# 650-259-6715 Nominee's Name Linda White Phone# 650-231-1300 Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community,including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. Linda is the CEO of United Health Credit Union. I know her through her extensive work with the American Heart Association. Linda has been a participant,Team Captain,Company Leader,Logistics Director and outstanding volunteer for the annual Start! Heart Walk which raises over$600,000 everyyear for heart disease and stroke research and community education. Linda has made sip-nificant contributions to the Start! Heart Walk not only by helping with event management but also by involving the credit union community in the fundraising event. Linda is responsible for over$30,000 in income raised for the AHA. Linda is also heavily involved in the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce where she helps organize business events,promote business in the community and promote new commerce in the city. Linda is the Immediate Past Chair and has significantly enhanced the Chamber. 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? Linda has a significant impact on the people of Burlingame. Heart Disease and stroke are the number one and number three killers of all Americans and of the citizens of Burlingame. Linda's work for the AHA literally helps save lives because without the impact of research dollars,millions more people would die of these diseases each year. Linda also makes a significant impact in her own work as CEO of a not-for-profit credit union. Credit unions are a non-profit, cooperative alternative to traditional banks and they are established with the intent of helping improve the lives of the members they serve. Under Linda's amazing tenure,she has established many programs at the credit union that benefit Burlingame citizens. One of these programs is a youth account which helps teach young people financial literacy and fiscal conservatism by being responsible for their own finances. Linda has also gone into Burlingame schools to conduct financial literacy courses for children. In tough economic times this is especially significant and under Linda's guidance,United Health Credit Union has served the Burlingame community by offering safe,reliable and responsible financial services and loans that benefit workings people's lives. 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? Linda is an incredible role model and she leads by example. I saw this first hand as she lead other credit union CEOs who participated in the Heart Walk and on the Heart Walk Logistics Committee. Linda is also naturally concerned about the health and well-being of her community. One example of Linda being an exemplary role model is her recruitment of her voluntary Board of Directors for her credit union. In an aging business(finance),Linda has specifically_sought out to recruit an incredibly diverse Board who makes decisions for the credit union members. She is one of only a small handful of CEOs in the state who has recruited board directors under 30 and even has a junior director who he!Rs Linda understand the needs of young community membersk Linda has volunteered for our organization for over a decade. Service work comes naturally to Linda and is an extension of the work she has dedicated her professional life to—the Credit Union Movement's motto is"People Helping People,"and in Linda's case this is definitely true! Attachment `B" 2009 Walk of Fame Applications CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY WALK OF FAME APPLICATION 2009 Organization's Name Tax ID Organization's Address Organization's contact: Name Phone 4 Nominee's Name Phone# Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Manager's Once at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, no later than 4:00pm on January 317th CITY C BUA I... ME STAFF REPORT ti�oq 9,m AGENDA 0HATEU JUNE B ITEM# 8b MTG. DATE April 20,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED�J DATE: April 13, 2009 BY FROM: Ana Silva APPROVED 1 Tel.No.: 558-7204 By r SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO LIBRARY BOARD TRUSTEES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill an impending vacancy on the Library Board. The recommended due date is May 22, 2009. This will allow enough time for interviews and an orientation for the new board member. BACKGROUND: Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The current commissioner will be invited to reapply if she wishes to serve again. In addition, all past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. The following Board Member's term will expire as detailed below.- Commissioner elow:Commissioner Term Expiration Terms Served Nancy Brock June 30, 2009 2 Agenda Item # 9a Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: April 20, 2009 ' SUBMITTED BY<::;!:31f�4 I . APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: April 8, 2009 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, CITY PROJECT NO. 79410 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Annual Creek and Channel Facilities Maintenance Program. BACKGROUND: The annual creek maintenance is an on-going program at five creeks/ channels for the purpose of removing trash, non-native vegetation, and sediment to improve the aquatic habitat of the creek and maintain the capacity of the channels to prevent flooding. The program applies to portions of Burlingame, Sanchez, Easton, Mills, and EI Portal creeks (see attached map). An Initial Study/Draft mitigated negative declaration was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and circulated for public review from December 5, 2008 through January 5, 2009. One comment letter was received from Caltrans requesting additional information and a commitment to obtain an encroachment permit prior to cleaning those channels that are within Caltrans right-of-way. Caltrans' questions were addressed in the final Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated April 8, 2009. DISCUSSION: The evaluation in the final mitigated negative declaration shows that the project, as mitigated, would not result in significant impacts to the environment. Staff is currently pursuing permits from State Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers which are expected to be issued by July 2009. Upon certification of the mitigated negative declaration and acquisition of permits, staff will initiate a Request for Proposals from contractors to complete the work. The permits will be good for five years with renewal options for an additional five years. BUDGET IMPACT: The costs of preparing the CEQA documents including the biological study is estimated to be $ 36,000. There are adequate funds available in the project budget to cover the costs. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring Program and project map. C: City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance Department Doug B .E. Senior Engineer Y RESOLUTION NO. - RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO. 79410 WHEREAS, a Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on the possible environmental consequences of the proposed Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Program was completed on December 5, 2008; and WHEREAS,the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration was completed on April 8, 2009, and did not identify any significant impacts of the proposed project on the environment provided certain mitigation measures listed therein were certified and implemented; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, and other evidence presented by all persons. RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The proposed Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Program will not have a significant effect upon the environment if the mitigation measures listed therein are implemented; 2. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Program reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis and is hereby certified; 3. The custodian of the record of proceedings is Douglas Bell, Senior Engineer and the location of the records is City Hall, Public Works Department, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Ca. 94010; and 4. Staff is instructed to file a Notice of Determination. Mayor I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, 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 , 2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Program April 8, 2009 Lead Agency and Project Proponent City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Phone (650) 558-7200 PROJECT LOCATION The City of Burlingame (City) is located approximately 17 miles south of San Francisco along U.S. Highway 101 in San Mateo County (see Figure 1, Regional Vicinity Map). The City is bounded on the northwest by the City of Millbrae, by San Francisco Bay (the Bay) to the northeast, the City of San Mateo to the southeast, the City of Hillsborough on the south, and by Interstate-280 (1-280)to the west. The proposed maintenance work will take place along areas within the following five creeks: Burlingame Creek, Sanchez Creek, Easton Creek, Mills Creek, and El Portal Creek. These five creeks originate on the eastern slope of the Buri Buri Ridge on the east side of I-280 and flow on northeasterly courses to the Bay. All of these creeks have altered channels and have been diverted in many reaches through various structures such as storm drains, box culverts, and pipelines. The creek segments of the project lie entirely within the City of Burlingame. The creeks are located primarily along and downstream of the Caltrain railroad tracks. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Description The Project evaluated in this Initial Study is the City of Burlingame Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Project (Project). There are five creeks and channels that have been identified by the City as requiring annual on-going maintenance (see Figure 2, Project Location Map): Burlingame Creek, Sanchez Creek, Easton Creek, Mills Creek, and El Portal Creek. Portions of the creek channels are concrete lined and consist of box culverts. Specific locations within these creeks and channels and the maintenance activities proposed within each are described in detail below. The maintenance activities would be conducted annually and, if permitted by appropriate regulatory agencies, would allow the City to perform specific activities each year so that they would not be required to secure separate permits on an annual basis. The proposed maintenance activities include removal of accumulated sediment, debris (such as garbage, shopping carts, etc.), and non-native vegetation, and City of Burlingame Pagel Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS cutting or mowing vegetation in and around the channels. Sediment and debris removal would be performed by hand labor, bob cat and backhoe/clam shell bucket as appropriate. The bob cat is specifically configured to work in channels and within box culverts. Vegetation removal would be performed by hand labor, and grasses and vegetation would be reduced by mowing or cutting. No tree removal is proposed. The proposed annual work would take place along specific segments of the following five creeks(as illustrated in Figures 3 through 7): 1. Burlingame Creek: As illustrated in Figure 3, Burlingame Creek Segments, two segments of the creek have been identified for maintenance. One segment is an enclosed box culvert and the other segment is within an open channel section of the creek. • La Enclosed Box Culvert Section: The work within this portion of the creek is in an enclosed box culvert located in Parking Lot E (located between Primrose and Park Avenues). Approximately 60 cubic yards (CY) of sediment would be removed through use of a clam shell bucket with access through removable concrete horizontal doors located directly above the Park Road debris pit. • Lb Open Channel Section: This section is along California Drive and is adjacent to the Caltrain railroad tracks. Vegetation removal would occur within an approximately 1,500 linear feet (LF) of the open channel. The vegetation clearing work would be performed by hand labor with a backhoe located outside the channel on a flat working area located behind the embankment adjacent to California Drive. The backhoe would be used to off-load debris and cuttings out of the creek. 2 Sanchez Creek: Figure 4, Sanchez Creek Segments, illustrates the four locations along the creek that are slated for vegetation removal or cutting activities and sediment removal. The various segments of the creek are described in detail below, although they are all considered to be a part of Sanchez Creek. • 2a California Ditch: Sanchez Creek in this area follows California Drive (beginning at Majilla Drive) and traverses under the Caltrain tracks. Vegetation removal and cutting would occur with approximately 600 LF of the open creek channel. A backhoe would be located behind the embankment adjacent to California Drive to off-load the vegetation. • 2b Carolan Ditch: Sanchez Creek continues northwest along Carolan Avenue approximately 300 LF and flows southwest back under the Caltrain tracks. Vegetation removal and cutting would occur in this stretch and a backhoe would be located on Carolan Avenue to off-load cuttings out of the creek area. City of Burlingame Page2 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS • 2c Sanchez Open Channel: Vegetation removal is proposed for this portion of Sanchez Creek which flows perpendicular to Carolan Avenue for approximately 75 LF before it enters a box culvert under the Caltrain tracks. A backhoe would be located on Carolan Avenue to off-load sediment, debris, and vegetation. • 2d Sanchez Open Channel: This portion of Sanchez Creek is approximately 425 LF and is located between California Drive and the Caltrain tracks. Vegetation removal is proposed in this area. A backhoe would be located on California Avenue or the adjacent parking lot to off-load vegetation. • 2e-North Park Apartment Box Culvert: The work within this portion of the creek is in enclosed dual 5- by 7-foot wide box culverts located in the North Park Apartments entranceway from Carolan Avenue that continues under Highway 101 out to the Bay. Approximately 200 CY of accumulated sediment and debris would be removed through use of a bob cat and hand labor with shovels. Sediment and debris would be removed through three large removable hatchways in the parking lot of the North Park Apartments. 3. Easton Creek: Maintenance activities are proposed on five segments of Easton Creek. As shown on Figure 5, Easton Creek Segments, the segments of the Creek within the project area begin at Grove Channel and end where the creek flows into the Bay. The various segments of the creek are described in detail below, although they are all considered to be a part of Easton Creek. • 3a Lincoln Channel: Approximately 25 CY of sediment would be removed from a box culvert located near where the creek daylights into concrete- lined open channel, known as the Grove Channel. Workers would use shovels to load sediment and debris from the box culvert into a backhoe located on California Drive. • 3b Grove Channel: Approximately 10 CY of sediment would be removed from a 100 LF portion of Easton Creek. This reach of creek consists of an open concrete-lined channel that parallels California Drive. Proposed work in this stretch would include sediment and debris removal. A small front- end loader would be located within the channel to gather silt and deposit it into a backhoe bucket. The backhoe would be located behind the embankment adjacent to California Drive. • 3c Easton Creek: Easton Creek continues from California Drive, under the Caltrain tracks for approximately 900 LF to Highway 101. Vegetation removal would occur along the entire length of the channel beginning at the earthen open channel east of the Caltrain tracks and ending at Highway 101. Approximately 40 CY of sediment would be removed from a 300 LF section of the creek. A backhoe would be located on a paved access path behind the embankment adjacent to Easton Creek to off-load cuttings, sediment, and debris. City of Burlingame Page3 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS • 3d Easton Creek: Once Easton Creek reaches Highway 101, the creek is diverted into box culverts under the highway. The proposed work in this area would be the removal of approximately 150 CY of silt and debris from the box culverts. A small bob cat front-end loader would be lowered into the box culvert by a backhoe. The bob cat would transport sediment and debris to the concrete open channel on the east side(the Bay side) of the box culvert. Workers would be in the channel to load the sediment and debris into the backhoe bucket for removal. The backhoe would be located within an adjacent parking lot outside the channel. • 3e Easton Creek: Between Highway 101 and Bayshore Boulevard, Easton Creek flows into a concrete channel. Approximately 150 CY of sediment and debris removal are proposed a 200 LF segment of the creek. Workers would use a bob cat and shovels to load sediment and debris from the channel into a backhoe located on a parking lot adjacent to the Easton Creek channel. • Mills Creek: Maintenance activities are proposed on five segments of Mills Creek. As shown on Figure 6, Mills Creek Segments, the project segments of the creek begin in a vegetated open channel that runs parallel to the Caltrain tracks and end as the creek flows into the Bay. The various segments of the creek are described in detail below, although they are all considered to be a part of Mills Creek. • 4a Mills Creek: This segment of Mills Creek is within an approximate 500 LF portion of the open channel that runs parallel to the Caltrain tracks. Vegetation removal via cutting or mowing is proposed within the earthen channel bottom and on both sloped banks. Approximately 50 CY of sediment would be removed from a 500 LF section of the creek. Workers would use shovels to load sediment, debris, and vegetation from the channel into a backhoe located on a parking lot adjacent to the Mills Creek channel. • 4b Mills Creek: The 4b segment of Mills Creek flows in an earthen channel from the Caltrain tracks approximately 800 LF northeast to Rollins Road. Vegetation removal would occur along the entire length of this reach of the creek. Approximately 200 CY of sediment would be extracted from a 200 LF portion of the creek. Proposed work and work area access in this area is the same as for 4a Mills Creek described above. • 4c Mills Creek: Segment 4c of Mills Creek, also an earthen channel, begins on the north side of Rollins Road and continues approximately 800 LF to Highway 101. Vegetation removal would occur along the entire reach of the creek. Approximately 200 CY of sediment would be removed from this section of the creek. The proposed work and work area access in this area would be the same as for Segment 4a Mills Creek above. City of Burlingame Page4 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS • 4d Mills Creek: This segment includes 200 LF concrete box culverts under Highway 101. The proposed work involves the removal of approximately 150 CY of silt and debris from within the concrete box culverts. A small bob cat front-end loader would be lowered into the box culverts by a backhoe. The bob cat would transport debris to the open channel on the east side (the Bay side) of the box culvert. Workers would be in the channel to load silt onto the backhoe bucket for removal. The backhoe would be located within the adjacent parking lot outside the channel. • 4e Mills Creek: The entire creek section flows from Highway 101 to Bayshore Boulevard. The section is approximately 1,000 LF in length and includes a 350-foot long box culvert section in the middle. Approximately 40 CY of sediment would be removed from the box culvert through access- hatches; the open channel would be cleaned of debris, trash, old tires, and shopping carts. The proposed work and work area access in this area would be the same as for Segment 4a Mills Creek above. No sediment removal would occur in the open channel section. • El Portal Creek: This section includes Trousdale Channel, Gilbreth Channel and the southern embankment and bottom of El Portal Creek (the northern embankment is within City of Millbrae City Limits). As shown in Figure 7, all aforementioned creek sections are concrete lined and span a distance of 2,700 LF. Tide gates located at the SF Bay outlet prevent tidal influence within the creek. The planned work involves removing large weed growth by hand at infrequent random locations along the creek which have grown up through cracks in the concrete. City of Burlingame Page5 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 FAIRFI LD SAC TO SAN SAN MA 0 FRANCISCO E 0 � L SANGELES N co 0 REGIONAL MAP 0) N.T.S. N O 3 a a 0 � O Gold•n Gata0 • so0 '�Contr Brtpp• i a Cosh Co e• > 101 Qo i,' Alama°'o -� 0` Oakland 101 ` l San Francisco o, C 1 1 280 PROJECT 3°° 101 SITE` Hayward 0 0 M d. San franctsco\Bay ti Qb 390 �� 04bda S �Z San 82 �y0 o 'b 4, p 660 > a, • 17 goMateo 0 0° Fremont � ro s U t^q9 101 0 64 o y � a .>•O° a°' FFi� Redwood N•`1 92 °oa City o wv1 f�oaw e ° 0 w b" B Halt Moonco as s — ----�, 0 Bay ea yo ro 9� N 0 leo Palo Ano E vt`o e'c• 101 = o � R M Pacific Z j a •ar Santa Clara o < Ufa Ocean ea �,, as 62 v 00 CITY OF BURLINGAME 11) ANNUAL CREEK& CHANNEL FACILITY FIGURE 1 % MAINTENANCE PROGRAM REGIONAL VICINITY MAP WINZLERSZICF—LLY CI I Y Of MII I13RAf n "4 SAN FRANCISCO +g BAY 4 J .ter ffI - 1. 4♦ � .,��� rr��� � ���-' "` f ..,�.� ^ h �y ?•y S.. '�,% .. -irk.._ 7J'. .., �,� 'y+� �''�. �:n� ,:.C+. I 1 • i a• p�q�/R�r .�,�`,i,�'�� Nr•1r � �,� 1� �*' ♦�� �T.b.��/v ,syr• ♦ "�: �' k�f r w� �� ��:r� � ♦.!�♦�� ¢u � a 1 yih a � _ r�r� `� r� �ter.,. r, . t A '¢. � �� ..�+1'J,��r.��t�. '� hk , , 4 �. �� i- ry', E t s• •, 1� ,w 4J t 6W � r fir, /�I• ,�'/ii'�''�"' � ".� 14htir1 l.. ��� f+ 1\ +� � �I� '9 .moi t �' r y '", k* a i��, ��f •��.. p% z t�� r 7i7 'r l' ♦' t/ '71 -.:s6• r� j `Z.,�.. '� M, 'y• *� 'r' �' ~' -!'�.' $ moi.:;". • J1\03238 - City of Burlingame\03238-08-001 - Annual Creek Maintenance CEQA\32100 - Prepare MND\Figures RReenee\Burlingame Creek.dwg Jun 13, 2008 - 9153am N. J r ` NO .:&A KEYMAP .0 { r LEGEND START/STOP OF PROJECT AREA OPEN CHANNEL e SECTION OF CREEK BOX CULVERT , � .• � � ` r � ►"` "eye' L ` tet: ;' n NTS ° � �_.. � �" � C y!./ .^`" `4.. r, s�nv -.� •. moi' �,. Source:Aerial Mapping Provided by GOOGLE Earth TM CITY OF BURLINGAME FIGURE 3 ANNUAL CREEK& CHANNEL FACILITY BURLINGAME CREEK SEGMENTS MAINTENANCE PROGRAM WIIVZL'ERt'Sz.�T T Y J1\03238 - Clty of Burlingame\03238-08-001 - Annual Creek Maintenance CEQA\32100 - Prepare MND\Figures Renee\Sanchez Creek.dwg Jun 13, 2008 - 9148aro u1F °'110. „ y KEYMAP LEGEND START/STOP OF PROJECT AREA OPEN CHANNEL SECTION OF CREEK t 'i rr 2c BOX CULVERT 2d J16 � r • NTS • _ dry � ►`� �i7 k . " . J " Source:Aerial Mapping Provided by GOGGLE Earth TM CITY OF BURLINGAME FIGURE 4 ANNUAL CREEK& CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SQA rN�CHEZ CREEK SEGMENTS W ��ilII�TZLER�I..LY J1\03238 - City of Burlingame\03238-08-001 - Annual Creek Maintenance CEQA\32100 - Prepare MND\Figures Renee\Easton Creek.dwg Nov 24, 2008 - 9125am u e l _ KEYMAP LEGEND f START/STOP OF PROJECT AREA i:; +. +��� '•' 3E .-•• ,� ? ' OPEN CHANNEL SECTION OF CREEK d , ► BOX CULVERT • C r , a A ., �•` � ,�.' '��'"�, '� �� '11�� �' NTS C„ i , , e J♦ v , v Source:Aerial Mapping Provided by GOOGLE Earth TM CITY OF BURLINGAME FIGURE 5 ANNUAL CREEK& CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM EASTON CREEK SEGMENTS VCJjj�77i F"'R j��CFT T Y J,\03238 - City of BurUngane\03238-08-001 - Annual Creek Maintenance CEQA\32100 - Prepare MND\Figures Renee\Mills Creek.dwg Jun 13, 2008 - 9:41am ' r r , El ., •.. ♦• .e'•` • n KEYMAP �• /./ R• r ^a LEGEND START/STOP OF \ ' J a S:r- PROJECT AREA �, f N. OECHANNEL NO ,� ,: SECTION OFCREEK BOX CULVERETS NTS Source:Aerial Mapping Provided by GOOGLE Earth T"^ CITY OF BURLINGAME ANNUAL CREEK& CHANNEL FACILITY FIGURE 6 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM MILLS CREEK SEGMENTS WIIVZLER�,�LY J;\03238 - City of Burlingame\03238-08-001 - Annual Creek Maintenance CEQA\32100 - Prepare MND\Figures Renee\El Portal Creek.dwg Nov 24, 2008 - 9:35am ry 0 Civ G KEYMAP y LEGEND r t �. •t �A of "e'q 1 CITY LIMITS START/STOP OF PROJECT AREA R , PEN CHANNEL SECTION OF CREEK m •� -ori , � yF�MIM � ,�� w NTS a� ' J W w. ._ rt r. • • f w • �► Source:Aerial Mapping Provided by GOOGLE Earth TM ✓ CITY OF BURLINGAME FIGURE 7 ANNUAL CREEK& CHANNEL FACILITY SEGMENT 5 MAINTENANCE PROGRAM EL PORTAL CREEK W WII�TZL.E12�,�-ETT Y 0 0 M 6 U L T 1 9• 2 14 4 1 M!■11 4 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Based on the attached Initial Study and other pertinent information, with the recommended mitigation measures, the project does not have a significant effect on the environment. This project will not have a detrimental effect upon either short-term or long-term environmental goals. This project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. This project will not have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects upon human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation measures have been added to the project to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. INITIAL STUDY An Initial Study was prepared for the Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Program and sent to the State Clearinghouse and interested agencies on December 5, 2008 for a 30-day public review period. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on December 5 and 12, 2008, and mailed to property owners adjacent the project. A comment letter was received from one agency during the 30-day comment period. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE INITIAL STUDY The City Council must consider the comments received during the comment period prior to adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Responses to the comments received are included below. The comments required minor changes in the Initial Study and Project Description. These changes can be found in the Response to Comments portion of the Final MND. No significant effects were identified with implementation of mitigation. LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS The documents which constitute the record of proceedings for this Project are located at the City of Burlingame Public Works Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010. MITIGATION MEASURES The mitigation measures below are compiled from the Initial Study. These mitigation measures have been added to the project and have been found to reduce potentially significant impacts of the proposed project to less than significant. A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared and is attached as Appendix A of the Initial Study. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Measures to Protect Federally Listed Species A qualified biologist will conduct surveys for Coastal marsh milk-vetch and Point Reyes bird's prior to the commencement of the first year of the project in accordance with CDFG survey guidelines (CDFG 1983). If these or other City of Burlingame Page 13 Winzler 6 Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS sensitive plant species are found, the City will avoid the plants during all phases of the project. Mitigation Measure 13I0-2: Measures to Protect Federally Listed Species The City of Burlingame will seek consultation with the USFWS regarding the potential for federally listed species or their habitat to occur in the project area when the permit applications are submitted for the Project. These species include California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail, and salt marsh harvest mouse. The City shall implement all avoidance and protection measures required by the USFWS. The City will also seek consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential for steelhead or its habitat to occur in the project area. The City shall implement any avoidance and protection measures required by the NMFS. Mitigation Measure 13I0-3: Measures to Protect State Listed Species A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys for salt marsh wandering shrew and for nesting salt marsh common yellowthroat, and Alameda song sparrow. If any of these species or nests is found during the surveys, the biologist shall consult with the CDFG buffer zones will be established as suggested by CDFG. Mitigation Measure BI0-4: Salt Marsh Vegetation Protection A qualified biologist shall give environmental training to work crews and teach them to identify the few native salt marsh plant species that occur at the project site. The construction supervisor shall establish a path through non-native vegetation for equipment and crew access for work that is to take place in the creeks. Native salt marsh plant species shall be avoided by work crews during exotic vegetation removal. If necessary, flagging, i.e. pin flags or ribbon, will be placed around patches of salt marsh plants to alert workers of their presence. Mitigation Measure 13I0-5: Avoid and Minimize Turbidity during Maintenance Sediment removal shall occur only during periods of low tide or low flow (when water is approximately 6 inches to one foot deep). One of two types of sediment- control shall be utilized during the sediment, debris and vegetation removal process. • The contractor shall place a five-foot high barrier across the creek to prevent sediment from flowing out of the work area. This barrier would consist of polyethylene or burlap bags filled with pea gravel. After work in the stream bed is completed, sediment trapped by the gravel bags would be removed prior to removing the sand bags. OR City of Burlingame Page14 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS • The contractor shall install vertical steel sheet panels around the work area. A backhoe staged on the upper bank would lower the panels in, and then push the panels to a depth of about one foot. After work in the stream bed is completed, trapped sediment would be removed from behind the panels, and then the panels would be pulled out by the backhoe. Mitigation Measure 13I0-6: Pre-construction Nest Surveys and Construction Exclusion Zones If work will occur between January 15 and October 1 of any year, nesting bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours of construction. If nests are located the biologist, in consultation with CDFG, shall establish a buffer around the nest to remain in place until the young have fledged. Mitigation Measure 13I0-7: Migratory Fish Protection Based upon the biological analysis, no migratory fish are expected to occur in the creeks in the project area. However, the sediment removal component of the project shall be conducted only during periods of low tide and low flow when fish would be less likely to enter the work area. City of Burlingame Page15 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RESPONSE TO COMMENTS COMMENT LETTER 1, LISA CARBONI, DISTRICT BRANCH CHIEF, LOCAL DEVELOPMENT—INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION—DISTRICT 4 Response to Comment 1-1 The City of Burlingame is responsible for all project mitigation. Appendix A of the Draft MND lists the mitigation measures and reporting requirements associated with the Project. The City understands that an encroachment permit would be required from Caltrans pertaining to work within Caltrans right-of-way. Response to Comment 1-2 To the extent possible, the estimated linear feet and volumes of sediment removal are provided in the text of the project description. Please refer to Section I.8, Description of the Project in the Draft MND. As requested, the volume of sediment to be removed is provided in the following table. Estimated Excavation Vegetation Trimming Material Creek (cubic yards) (linear feet) Burlingame Creek 60 1,500 Sanchez Creek 200 1,400 Easton Creek 375 900 Mills Creek 540 1,700 El Portal Creek 0 2,700 Program Total 1,175 8,200 By nature, the geomorphologic and hydrologic character of each stream varies throughout the year depending on a variety of parameters, e.g., the volume of flow, distribution of vegetative growth within channels, and channel width at any given point. Each of these parameters may cause the amounts of accumulated sediment to vary. Therefore, the amounts presented in the document, as well as those above, are estimates. It should also be noted that the various elements of the maintenance program would not be carried out simultaneously. The total volume of sediment and vegetation to be removed would not be generated in a single event, but would occur over time throughout a maintenance season. City of Burlingame Page16 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Response to Comment 1-3 The California Department of Fish and Game consultation listed in the Draft MND has been expanded to clarify that the consultation is a Consistency Determination required under CDFG Code 2080.1 for Dual Listed Species. Page 17 of the Draft MND has been updated as follows: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) A Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required for any work in the channel and on the banks. in addition, e Consultation will be required regarding special status species as listed under the California Endangered Species Act. In the case of such species having both federal and State status, a Consistency Determination would be required under California Fish & Game Code 2080.1. Consultation with CDFG will also be required if nesting birds are found on and in the vicinity of the project site. Response to Comment 1-4 No wetlands have been identified within the Project limits, however the creeks are waters of the U.S and waters of the State and therefore likely fall under the Army Corps of Engineers and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction. The City of Burlingame would remove accumulated sediments from the channel bed of Burlingame, Sanchez, Easton, and Mills Creeks as shown in the table below. Sediment removal would temporarily impact the bed of each channel and would not affect the stream banks. The project would result in the temporary impact to waters of the U.S. and waters of the State. Vegetation along the channels would be trimmed to allow flood waters to quickly move within the channel; however, the root system would remain in place and stream banks would not be disturbed. The removal of sediment is beneficial to the substrate of the creek relative to aquatic habitat, and impacts are considered less than significant. Therefore, no compensatory mitigation is recommended for the sediment removal. The focus of analysis in the Draft MND was related to potential turbidity impacts, for which Mitigation Measure 13I0-5 is provided to reduce impacts to less than significant. A table is provided below describing the estimated volume of sediment removal: TABLE 1 Estimated Volume of Sediment Removal Creek Estimated Excavation Material(cubic yards) Burlingame Creek 60 Sanchez Creek 200 Easton Creek 375 Mills Creek 540 Program Total 1,175 City of Burlingame Page17 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY MAINTENANCE PROGRAM FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS A Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit may be required for the excavation of materials within certain portions of the creek channels near the Bay. The City would be responsible for obtaining the permit, both within Caltrans ROW and outside of Caltrans ROW. The permit will be added to page 17 of the Draft MND as follows. 10 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval May be Required The following agencies may be Responsible Agencies under CEQA. They may need to issue approvals for the project and, thus, need to rely upon the Initial Study. Federal agencies and their potential permit responsibilities are also listed. Although the—Prejeet is within the can Franeisee-Bay Gensefvatien and Develepfnefft Eemmissien (BCDC) jufisdieticrori—�ixmvr Bay Conservation and Development Department BCDC) The Project is within the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) jurisdiction. Minor sediment removal activities may be subject to a BCDC permit. A BCDC permit may be required for the excavation of materials. The City would be responsible for obtaining the permit. When the CALTRANS Encroachment Permit application is completed, a table will be provided indicating how much of the maintenance activity will occur within the State ROW. Response to Comment 1-5 The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) is discussed in the Draft MND under Impact 4.d in Section V.4. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 reduces potential significant impacts to nesting birds to less than significant by limiting work periods or establishing buffers and brings the project into compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Response to Comment 1-6 Project Measure CR-1 Protection and Preservation (see the Draft MND, page 16) is incorporated into the Project Description. Response to Comment 1-7 Reference to the CALTRANS encroachment permitting process has been added to Section 1.10 on page 18 of the Draft MND as follows: California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Some maintenance activities would occur within Caltrans right of way. An encroachment permit may would be required for work in this area. The City would be responsible for obtaining the encroachment permit. City of Burlingame Page 18 Winzler & Kelly April 2009 0323803001 Sent Sy: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Dec-31 -08 9:39AM; Page 1 /3 i`0: STATECLEARINGHOU At: 919163233018 Comment Letter 1 SUIR OF CALMRNIA—)Wsims$ TKANspoRTk'rimAN1)Hol1sm;C CCNrY AKNOW3CNWAR7KNWGPR'QoY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE P.0.BOX 23660 0 OAKLAND,CA 94623.0660 PRONE (5 10)622-5491 Flexw,ur power! FAX (510)286-5559 Be energy 40lelent! WY 711 R is IVSD DEG 3 1 2008 1 4 December 31, 2008S STATE CLEARING HOUSE SMI0.1456 SM-101-16.3/16.8/17.01/17.8 SCH#2008122013 Mr. Art Morimoto City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr.Mori roto: Burlingame Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Program—Mitigated Negative Declaration Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department)in the environmental review process.for Burlingame Annual Creek and Channel Facility Maintenance Program project.The following comments are based on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). As the lead agency,the City of Burlingame is responsible for all project mitigation, including any needed improvements to state highways.The project's fair share contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.This information should also be presented in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan of the environmental document.Since an encroachment permit is required for work in the state right of way(ROW), and the Department will not issue a permit until our concerns are adequately addressed,we strongly recommend that the City work with both the applicant and the Department to ensure that our concerns are resolved during the CF-QA process, and in'any case prior-to submittal of a permit application. Further comments will be provided during the encroachment permit process; see the.end of this letter for more information regarding encroachment permits. Environmental Maintenance 1. The City's proposed project will clean portions of five creeks which originate on the east 1-1 side of Interstate (I)280 and-flow to San Francisco Bay crossing under US 101.These creeks are Burlingame Creek,Sanchd'z Creek,Easton Creek, Mills Creek, and El Portal Creek.The estimated linear feet and volumes of sediment to be removed are indicated in the project description and are tabulated below: 'Y afrrana i'mprovey mubairy across C alifnmia" Sent ay: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Dec-3149 0:40AM; Page 2/3 Mr.Art Morimoto December 31,2008 Page 2 Creek Cubic Yard Square Feet (CY) (S Burlingame Cheek 60 1,500 Sanchez Creek Not Stated 2,175 Easton Creek 375 800 Mills Creek 600 2,900 El Portal Creek Various 2,700 Over 1,000 cy of material and over one mile of creek channel will be de-silted and cleaned during year one. The creek channels then will be maintained on a regular basis.The estimated volume of sediment to be removed from the creeks is not adequately stated.Also, these estimates need to be updated,particularly with respect to the culverts under US 101. Please provide a more detailed summary table with updated estimates that clearly states the volume of sediment to be removed from the creeks. 1-2 2. The California Department of Fish and Game(CDFG)consultation mentioned should be spelled out as a Consistency Determination required under CDFG Code 2080.1 for Dual Listed Species. 1-3 3. Cumulative dredging for the initial project does not seem minor.The Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC)excavation limits for minor sediment removal at each individual creek should be addressed.Identifying Section 10 of the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899(Section 10)waters from Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(Section 404)waters might help with this determination..Please provide a table that clearly shows this information in relation to the areas within and adjacent to the state ROW. 1-4 4. Nesting birds are discussed in the document under CDFG permitting.Vegetation removal for the project is discussed in the project description of each individual creek. Cumulatively,the vegetation removal appears to be significant.These creeks are in an urban area and there will likely be nesting birds taking advantage of available habitat at various times.The project will need to be in compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty. Act during vegetation removal.This is not mentioned in the document.Please include. 1-5 Cultural Resources There are no known prehistoric sites within the state ROW of the project area.Should project- related ground.disturbing activities take place as part of this project within the state ROW and there is an inadvertent archaeological-or burial discovery,in compliance with CEQA,PRC 5024.5,and Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference(SER)Volume 2 (http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser),all construction within.50 feet of the find shall cease.The Department's District 4 Cultural Resource Study Office shall hdimmediately contacted at (510)286-5618.A staff archaeologist will evaluate the finds within one business day after contact.Archaeological resources may consist of,but are not limited to,dark,friable soils, charcoal,obsidian or chert flakes,grinding bowls,shell fragments,or deposits of bone,glass, metal,ceramics,or wood. "Caltrans improves moblthy acrncr CNiif—W, Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 51 1.0 286 5560; Dec - 31 -08 9:40AM; Page 3/3 Mr. Art Morimoto December 31, 2008 Page 3 1 -6 Encroachment Permit Please be advised that work that encroaches on6'the state ROW requires an encroachment permit that is issued by tbe•Department. To appfy, a completed encroachment permit application, environmental documentation, and five (5) sets.of plans, clearly indicating state ROW, must be submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measures will be incorporated into the construction plans during the encroachment permit process. See the following website link for more information: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hgttriffops/developserv/permits/ M. Condie, District Office Chief Office of Permits California DOT, District 4 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 Please feel free to call or email Sandra Finegan '-of my staff at (5 IG) 622-1644 or Sandra .finegan0dot.ca: og_v with any questions:regarding this letter. Sincerel , LISA, CAR.BONI District Branch Chief Local Development - Intefgovernmental Review c: Ms. Terry Robert8, State Clearinghouse F "Caltrans imprmves mobillry across California" CITY-WIDE CREEK AND CHANNEL FACILITY NO TH `� �i J�r\ •'r✓f\ .. �`',,Y f`•,,,\ \ /+ O, •`\ f4�; / ti�` yC .., J > ,�- � ,i \1 ��/< � w,.—._�; ^r �-s�a,�d ! ze,�.'!,\\.\\~\ / sem•,\ I/ �� \\�/� �'� \ `'� :. ` : , c > t �` /, JlJ/j1r./, '' ` `.\\�', ✓r \r :VP + • J/ C \ � Updated : April 13, 2009 Agenda Item # 9b Meeting Date: April 20, 2009 BURLIN . . ME STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED BY: 1 APPROVED BY AV TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: April 8, 2009 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE MITTEN ROAD SEWER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81360. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Mitten Sewer Pump Station Improvements project by Gantry Constructors, Inc. in the amount of$ 498,333.32. BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2008, the Council awarded the Mitten Sewer Pump Station Improvements project to Gantry Constructors, Inc. in the amount of $437,000.00. The project scope of work included the following: • Replacing deteriorated pumps with new submersible pumps, motors & appurtenances • Connecting new plumbing to existing sanitary sewer force mains • Providing maintenance service to the wet well surfacing • Providing new electrical service and control center and • Constructing a new building for master controllers These improvements were prioritized in the Capital Improvements Program and are deemed critical for providing reliable and efficient operation of the pump station to prevent sewage backups and spills in the collection system. DISCUSSION: The project has been completed satisfactorily in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final project construction cost is $ 498,333.32 which is $ 61,333.32 above the original contract amount due to the following reasons: • Unforeseen emergency replacement of a failed inflow pipeline • Upgrades to existing valve vaults and hatch covers • Modification of the building concrete foundation and wet well concrete cap to better align with the pump station site BUDGET IMPACT: The following are estimated final project costs: Construction including Change Orders $ 498,333.22 Construction inspection, engineering and testing $ 105,000.00 Construction management and administration $ 17,000.00 Total $ 620,333.22 There are adequate funds available in the project budget to cover the costs. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Progress Payment and project location map c: Ci erk, Gantr o uc or Inc., Finance Department Douglas Bell, P nior Engineer RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS -MITTEN ROAD SEWER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BY GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California,and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS,INC.,under the terms of its contract with the City dated July 21,2008 has been com- pleted in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 81360. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, 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 , 2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Joanne Louie\RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE.wpd CONTRACTOR: Gantry Constructors CITY OF BURLINGAME Date: 09/08/09 ADDRESS: 917 Main St. PROGRESS PMT. # 5 - FINAL For month of: March, 09 Clarkdale, AZ 86329 CONTRACT: Mitten Rd Pump Station TELEPHONE ( 928) 699-2093 CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 P.O. # 10767 UNIT UNIT BID BID DUANTITY %AGE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT PRICE SIZE QUANTITY TO DATE TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD 1 Mobilization/Demobilization $90,000 LS 1 $90,000.00 100% 100% $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $0.00 2 Grading $10,000 LS 1 $10,000.00 100% 100% $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 3 2"Pipe/BFP $5,000 LS 1 $5,000.00 100% 100% $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 9 Fence $2,100 LS 1 $2,100.00 100% 100% $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 5 12-ft Wide Gate $2,000 LS 1 $2,000.00 100% 100% $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 6 MCC Bldg $60,000 LS 1 $60,000.00 100% 100% $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 7 Demo Existing PS $10,000 LS 1 $10,000.00 100% 100% $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 8 Wet Well & Appurt $98,000 LS 1 $98,000.00 100% 100% $98,000.00 $98,000.00 $0.00 9 Valve Vault & Appurt $35,000 LS 1 $35,000.00 100% 100% $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $0.00 10 Temporary By-pass Pumping $25,000.00 LS 1 $25,000.00 100% 100% $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 11 Wire & Conduit $55,000.00 LS 1 $55,000.00 100% 100% $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $0.00 12 Motor Control Center $95,000.00 LS 1 $95,000.00 100% 100% $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL $937,100.00 $937,100.00 $937,100.00 $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS ADD C.C.O.# 1-PCO-1 $1.00 LS 1 $66,717.00 100% 100% $66,717.00 $66,717.00 $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#2 -PCO-2 $1.00 LS 1 $5,267.00 100% 100% $5,267.00 $5,267.00 $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#3-PCO-3&5 $1.00 LS 1 $9,296.00 100% 100% $9,296.00 $9,296.00 $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#9 -PCO-6 $1.00 LS 1 1 ($19,996.78) 100% 100% ($19,996.78) ($19,996.78)1 $0.00 SUBTOTAL CCO's 1 $61,233.22 $61,233.22 $61,233.22 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ****** $998,333.22 ******** **** $998,333.22 $998,333.22 $0.00 PREPARED BY: Joe Welsh LESS 0 PERCENT RETENTION *********** **** $0.00 ($29,916.66) $29,916.66 +++++ +++++++++ ++++++++++++ ++++++++ ++++ CHECKED BY: SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS ************* $998,333.22 $973,916.56 $29,916.66 APPROVED BY DEDUCTIONS FROM CONTRACTOR ************** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CITY ENGINEER• /• 0 ***** ********* ++++++++++++ ++++++++ ++++ APPROVED BY Jr TOTAL PAYMENT THIS PERIOD ** ******** **** $998,333.22 $973,916.56 $29,916.66 CONSULTANT: ***+* ++*++++++ +++*+++**++* ++++++++ ++++ page 1 Mitten Road Sewer Pump Station Improvement Project CP 81360 � I \ I / 7 -Z SITE LOCATION/ ab SITE MAP N.T.S. RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - MITTEN ROAD SEWER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BY GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1 . The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC., under the terms of its contract with the City dated July 21 , 2008 has been com- pleted in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 81360. �-- 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, 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 , 2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Author, By Name\Joanne Louie\RESOLLMON ACCEPTANCE.wpd ONTRACTOR: Gantry Constructors CITY OF BURLINGAME Date: 04/08/09 DDRESS: 917 Main St. PROGRESS PMT. # 5 - FINAL For month of: March, 09 Clarkdale, AZ 86324 CONTRACT: Mitten Rd Pump Station ELEPHONE ( 928) 649-2093 CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 P.O. # 10767 UNIT UNIT BID BID7100% ITY $AGE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT PRICE SIZE QUANTITY ATE TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD 1 Mobilization/Demobilization $40,000 LS 1 $40,000.00008 1008 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 2 Grading $10,000 LS 1 $10,000.001008 1008 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 3 2"Pipe/BFP $5,000 LS 1 $5,000.00 1008 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 4 Fence $2,100 LS 1 $2,100.00 1008 1008 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 5 12-ft Wide Gate $2,000 LS 1 $2,000.00 1008 1008 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 6 MCC Bldg $60,000 LS 1 $60,000.00 1008 1008 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 7 Demo Existing PS $10,000 LS 1 $10,000.00 1008 1008 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 8 Wet Well s Appurt $98,000 LS 1 $98,000.00 1008 1008 $98,000.00 $98,000.00 $0.00 9 Valve Vault 6 Appurt $35,000 LS 1 $35,000.00 1008 1008 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $0.00 10 Temporary By-pass Pumping $25,000.00 LS 1 $25,000.00 1008 1008 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 11 Wire & Conduit $55,000.00 LS 1 $55,000.00 1008 1008 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $0.00 12 Motor Control Center $95,000.00 LS 1 $95,000.00 1008 1008 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL $437,100.00 $437,100.00 $437,100.00 $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS DD C.C.O.# 1-PCO-1 $1.00 LS 1 $66,717.00 1008 1008 $66,717.00 $66,717.00 $0.00 DO C.C.O.#2 -PCO-2 $1.00 LS 1 $5,267.00 1008 1008 $5,267.00 $5,267.00 $0.00 DD C.C.O.#3-PCO-3&5 $1.00 LS 1 $9,246.00 1008 1008 $9,246.00 $9,246.00 $0.00 DD C.C.O.#9 -PCO-6 $1.00 LS 1 ($19,996.78) 1008 1008 ($19,996.78) ($19,996.78) $0.00 SUBTOTAL CCO's $61,233.22 $61,233.22 $61,233.22 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ****** $498,333.22 ******** **** $498,333.22 $498,333.22 $0.00 REPARED BY: Joe Welsh LESS 0 PERCENT RETENTION *****««+:«« ++++ $0.00 ($24,916.66) $24,916.66 HECKED BY: L}y SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS ************* $498,333.22 $473,416.56 $24,916.66 .PPROVED BY rl. DEDUCTIONS FROM CONTRACTOR ************** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ITY ENGINEER' PPROVED BY X TOTAL PAYMENT THIS PERIOD ** ******** **** $498,333.22 $473,416.56 $24,916.66 ANSULTANT: *+««+ +**«+«++« ++++««+«++++ +++«+«++ «+++ ^ page 4 Mitten Road Sewer Pump Station Improvement Project CP 81360 \� N 9 SITE LOCATION/ '</ SITE MAP N.T.S. r RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - MITTEN ROAD SEWER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BY GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1 . The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC., under the terms of its contract with the City dated July 21 , 2008 has been com- pleted in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 81360. `- 3 . Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor 1, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, 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 , 2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES : COUNCILMEMBERS : ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Author, By Name\Joanne Louie\RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE.wpd ONTRACTOR: Gantry Constructors CITY OF BURLINGAME Date: 04/08/09 .DDRESS: 917 Main�St. PROGRESS PMT. # 5 - FINAL For month of: March, 09 Clarkdale, 'iAZ 86324 CONTRACT: Mitten Rd Pump Station ELEPHONE ( 928) 649-2093 CITY PROJECT NO. 81360 P.O. # 10767 1 UNIT UNIT BID BID DUANTITY 'AGE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT PRICE SIZE QUANTITY TO DATE I TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD 1 Mobilization/Denlobilization $40,000 LS 1 $40,000.00 1008 1008 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 2 Grading $10,000 LS 1 $10,000.00 1008 1006 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 3 2"Pipe/BFP $5,000 LS 1 $5,000.00 1006 1006 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 4 Fence $2,100 LS 1 $2,100.00 1006 1006 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $0.00 5 12-ft Wide Gate j $2,000 LS 1 $2,000.00 1006 1006 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 6 MCC Bldg $60,000 LS 1 $60,000.00 1006 1006 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 7 Demo Existing PS' $10,000 LS 1 $10,000.00 1006 1006 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 8 Wet Well s Appurx $98,000 LS 1 $98,000.00 1006 1006 $98,000.00 $98,000.00 $0.00 9 Valve Vault 6 Apourt $35,000 LS 1 $35,000.00 1006 1006 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $0.00 10 Temporary By-pass Pumping $25,000.00 LS 1 $25,000.00 1006 1006 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 11 Wire s Conduit $55,000.00 LS 1 $55,000.00 1006 1006 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $0.00 12 Motor Control Center $95,000.00 LS 1 $95,000.00 1006 1006 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL $437,100.00 $437,100.00 $437,100.00 $0.00 CHANGE ORDERS .DD C.C.O.# 1-PCO-1 $1.00 LS 1 $66,717.00 1006 1006 $66,717.00 $66,717.00 $0.00 .DD C.C.O.#2 -PCO-2 $1.00 LS 1 $5,267.00 1006 1006 $5,267.00 $5,267.00 $0.00 DD C.C.O.#3-PCO-365 $1.00 LS 1 $9,246.00 1006 1006 $9,246.00 $9,246.00 $0.00 DD C.C.O.#4 -PCO-6 $1.00 LS 1 ($19,996.78) 100%1100%1 ($19,996.78) ($19,996.78) $0.00 SUBTOTAL CCO's $61,233.22 $61,233.22 $61,233.22 $0.00 SUBTOTAL ****** $498,333.22 ******** **** $498,333.22 $498,333.22 $0.00 REPARED BY: Joe Welsh LESS 0 PERCENT RETENTION **"*****`* **** $0.00 ($24,916.66) $24,916.66 NECKED BY: SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS ************* $498,333.22 $473,416.56 $24,916.66 .PPROVED BY DEDUCTIONS FROM CONTRACTOR ********"*`** $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ITY ENGINEER: �/0 ****# +#+###+#+ ++##++###++# ++####++ #+#+ PPROVED BY TOTAL PAYMENT THIS PERIOD ** ******** *`** $498,333.22 $473,416.56 $24,916.66 ONSULTANT: *++## +#+##+++# +###++###++# ##+###++ ##++ 1 page 1 Mitten Road Sewer Pump Station Improvement Project CP 81360 syogic \\ \ / F�9 SITE LOCATION SITE MAP N.T.S. P 0 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAMM AGENDA ITEM # 9c W4L, MTG. DATE April 20, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI By DATE: April 20, 2009 APPR VED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY SUBJECT: Resolutions Designating Finance Department Employees asfficial Signatories on City Investment and Banking Accounts Recommendation That the City Council approve the following resolutions: A. Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Burlingame Authorizing Investment Of Monies In The State Of California Local Agency Investment Fund; B. Resolution Of The Board Of Directors Of The Burlingame Financing Authority Authorizing Deposit Of Investment Monies And Bond Proceeds In The State Of California Local Agency Investment Fund; and, C. Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Burlingame Authorizing City Of Burlingame Signatories For City Checks, Drafts And Other Orders Drawn On The Bank Of America Background Deputy Treasurer Linda Freitas will retire on April 25, 2009 after 25 years of service to the City of Burlingame. Her retirement necessitates a change in signatories for purposes of making financial transactions with the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the Bank of America. Discussion The City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Financing Authority have authorized investment accounts with LAIF. The City of Burlingame's banking services provider is Bank of America. Adoption of the resolutions will provide LAIF and the Bank of America with the city's official signatories on these accounts. The City Council acts as the Board of Directors of the Burlingame Financing Authority. 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, the State has created a Local Agency Investment Fund in the Treasury of the State of California for the deposit of money of local agencies for the purposes of investment with the California State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby reaffirms that the deposit and withdrawal of money into and out of the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code and the City of Burlingame's Investment Policy, are in the best interest of the City of Burlingame; NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Burlingame does resolve as follows: 1. The City Council authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of funds of the City of Burlingame into and out of the Local Agency Investment Fund in the California State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code 16429.1 for the purpose of investment as stated herein, and further, the City Council authorizes the State Treasurer's Office to verify all banking information provided in that regard. 2. The City Council authorizes the following City officers or their successors in office, to deposit or withdraw City of Burlingame funds into or out of the Local Agency Investment Fund: JESUS NAVA MARY ASTURIAS SHARI JACKSON Finance Director Financial Services Mgr. Assistant Deputy Treasurer 3. The City Council directs that these authorizations and designations shall remain in effect until such time as the City notifies the Local Agency Investment Fund in writing of any changes. ANN KEIGHRAN, Mayor I,Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 , 2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING DEPOSIT OF INVESTMENT MONIES AND BOND PROCEEDS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code sections 16429.1 to 16429.4, the State has created a Local Agency Investment Fund in the Treasury of the State of California for the deposit of money of local agencies for the purposes of investment with the California State Treasurer; and WHEREAS, The Board of Directors of the Burlingame Financing Authority hereby reaffirms that the deposit and withdrawal of money into and out of the Local Agency Investment Fund in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code are in the best interest of the Burlingame Financing Authority; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Burlingame Financing Authority does resolve as follows: 1. The Board of Directors authorizes the deposit and withdrawal of monies of the Burlingame Financing Authority into and out of the Local Agency Investment Fund in the California State Treasury in accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code 16429.1, for the purpose of investment as stated herein, and further, the Board of Directors authorizes the State treasurer's Office to verify all banking information provided in that regard. 2. The Board of Directors authorizes the following Authority officers or their successors in office, to deposit or withdraw City of Burlingame monies into or out of the Local Agency Investment Fund: MARY ASTURIAS SHARI JACKSON Financial Services Mgr. Assistant Deputy Treasurer 3. The Board of Directors directs that these authorizations and designations shall remain in effect until such time as the Authority notifies the Local Agency Investment Fund in writing of any changes. ANN KEIGHRAN, Chairperson of the Board I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Secretary of the Burlingame Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Burlingame Financing Authority,held on the day of , 2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING CITY OF BURLINGAME SIGNATORIES FOR CITY CHECKS,DRAFTS AND OTHER ORDERS DRAWN ON THE BANK OF AMERICA WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame has a long-established relationship with the Bank of America;and WHEREAS,the Bank of America requires the City to adopt a Resolution in order to allow funds to be deposited with the Bank of America and to identify and authorize certain City officers to sign checks, drafts and other orders of said Bank; NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Burlingame does resolve as follows: 1. The City Council authorizes that funds of the City of Burlingame may de deposited with Bank of America subject to the terms of the signature card, rules of the Bank, including all amendments and additions thereto,all applicable laws,regulations and practices of the Bank in force from time to time, and all service charges now or hereafter established or allowed by law. 2. The City Council authorizes the followings City officers to sign checks,drafts or other orders for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame; the signature of one of these officers shall be required for checks, drafts or other orders of less than $5,000.00; the signature of two of these officers shall be required for checks, drafts or other orders of $5,000.00 or more. #1 Chris H.Rogers,Admin/Inf. Ser.Mgr. #4 Mary Asturias,Financial Services Mgr. #2 James Nantell,City Manager #5 Shari Jackson,Assistant Deputy Treasurer #3 Jesus Nava,Finance Director 3. The City Council authorizes each of the above-named persons to endorse checks, drafts and other orders for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame for deposit, encashment or otherwise and further, the City Council authorizes the Bank of America to honor and pay on account any and all checks, drafts or other orders signed and/or endorsed herewith, or, if said checks, drafts or other orders are presented unendorsed for deposit to City's account, to supply any required endorsement. 4. The City Council agrees that any sum at any time in this account with the Bank of America shall be subject to the right of offset for monies owed by City to the Bank of America to the extent legally permissible; further, the City Council agrees to pay the Bank of America on demand, the amount of overdrafts on this account and any amounts for account fees and rates according to the current schedule of fees and rates. 5. The City Council authorizes the Bank of America to hold all statements and vouchers until called for, and if not called for within thirty(30)days,to mail said statements. ANN KEIGHRAN,Mayor I,Mary Ellen Kearney,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 ,2009,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: MARY ELLEN KEARNEY,City Clerk CITY G euRUNGAME STAFF REPORT Yx- AGENDA gq,Ep .NEee. ITEM# 9d MTG. DATE April 20, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: April 20, 2009 BY Roy C. Abrams FROM: Roy C. Abrams By Y SUBJECT: Deciding How to Vote the City's Storm Drainage Fee Ballots and Authorizing the City Manager to Vote as Directed by the Council RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of Resolution of the City Council to Decide How to Vote City- Owned-Parcel Ballots for the Storm Drain Fee Measure and to Authorize the City Manager to Vote the City Ballots as Directed by the City Council BACKGROUND: On May 5, 2009, the property owners in the City of Burlingame will vote on a ballot measure to determine whether or not to impose a storm drain fee on parcels of real property within the City of Burlingame. Each parcel of real property will be entitled to one vote no matter the number of record owners of the parcel. Public entities that own parcels of real property are also entitled to one vote per parcel. The City of Burlingame owns numerous parcels of real property which are subject to the storm drainage fee measure. Accordingly, the City Council must consider how it wishes to vote the City of Burlingame ballots relative to these City-owned parcels. After determining how to vote, the Council must also authorize the City Manager to actually vote those ballots in conformance with the City Council's determination and to deliver the ballots to the City Clerk prior to 8:00 pm on May 5, 2009. cc: City Manager RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DETERMINING HOW TO VOTE THE CITY'S STORM DRAIN MEASURE BALLOTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO VOTE THE CITY'S BALLOTS AS DIRECTED BY THE COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Burlingame has placed a storm drainage fee ballot measure before the owners of parcels of real property within the City, for the purpose of raising funds to repair, replace and improve the City's eighty-year old, deteriorated storm drainage system; and, WHEREAS, under California Constitution Article XIII D (Proposition 218), the owner of each parcel of real property, including each public agency owning a parcel of real property within the City, is entitled to one vote per parcel; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame owns numerous parcels of real property and. accordingly, the City is entitled to one vote for each parcel it owns (except parcels such as streets and other right-of-way not subject to the fee); and WHEREAS, on April 6, 2009,the City mailed out the storm drainage measure ballots to all parcel owners of record; and WHEREAS, in order to be counted, storm drain measure ballots must be received by the Burlingame City Clerk no later than 8:00 pm on election day, May 5, 2009; and WHEREAS, the City Council must decide how to vote the City's storm drain measure ballots and must authorize the City Manager to vote the City of Burlingame's ballots as directed by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame resolves and orders as follows: 1. Pursuant to the laws of the State of California and the ordinances of the City of Burlingame, the City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby determines that each storm drain measure ballot for all of the City-owned parcels of real property subject to the storm drain fee, shall be marked"YES". 2. The City Council authorizes and directs the City Manager to mark each storm drain measure ballot for all City-owned parcels of real property (subject to the storm drain fee) "YES" and to return said ballots to the City Clerk before 8:00 pm May 5, 2009. Ann Keighran,Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 20th day of April, 2009,by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk Accounts Payable $3,029,790.97 Ck. No. 38560-39209 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT �j Pavroll for March 2009 $2,610,948.86 Ck. No. 173858- 174030 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION 0 a S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS rn CITY OF BURLINGAME 04-09-2009 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 FUND RECAP - 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 76, 260 . 03 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 5 , 899 . 10 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 3, 820 . 18 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 54 , 833 . 26 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 5 , 200 . 00 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 13,605 . 00 WATER FUND 526 18,389.96 SEWER FUND 527 43 , 669. 06 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 5 , 593 . 75 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1 , 756. 24 BUILDING ENTERPRISE FUND 531 46,643 . 54 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 6,868 . 05 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 2 , 040 . 77 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 5 , 261 . 03 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2, 743 .39 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 248. 11 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 2, 083 . 75 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 2 , 573 . 00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1 , 018. 23 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $298, 506. 45 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL : THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 8 INCLUSIVE , AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 39112 THROUGH 39209 INCLUSIVE, TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $298, 506 .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 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 04/09/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39195 CHRISTOPHER CADWALLADER 28152 610.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 610.00 101 68010 220 1349 39196 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 66.20 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 66.20 526 69020 230 39197 CLEAN HARBORS ENVIRONMENTAL SERV 28251 567.17 MISC. SUPPLIES 567.17 101 66210 120 39198 CAINE COMPUTER CONSULTING 28458 9,551.52 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,551.52 101 65100 210 39199 FREDERICK CROCKER 29250 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 531 22546 39200 AT&T 29312 93.33 COMMUNICATIONS 93.33 621 64450 160 39201 ICMA RETIREMENT CORPORATION 29349 1,532.52 MISCELLANEOUS 1,532.52 101 64550 040 39202 HAASHIM HALLUMS 29365 59.11 SMALL TOOLS 59.11 620 66700 130 39203 TUONG PHUNG 29386 1,200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,200.00 531 22546 39204 UPPER PENINSULA LEAGUE-SAN FRANC 29387 324.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 324.00 101 68010 120 1521 39205 MARK MONGIRD 29388 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 39206 CRAIG SUHL 29389 750.00 DEPOSIT .REFUNDS 750.00 101 22520 39207 CRIME SCENE CLEANERS, INC 29390 275.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 275.00 618 64520 210 39208 DW PUMPS 29391 3,557.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,557.00 327 81360 210 39209 ALOUIS AUTO RADIATOR INC 29392 493.18 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 493.18 201 65200 203 TOTAL $298,506.45 1. f CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 04/09/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39180 DATABANK IMX 26176 1,561.85 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,561.85 531 65300 120 39181 DAVID TILLMAN 26224 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 531 22546 39182 DAU PRODUCTS 26683 48.61 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 48.61 101 68010 190 1114 39183 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 571.84 OFFICE EXPENSE 74.58 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 417.21 526 69020 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 80.05 531 65300 110 39184 BUREAU VERITAS 26854 37,801.64 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 37,801.64 531 65300 220 39185 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 180.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 180.00 101 64420 262 39186 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF SAN 27283 83.30 VEHICLE MAINT. 83.30 201 65200 202 39187 RB MOBILE DIESEL TESTING 27300 495.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 495.00 620 66700 200 39188 COMMERCIAL OFFICE INTERIORS 27396 475.96 TRAINING EXPENSE 475.96 101 65150 260 39189 AT&T MOBILITY 27714 66.20 COMMUNICATIONS 66.20 101 64150 160 39190 AT&T MOBILITY 27717 348.70 COMMUNICATIONS 348.70 101 66100 160 39191 AT&T MOBILITY 27760 1,018.23 UTILITY EXPENSE 1,018.23 896 20281 39192 DATAMAX ONEIL 27767 1,180.11 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,180.11 530 65400 120 39193 RICHARD MURRAY 27882 3,360.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3,360.00 101 22520 39194 MICHAEL ADAM 28008 6,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,000.00 101 68010 220 1780 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 04/09/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39165 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 396.15 MISCELLANEOUS 396.15 731 22554 39166 SPANGLE ASSOCIATES 24113 561.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 561.00 530 65400 210 39167 BOB FRUDENBERG 24151 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 39168 SANCRA PENINSULA DIVISION 24190 200.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 200.00 101 68010 120 1787 39169 JESUS NAVA 24204 894.10 MISCELLANEOUS 894.10 101 64250 031 39170 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 676.80 MISCELLANEOUS 676.80 526 69020 233 39171 J&L CONSTRUCTION 24288 1,271.90 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,271.90 320 80790 210 39172 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 1,840.00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,840.00 619 64460 800 39173 CITY OF BRISBANE 24387 75.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 75.00 101 69537 250 39174 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 5,899.10 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 5,899.10 130 20014 39175 ABW CONSTRUCTION 25093 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 39176 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 387.65 OFFICE EXPENSE 304.92 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 61.09 201 65200 110 TRAINING EXPENSE 21.64 201 65200 260 39177 SSFFD CTC 25376 1,560.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,560.00 731 22554 39178 CITY OF FOSTER CITY 25377 1,500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,500.00 101 64420 210 39179 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 173.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 173.00 526 69020 190 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 04/09/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39150 LINDA GRAHAM 20483 75.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 75.00 101 68010 120 1521 39151 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 5,200.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,200.00 326 75170 210 39152 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC 20986 1,908.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,908.00 101 65100 260 39153 R&B COMPANY 22178 9,439.84 MISC. SUPPLIES 6,836.43 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,603.41 527 66520 120 39154 CBA COLLECTION BUREAU OF AMERICA 22231 322.00 MISCELLANEOUS 322.00 101 39800 39155 PENINSULA T.V. 22442 2,573.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,573.00 738 64580 240 39156 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 5,593.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,593.75 528 66600 210 39157 MAXIMUS, INC 22746 1,560.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,560.00 101 33900 39158 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00 MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031 39159 JDH CORROSION CONSULTANTS, INC. 23184 3,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,000.00 101 66210 210 39160 OFFICE MAX 23306 422.74 OFFICE EXPENSE 171.44 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 251.30 101 68010 110 1101 39161 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 33.10 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.10 619 64460 120 5120 39162 AT&T 23661 48.15 COMMUNICATIONS 48.15 621 64450 160 39163 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 3,720.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,720.00 101 68010 220 1331 39164 SFPUC WATER QUALITY BUREAU 23846 7,905.00 MISCELLANEOUS 7,905.00 526 69020 233 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 04/09/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 39135 TEAM CLEAN 15827 240.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 201 65200 220 39136 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 66.71 SMALL TOOLS 66.71 527 66520 130 39137 MILLER DEVELOPMENT 17129 2,000.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 2,000.00 101 22520 39138 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 1,353.81 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,353.81 621 64450 200 39139 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 1,065.07 MISCELLANEOUS 1,065.07 618 64520 604 39140 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 74.61 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 74.61 526 69020 140 39141 GOETZ BROTHERS 19045 2,460.95 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,412.24 101 68010 120 1787 MISC. SUPPLIES 48.71 101 68010 120 1785 39142 PRIORITY 1 19239 4,281.75 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,281.75 620 66700 800 39143 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 349.30 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 349.30 201 65200 203 39144 CLEARLITE TROPHIES 19679 184.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 184.57 101 64100 120 39145 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 39146 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,380.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,190.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 2,190.00 527 66520 180 39147 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 160.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 160.00 621 64450 110 39148 NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20376 10,048.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 10,048.00 327 81260 210 39149 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 405.76 SUPPLIES 405.76 620 15000 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 04/09/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39125 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 4,300.22 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.00 101 68010 120 1521 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,250.22 101 64350 210 39126 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 1,623.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,623.00 101 65100 220 39127 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 5,527.98 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,527.98 618 64520 210 39128 GOVT. FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN. 09884 220.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 220.00 101 64250 240 39129 SHAFFER'S AUTO SERVICE CENTER 11324 227.94 VEHICLE MAINT. 227.94 201 65200 202 39130 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 1,677.53 MISC. SUPPLIES 16.00 201 65200 120 MISCELLANEOUS 129.90 201 65200 132 MISCELLANEOUS 216.45 201 65200 144 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 51.94 201 65200 190 VEHICLE MAINT. 58.59 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 7.18 201 65200 203 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 100.00 201 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 44.76 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 395.00 201 65200 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 282.00 201 65500 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 149.11 730 69581 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 99.00 730 69579 120 MISCELLANEOUS 127.60 731 22554 39131 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 459.11 OFFICE EXPENSE 17.31 101 65150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.54 101 65150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 99.20 101 65100 120 COMMUNICATIONS 280.00 101 65100 160 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 54.30 101 65100 200 TRAINING EXPENSE -22.37 101 65100 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.13 530 65400 120 39132 BAY AREA AIR DUALITY 14358 7,169.00 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 7,169.00 527 66530 270 39133 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 14692 53,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53,500.00 320 82000 220 39134 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 150.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 150.00 101 64200 150 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 04/09/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39112 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 19.41 SUPPLIES 19.41 620 15000 39113 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,514.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,514.92 101 64560 220 39114 COMPUTER TECHNICIANS, INC., 01987 1,088.10 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,088.10 621 64450 200 39115 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 813.55 MISCELLANEOUS 506.12 201 65200 144 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 307.43 201 65200 203 39116 VEOLIA WATER 02110 31,572.74 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 9,915.11 527 66530 190 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 21,657.63 527 66530 800 39117 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 92.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.90 101 68020 120 2200 39118 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 285.58 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 50.71 526 69020 230 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.20 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.61 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.64 619 64460 120 5150 MISC. SUPPLIES 118.42 619 64460 120 5120 39119 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. 02599 483.34 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 117.99 101 65150 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 365.35 101 65100 140 39120 P. G. & E. 03054 18,838.25 GAS & ELECTRIC 18,838.25 101 66100 170 39121 PERSONAL AWARDS, INC. 03145 500.12 MISC. SUPPLIES 500.12 101 68010 120 1780 39122 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 501.76 MISC. SUPPLIES 101.76 101 65100 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 101 65100 220 39123 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 31000.00 101 64250 114 39124 FASTSIGNS 09136 61.36 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 61.36 320 80790 210 r 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME 04-03-2009 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 103,855.35 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 10,309.26 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 6,728.90 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 902.90 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 11,381.59 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 5,177.28 WATER FUND 526 2,018.49 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 13,033.73 BUILDING ENTERPRISE FUND 531 11,655.00 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 17,858.80 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 7,469.11 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,658.01 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,071.35 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 138.45 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 168.87 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 266.48 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $194,693.57 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 38999 THROUGH 39111 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $194,693.57, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39103 MARIE LORENZO-DAVIS 29376 84.00 MISCELLANEOUS 84.00 101 36330 000 1646 39104 PARISSA TAGHIBAGI 29377 120.00 MISCELLANEOUS 120.00 101 36330 000 1349 39105 SHOGHIG ANDRIOPOULOS 29378 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 36330 000 1781 39106 SAGURI OGITA 29379 126.00 MISCELLANEOUS 126.00 101 36330 000 1781 39107 MONICA SMITH 29380 63.00 MISCELLANEOUS 63.00 101 36330 000 1660 39108 MARTY SPRINGER 29381 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 39109 JESSICA CASEY 29382 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 36330 000 1216 39110 CHRIS LUSARDI 29383 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 39111 MAUREEN CHENETTE 29384 90.00 MISCELLANEOUS 90.00 101 36330 000 1283 TOTAL $194,693.57 V CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39089 KARL & SARAH WILEY 29224 120.00 MISCELLANEOUS 120.00 101 36330 000 1349 39090 NAPA SOLANO ICC 29275 420.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 420.00 531 65300 260 39091 WILMINGTON INSTRUMENT COMPANY IN 29303 979.78 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 979.78 327 81360 210 39092 AT&T 29312 8.10 COMMUNICATIONS 0.30 101 68020 160 2200 COMMUNICATIONS 0.30 101 65100 160 COMMUNICATIONS 0.48 101 64250 160 MISCELLANEOUS 0.30 101 68020 192 2200 COMMUNICATIONS 6.72 201 65200 160 39093 HAASHIM HALLUMS 29365 143.48 SMALL TOOLS 143.48 620 66700 130 39094 AUTO EQUIPMENT SERVICE 29366 456.05 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 456.05 620 66700 190 39095 DANIEL FORBES 29367 86.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 86.00 101 64420 262 39096 ALL STAR GLASS 29368 253.93 MISCELLANEOUS 253.93 618 64520 604 39097 J EDWARDS AND ASSOCIATES 29370 64,885.50 MISCELLANEOUS 64,885.50 101 31510 39098 ANDY GEOSITIS 29371 776.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 776.00 101 22520 39099 BEN HSIA 29372 1,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 39100 SURE FIRE PROTECTION 29373 717.74 MISCELLANEOUS 717.74 526 22502 39101 XIAO YUN WU 29374 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1890 39102 RENO JANET BHATIA 29375 84.00 MISCELLANEOUS 84.00 101 36330 000 1646 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 39077 U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYST 27931 4,011.89 OFFICE EXPENSE 117.40 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.57 201 65200 111 SUPPLIES 694.48 201 65200 112 MISC. SUPPLIES 267.59 201 65200 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 23.76 201 65500 120 SMALL TOOLS 646.03 201 65200 130 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 20.83 201 65200 190 VEHICLE MAINT. 28.90 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 43.30 201 65200 203 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 1,193.91 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 601.64 201 65200 260 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 100.00 625 65213 203 MISCELLANEOUS 266.48 731 22554 39078 A+ SPANISH ACADEMY 27960 1,087.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,087.20 101 68010 220 1349 39079 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY 28021 3,223.35 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,223.35 130 20021 39080 LYNNE VITERO 28082 1,101.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,101.00 101 68010 220 1349 39081 SHIHUA WANG 28083 558.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 558.00 101 68010 220 1349 39082 COMMUNITY SCHOOL OF MUSIC AND AR 28091 1,440.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,440.00 101 68010 220 1349 39083 CINTAS FIRE PROTECTION 28124 194.07 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 194.07 619 64460 210 5180 39084 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 14.07 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.07 619 64460 120 5121 39085 MELISSA MENDOZA 28642 697.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 697.00 101 68010 220 1349 39086 GMPCS PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS IN 28941 4.95 MISC. SUPPLIES 4.95 201 65500 120 39087 MATT COSTELLO 29091 147.50 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 147.50 526 69020 250 39088 - HEIDI VA&IAN 29173 291.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 291.75 101 68010 220 1349 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39065 PLANET GRANITE 27401 753.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 753.60 101 68010 220 1785 39066 FRANK HENNELLY 27555 1,950.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,950.00 531 22546 39067 KEVIN GARDINER AND ASSOCIATES 27560 12,929.13 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,929.13 530 65400 210 39068 RUBINA MIRZA 27610 155.05 TRAINING EXPENSE 155.05 101 64420 262 39069 AT&T MOBILITY 27713 107.91 COMMUNICATIONS 107.91 101 64250 160 39070 AT&T MOBILITY 27722 42.17 COMMUNICATIONS 42.17 530 65400 160 39071 AT&T MOBILITY 27724 752.04 COMMUNICATIONS 752.04 201 65200 160 39072 AT&T MOBILITY 27725 109.90 COMMUNICATIONS 109.90 201 65200 160 39073 AT&T MOBILITY 27744 66.07 COMMUNICATIONS 66.07 101 65100 160 39074 AT&T MOBILITY 27763 159.60 COMMUNICATIONS 159.60 201 65200 160 39075 PRE PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 27801 67.75 MISCELLANEOUS 67.75 130 21019 39076 GROENIGER & CO. 27811 7,678.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 7,678.75 326 81230 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39050 BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC 24574 745.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 745.00 101 64560 210 39051 AETNA 24760 3,845.91 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,845.91 130 20022 39052 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 3,439.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,439.50 101 68010 220 1349 39053 SHARON JACKSON 25099 206.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 206.00 101 64250 250 39054 PAT KERRISK 25322 155.50 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 155.50 526 69020 250 39055 AA GALAXY INTERNATIONAL INC. 25492 518.90 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 518.90 320 78510 210 39056 LARISA YAGLONITSER 25517 1,506.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,506.00 101 68010 220 1349 39057 ACCURACY INTERNATIONAL 25528 384.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 384.00 320 78510 210 39058 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 39059 PETER BASSFORD 26116 1,600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,600.00 101 68010 220 1349 39060 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 200.00 COMMUNICATIONS 200.00 621 64450 160 39061 DIANE SILVEN 26422 1,300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,300.00 101 68010 220 1349 39062 UNITED COMFORT SOLUTIONS INC 26639 3,876.19 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 434.00 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,096.19 619 64460 210 5160 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 400.00 619 64460 210 5240 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,946.00 619 64460 210 5130 39063 ALL CHEMICAL DISPOSAL INC 26806 200.00 SUPPLIES 200.00 201 65200 112 39064 SUNNY WONG 26959 71.00 MISCELLANEOUS 71.00 101 36330 000 1646 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 39036 JONES AND MAYER 22818 90.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 90.00 101 64350 210 39037 DEAN WILLIAMS 22940 568.41 TRAINING EXPENSE 568.41 101 65100 260 39038 ACRT, INC. 23176 228.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 228.00 101 68020 240 2300 i 39039 OFFICE MAX 23306 492.69 OFFICE EXPENSE 87.43 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 69.07 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 97.66 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 18.57 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 21.07 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 198.89 621 64450 110 39040 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 755.85 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 755.85 101 65100 220 39041 CAVALLINI CONSTRUCTION 24048 3,750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,750.00 531 22546 39042 CHRISTINE GRANUCCI 24197 839.50 TRAINING EXPENSE 839.50 101 64420 262 39043 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 97.50 MISCELLANEOUS 97.50 130 20080 39044 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024 39045 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 620.00 MISCELLANEOUS 620.00 130 20024 39046 C.L.E.A. 24523 526.50 MISCELLANEOUS 331.50 130 20026 MISCELLANEOUS 195.00 130 20027 39047 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. RB 24525 977.65 MISCELLANEOUS 977.65 130 20025 39048 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 450.00 UNION DUES 450.00 130 21091 39049 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39024 BAY ALARM 18854 2,508.70 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 207.00 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 192.00 619 64460 210 5121 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3.06 619 64460 210 5150 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 825.95 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 111.00 619 64460 210 5230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 678.00 619 64460 210 5120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 131.69 619 64460 210 5121 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 174.00 619 64460 210 5120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 45.00 619 64460 210 5110 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 141.00 619 64460 210 5180 39025 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 81.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 81.00 101 64350 210 39026 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 148.92 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 110.47 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 38.45 625 65213 203 39027 CLEARLITE TROPHIES 19679 168.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 168.87 730 69560 120 39028 PAUL ALIAMUS 19857 1,800.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,800.00 531 22546 39029 TERRY HORN 19997 1,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 101 36630 39030 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 160.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 160.00 621 64450 110 39031 NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20376 4,197.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,197.50 327 81360 210 39032 PACIFIC COAST TRANE SERVICE 20818 3,735.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,735.00 531 22546 39033 FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. 20967 103.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 103.92 101 65100 220 39034 ATLAS TOWING SERVICES, INC. 21937 230.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 230.00 101 65100 292 39035 VERIZON WIRELESS 22593 390.08 COMMUNICATIONS 390.08 101 68020 160 2100 CITY OF BURLINGAME PAGE 2 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 39012 SAFETY KLEEN CORP. 09168 10.33 RENTS & LEASES 10.33 101 68020 180 2100 39013 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 17,604.87 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,670.05 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 14,934.82 618 64520 601 39014 BERNARD EDWARDS 09548 2,115.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,115.00 101 68010 220 1762 39015 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 1,088.54 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,088.54 201 65200 203 39016 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 155.26 COMMUNICATIONS 200.00 101 65100 160 TRAINING EXPENSE -44.74 101 65100 260 39017 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,506.56 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,506.56 101 65100 220 39018 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 651.27 GAS, OIL & GREASE 651.27 201 65200 201 39019 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 277.24 SMALL TOOLS 246.92 526 69020 130 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 30.32 620 66700 190 39020 LINDA HOECK 16390 3,651.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,651.00 101 68010 220 1349 39021 LARRY BETTENCOURT 17549 130.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 130.00 620 66700 260 39022 SHAW PIPELINE INC 17959 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 39023 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 70.22 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.22 101 65100 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 04/03/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38999 WHITE CAP 01250 30.90 SMALL TOOLS 30.90 101 66210 130 39000 BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. 01500 3,500.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,500.00 326 80910 120 39001 BURLINGAME GLASS COMPANY 01533 10.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.28 619 64460 120 5180 39002 D & M ROAD SERVICE INC 02029 40.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 40.00 620 66700 200 39003 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 294.66 MISC. SUPPLIES 294.66 101 68020 120 2200 39004 FEDEX 02160 116.38 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 53.95 101 65100 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 62.43 530 65400 200 39005 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 2,138.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 0.83 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 41.85 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 495.72 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 30.89 619 64460 120 5140 MISC. SUPPLIES -673.80 620 66700 120 SMALL TOOLS 933.56 620 66700 130 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,309.49 620 66700 260 39006 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 3,778.04 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 3,575.20 101 66210 226 MISC. SUPPLIES 202.84 326 81230 120 39007 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 507.21 MISC. SUPPLIES 234.94 619 64460 120 SUPPLIES 272.27 620 15000 39008 SANDRA POBE 03175 1,794.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,794.00 101 68010 220 1644 39009 PUTNAM BUICK PONTIAC GMC 03206 16.64 SUPPLIES 16.64 620 15000 39010 TAP PLASTICS 03739 62.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 62.40 619 64460 120 5180 -390-11 MUfF4-E CALBREATH 09125 453.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 453.75 101 68010 220 1891 CITY OF BURLINGAME 03-26-2009 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 61,983.57 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 8,282.95 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 99,596.41 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 231,064.99 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 35,813.94 WATER FUND 526 25,317.41 SEWER FUND 527 237,969.37 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 9,391.05 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 768.87 BUILDING ENTERPRISE FUND 531 1,084.48 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 43,056.80 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 767.82 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 14,447.65 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2,107.82 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,286.81 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1,321.77 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 205,837.02 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 23,893.16 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 73,610.91 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,078 602.80 < l (351.o) Vd ru 3SL6y ���•3� l� HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: >vv3� THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 38883 THROUGH 38998 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,078,602.80, 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 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT �* Denotes Hand Written Checks 38998 JANE KING 29364 17.00 MISCELLANEOUS 17.00 101 36330 000 1644 TOTAL $1,078,602.80 ► 1 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38982 AT&T 29312 9,810.18 UTILITY EXPENSE 9,810.18 896 20281 38983 SAN FRANCISCO BOOKING AGENCY 29346 400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 730 69533 220 38984 KAREN RILEY 104 MONAHAN CORP 29350 231.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 231.00 101 68010 220 1660 38985 STACY LEE GEAGAN WAGNER 29351 387.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 387.00 101 68010 220 1661 38986 ANDY MASGA 29352 459.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 459.00 101 68010 220 1661 38987 COLANTUONO & LEVIN PC 29353 84.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 84.00 101 64350 210 38988 RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION 29354 873.08 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 775.86 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.22 101 65150 220 38989 JANICE WONG 29355 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 38990 DEBORAH MARTIN 29356 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 38991 MILA GASCA 29357 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 38992 MATEEN BOXING CLUB 29358 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 38993 SPENCER GUSICK 29359 88.00 MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1646 38994 HELEN NEWMILLER 29360 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1660 38995 ANNA COSTELLO 29361 117.00 MISCELLANEOUS 117.00 101 36330 000 1372 38996 MICHELE INOUYE 29362 117.00 MISCELLANEOUS 117.00 101 36330 000 1372 38997 BETZA V. MOCK 29363 99.00 MISCELLANEOUS 99.00 101 36330 000 1372 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38967 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOC INC 28116 4,748.05 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,748.05 320 81940 220 38968 JULIE SWINT 28195 42.00 MISCELLANEOUS 42.00 101 36330 000 1422 38969 THE OFFICE CITY 28427 205.64 OFFICE EXPENSE 96.84 101 67500 110 LIBRARY EXPENSES 108.80 731 22531 38970 RICOH AMERICAN CORP 28640 758.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 758.04 101 67500 120 38971 WSK SERVICES 28749 3,800.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,800.00 527 66520 220 38972 PROVEN MANAGEMENT INC 28812 128,452.07 MISCELLANEOUS -14,275.63 326 20005 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 142,727.70 326 80910 220 38973 ACTION TOWING 28821 506.00 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 506.00 625 65213 203 38974 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 28824 32,260.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 32,260.00 320 82210 210 38975 JIM RUIZ 28886 200.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 200.00 101 65100 292 38976 JARVIS, FAY, DOPORTO & GIBSON LL 29025 117.65 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 117.65 101 64350 210 38977 LOREN MYROW 29178 465.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 465.00 101 68010 220 1784 38978 JOHN QUILICI 29267 29.00 MISCELLANEOUS 29.00 101 36330 000 1645 38979 LEW EDWARDS GROUP 29279 2,500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,500.00 320 78510 210 38980 JOSH ELLINGTON 29282 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 731 22554 38981 DAVID KAMLAN 29283 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 731 22554 l CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38966 U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYST 27931 11,770.78 OFFICE EXPENSE 86.49 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 344.59 101 67500 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 299.43 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 107.08 101 68020 110 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 979.39 101 66100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 51.61 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 40.00 101 68010 120 1890 MISC. SUPPLIES 265.00 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 219.94 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES -1,518.60 101 65100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.95 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.61 101 68010 120 1789 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.81 101 68010 120 1788 MISC. SUPPLIES 18.36 101 68010 120 1785 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.54 101 68010 120 1100 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,548.41 101 68010 120 1521 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 302.92 101 64420 121 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 284.21 101 67500 129 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 178.01 101 68020 190 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 108.24 101 67500 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,450.70 101 65100 200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.00 101 68010 220 1370 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69.30 101 68010 220 1212 MISCELLANEOUS 110.27 101 67500 235 TRAVEL & MEETINGS -65.40 101 64250 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 190.25 101 64150 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 53.40 101 65100 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 389.00 101 68010 250 1101 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 220.89 101 66100 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 425.00 101 65100 250 STAFF & MEETINGS 311.75 101 67500 252 TRAINING EXPENSE 534.40 101 65100 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.00 327 81800 120 SMALL TOOLS 143.54 526 69020 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 64.93 527 66520 120 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 61.00 527 66520 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 366.40 527 66520 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 485.00 527 66520 260 MISCELLANEOUS 703.87 530 31310 MISC. SUPPLIES 76.86 619 64460 120 SMALL TOOLS 507.09 619 64460 130 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 25.87 619 64460 240 TRAINING EXPENSE 158.00 619 64460 260 SUPPLIES 32.42 620 15000 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 169.00 620 66700 210 OFFICE EXPENSE 993.48 621 64450 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 306.78 730 69593 120 6070 MISC. SUPPLIES 309.97 730 69533 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.09 730 69583 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 12.93 730 69533 120 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 731 22558 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38955 LARSON CONSULTING 25732 2,386.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,386.75 527 66520 210 38956 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153.22 RENTS & LEASES 153.22 526 69020 180 38957 DANCE FORCE 26351 7,552.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,552.00 101 68010 220 1349 38958 CEMEX 26506 115.45 MISC. SUPPLIES 115.45 326 81230 120 38959 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 538.44 OFFICE EXPENSE 55.47 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 46.03 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 55.46 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 302.98 526 69020 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 78.50 620 66700 110 38960 OCT ACADEMY 27131 1,050.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 1,050.00 526 69020 250 38961 ELMS INC 27389 851.41 MISCELLANEOUS 851.41 201 65200 144 38962 PATRICIA KENNELLY 27429 1,840.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,840.00 101 68010 220 1349 38963 PRECISE PRODUCTIONS 27443 225.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 730 69533 220 38964 FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. 27587 84.27 OFFICE EXPENSE 84.27 101 67500 110 38965 GROENIGER & CO. 27811 411.35 MISC. SUPPLIES 411.35 527 66520 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38942 C.F. ARCHIBALD 24094 60,066.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60,066.75 320 81580 220 38943 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 3,860.35 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,031.62 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 83.36 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,052.38 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 974.34 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 446.76 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 208.39 526 69020 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 63.50 621 64450 110 38944 SUSAN MCKEE 24442 799.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 799.00 101 68010 220 1661 38945 GRETCHEN LOTT 24452 1,128.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,128.00 101 68010 220 1661 38946 GOLDEN GATE SIGNS 24461 752.82 MISC. SUPPLIES 752.82 101 66210 120 38947 CoMPUCoM 24467 2,406.19 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,406.19 101 64400 120 38948 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 42,496.47 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,093.75 326 82040 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 281.33 326 81180 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 41,121.39 326 82220 210 38949 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 24683 468.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 468.00 101 67500 240 38950 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 14,624.14 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 14,624.14 526 69020 803 38951 JAMES MURPHY 25080 1,104.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,104.00 101 68010 220 1661 38952 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 1,409.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 465.50 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 944.00 101 68010 220 1646 38953 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 736.90 OFFICE EXPENSE 408.63 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 328.27 201 65200 110 38954 MERCY MARTIN 25270 987.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 987.00 101 68010 220 1661 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38928 BROWN & CALDWELL 21507 35,757.94 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 35,757.94 327 82240 210 38929 SHOWCASES 21931 2,731.30 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,731.30 101 67500 120 38930 R&B COMPANY 22178 1,290.82 MISC. SUPPLIES 960.74 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 330.08 527 66520 120 38931 GREG FLOWERS 22293 88.00 MISCELLANEOUS 88.00 101 36330 000 1646 38932 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 22,002.23 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,609.60 736 64572 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14,392.63 736 64571 220 38933 HOLMATRO INC. 22637 8.91 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 8.91 201 65200 200 38934 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 160.00 MISCELLANEOUS 160.00 526 69020 233 38935 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 3,771.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,008.75 326 80910 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,762.50 326 82040 210 38936 OFFICE MAX 23306 595.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 200.67 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 395.32 621 64450 110 38937 DATASAFE 23410 113.20 OFFICE EXPENSE 38.70 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 34.55 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 39.95 101 66100 110 38938 KAREN SCHEIKOWITZ 23507 448.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 448.00 101 68010 220 1661 38939 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 38940 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 34.48 COMMUNICATIONS 34.48 531 65300 160 38941 K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION INC 24058 56,229.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 56,229.75 326 80910 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38913 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 652.47 OFFICE EXPENSE 82.87 101 67500 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 83.67 101 64250 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 373.71 201 65200 111 OFFICE EXPENSE 112.22 621 64450 110 38914 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 1,132.84 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,132.84 201 65200 203 38915 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,890.93 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,890.93 736 64570 220 38916 GE CAPITAL 20216 366.16 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 274.62 101 68010 220 1101 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 91.54 101 68020 220 2100 38917 RACQUET SMITH 20339 2,256.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,256.00 101 68010 220 1782 38918 CMC FLUIDIQS INC 20421 821.75 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 821.75 527 66520 230 38919 ERGOWORKS, INC. 20560 2,648.57 OFFICE EXPENSE 2,648.57 101 65100 110 38920 CARTER INDUSTRIES INC. 20673 1,430.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,430.97 527 66520 120 38921 DELL MARKETING L.P. 20900 3,213.05 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,213.05 101 64200 800 38922 C & V INVESTMENTS 21048 1,050.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,050.00 531 22546 38923 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 4,010.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,010.00 101 68010 220 1331 38924 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 1,713.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,713.70 101 66210 120 38925 CEB 21210 126.41 MISC. SUPPLIES 126.41 101 64350 120 38926 STANDARD & POOR'S 21394 298.00 LIBRARY--PERIODICALS 298.00 101 67500 122 38927 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 543.30 OFFICE EXPENSE 543.30 621 64450 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '* Denotes Hand Written Checks 38898 MARGARET KRAMER 09612 1,903.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,903.50 101 68010 220 1661 38899 OLE'S 09626 789.68 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 198.64 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 591.04 625 65213 203 38900 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 2,106.25 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,034.74 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,071.51 625 65213 203 38901 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 440.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 440.14 527 66520 120 38902 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 4,399.49 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 4,399.49 526 69020 230 38903 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 14692 299.66 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 299.66 101 68020 190 2200 38904 UNITED TRANSMISSION INC. 14760 2,684.06 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 2,684.06 620 66700 200 38905 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 13,004.62 GAS, OIL & GREASE 2,026.19 201 65200 201 SUPPLIES 10,978.43 620 15000 38906 MILLBRAE FURNITURE & APPLIANCE 16813 135.31 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 135.31 201 65200 190 38907 COLORPRINT 17497 131.52 OFFICE EXPENSE 131.52 101 64250 110 38908 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE 17546 118.26 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 118.26 625 65213 203 38909 DEESIGNS 18388 3,204.22 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,204.22 526 69020 120 38910 KLEINFELDER, INC 18684 9,391.05 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,391.05 528 66600 210 38911 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 82.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 82.00 526 69020 240 38912 PRIORITY 1 19239 246.73 SUPPLIES 246.73 620 15000 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 03/26/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 38883 ALPINE AWARDS, INC. 01052 28.69 MISC. SUPPLIES 28.69 526 69020 120 38884 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 39.40 SUPPLIES 39.40 620 15000 38885 BRIDGES TIRE & WHEEL SERVICE 01403 219.11 SUPPLIES 219.11 620 15000 38886 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 2,192.93 SMALL TOOLS 1,301.18 201 65200 130 GAS, OIL & GREASE 891.75 201 65200 201 38887 D & M ROAD SERVICE INC 02029 130.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 65.00 101 65100 292 MISC. SUPPLIES 65.00 530 65400 120 38888 DEMCO, INC. 02043 76.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 76.50 101 67500 120 38889 VEOLIA WATER 02110 227,371.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 227,371.00 527 66530 220 38890 FEDEX 02160 51.51 MISC. SUPPLIES 29.90 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.61 320 81670 120 38891 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 1,440.11 MISCELLANEOUS 1,440.11 896 20282 38892 P. G. & E. 03054 62,360.62 UTILITY EXPENSE 62,360.62 896 20280 38893 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,752.08 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,752.08 101 65150 220 38894 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 205,278.22 MISCELLANEOUS 205,278.22 731 22587 38895 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 499.60 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 499.60 101 64350 210 38896 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 4,250.22 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,250.22 101 64350 210 38897 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 43,056.80 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 43,056.80 618 64520 601 CITY OF BURLINGAME 03-20-2009 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 14 FUND RECAP - 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 189,363.86 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 7,252.00 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 8,493.80 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 17,292.93 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 124,601.08 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 308,779.90 WATER FUND 526 10,240.98 SEWER FUND 527 68,920.63 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,085.11 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 2,238.15 BUILDING ENTERPRISE FUND 531 4,344.92 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 14,758.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 18,293.74 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,629.52 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 38,826.59 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 759.49 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 7,033.11 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 975.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 1,086.34 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $825,975.15 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 38716 THROUGH 38882 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $825,975.15, 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 13 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38871 BILL MYERS 29335 1,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 38872 GINKGO BURLINGAME LLC 29336 1,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 101 36630 38873 CALIFORNIA LONG TERM CARE INSURA 29337 250.00 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 250.00 101 22503 38874 WATER HEATERS AND PLUMBING 29338 600.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 600.00 101 22520 38875 TONY CONSTRUCTION 29339 3,350.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3,350.00 101 22520 38876 CHRISTOPHER LEE JOHNSON 29340 800.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 800.00 101 22520 38877 RONALD TONEGATO 29341 39.00 MISCELLANEOUS 39.00 101 36330 000 1660 38878 KATHY O'LANDER 29342 39.00 MISCELLANEOUS 39.00 101 36330 000 1660 38879 NATHALIE CHENG 29343 39.00 MISCELLANEOUS 39.00 101 36330 000 1660 38880 BRIAN CHRISTOPHER 29344 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 38881 MARYROSE JANG 29345 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 38882 STEPHEN MCDONNELL 29347 144.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 144.00 130 20015 TOTAL $825,975.15 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 38860 PACIFIC MAINTENANCE COMPANY 29145 13,294.28 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 325.49 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,792.07 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 135.01 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 380.02 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.02 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 588.92 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,229.60 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 898.39 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,133.48 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,681.14 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,372.08 619 64460 220 5120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 41.04 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 267.02 619 64460 220 5121 38861 NORTH BAY CONSTRUCTION 29158 89,673.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 89,673.75 326 82220 220 38862 WELLS FARGO BANK 29159 9,963.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,963.75 326 82220 220 38863 WILLIAM TOTI 29176 468.00 MISCELLANEOUS 468.00 130 20016 38864 TONY L BROWN 29232 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38865 KIMARIE P. MATTHEWS 29244 276.00 MISCELLANEOUS 276.00 101 36330 000 1331 38866 LACI DAVIS 29270 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38867 ANDREW WALLACE 29322 668.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 MISCELLANEOUS 368.00 101 36310 38868 FEHR BROS. INDUSTRIES 29332 115.61 MISC. SUPPLIES 115.61 619 64460 120 5170 38869 NATIONAL FIRE CODES 29333 787.50 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 787.50 201 65200 240 38870 CHRIS KNIGHTLY 29334 1,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38847 THE OFFICE CITY 28427 204.60 OFFICE EXPENSE 108.51 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 96.09 101 67500 120 38848 CAL LARSEN 28466 71.00 MISCELLANEOUS 71.00 101 36330 000 1644 38849 ROSEMARY MARTIN 28468 158.00 MISCELLANEOUS 158.00 101 36330 000 1644 38850 U.S. HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP 28499 2,056.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 1,855.00 101 64420 121 TRAINING EXPENSE 201.00 527 66520 260 38851 NANCY STIRM 28581 147.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 147.00 101 68010 220 1644 38852 JONG SOON YEU 28614 71.00 MISCELLANEOUS 71.00 101 36330 000 1644 38853 BAY AREA NEWS GROUP 28800 347.59 MISC. SUPPLIES 153.77 101 64400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 193.82 320 81670 120 38854 BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCTION 28892 15,785.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,785.00 320 81790 220 38855 MUNICIPAL AUDITING SERVICES 28938 25,701.03 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 25,701.03 101 22503 38856 LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER ATTORNEY 29030 5,000.00 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 5,000.00 618 64520 601 38857 DEEPAK MISHRA 29082 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38858 DENNIS MITCHELL 29102 465.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 465.00 101 68010 220 1784 38859 JODI HAMILTON-EICHENSEHR 29128 360.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 101 68010 220 1785 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 38835 U.S. BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT SYST 27931 7,940.09 OFFICE EXPENSE 42.00 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES -1,001.63 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 279.31 201 65200 120 SMALL TOOLS 77.78 201 65200 130 COMMUNICATIONS 54.10 201 65200 160 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 159.87 201 65200 190 VEHICLE MAINT. 28.90 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 109.32 201 65200 203 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,909.47 201 65200 260 MISCELLANEOUS 6,280.97 731 22554 38836 4 LEAF INC 27948 18,695.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 18,695.00 327 81800 210 38837 MARIO CAPRINI 27980 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38838 BENITO PICAR 27981 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38839 ADVANCED INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNOLO 28004 2,304.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,304.78 527 66520 120 38840 BAKER & TAYLOR 28019 234.98 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 52.65 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 182.33 101 67500 129 38841 PEGGY SHOMAKER 28084 988.00 MISCELLANEOUS 988.00 130 20016 38842 GRANICUS, INC 28105 975.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 975.00 738 64580 220 38843 AT&T MOBILITY 28132 191.84 MISCELLANEOUS 191.84 731 22554 38844 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 1,180.49 MISC. SUPPLIES 27.03 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,153.46 619 64460 120 5250 38845 TONY LEUNG 28215 2,920.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 2,920.00 101 22520 38846 VICENTE ZUNIGA-ISAIS 28270 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 9 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38823 JOSEPH BUNNELL 27243 1,442.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,442.00 130 20016 38824 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF SAN 27283 174.22 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.59 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 52.63 527 66520 120 38825 RICOH AMERICAS CORPORATION 27326 560.30 LIBRARY EXPENSES 560.30 731 22531 38826 TOM LOGAN 27350 3,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 68010 220 1646 38827 BAKER AND TAYLOR 27484 58.96 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 8.37 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 50.59 101 67500 129 38828 HELEN TRAN 27500 300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1789 38829 ROB MCNICHOL 27501 220.00 MISCELLANEOUS 220.00 130 20016 38830 AT&T MOBILITY 27559 155.59 COMMUNICATIONS 155.59 101 67500 160 38831 LOOMIS 27594 2,545.37 BANKING SERVICE FEES 500.00 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,045.37 530 65400 120 38832 AT&T MOBILITY 27715 61.64 COMMUNICATIONS 61.64 531 65300 160 38833 AT&T MOBILITY 27758 32.06 COMMUNICATIONS 32.06 101 65150 160 38834 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 27930 1,521.52 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,521.52 526 69020 240 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38809 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 26274 215.55 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 44.80 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 170.75 101 67500 125 38810 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 26275 210.84 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 51.20 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 159.64 101 67500 125 38811 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26276 2,722.10 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 712.35 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 2,009.75 101 67500 129 38812 CATHY BAYLOCK 26302 210.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 210.00 101 69537 120 38813 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26375 52.57 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 9.88 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 42.69 101 67500 129 38814 CEMEX 26506 64.63 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 64.63 101 66210 226 38815 BAKER AND TAYLOR 26530 1,197.23 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 230.25 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 966.98 101 67500 129 38816 CALIFORNIA SUPPLY NORTH, INC. 26716 441.22 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 441.22 101 67500 190 38817 DANIEL BOYLE 26737 197.00 MISCELLANEOUS 197.00 130 20016 38818 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 82.77 COMMUNICATIONS 82.77 526 69020 160 38819 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 347.62 OFFICE EXPENSE 177.80 526 69020 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 169.82 531 65300 110 38820 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 120.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 120.00 101 64420 262 38821 VALERIE TERRANOVA 27160 31.00 MISCELLANEOUS 31.00 101 36330 000 1644 38822 JANA NISBET 27195 700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 38794 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 24602 214.80 MISCELLANEOUS 214.80 101 36320 38795 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 24647 215.89 TRAINING EXPENSE 215.89 531 65300 260 38796 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 23,322.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 23,322.58 326 81390 120 38797 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 100.34 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.34 101 65150 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 201 65200 220 38798 DORIS MORTENSEN 24871 530.00 MISCELLANEOUS 530.00 130 20016 38799 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 171.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171.36 201 65200 220 38800 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 170.56 OFFICE EXPENSE 170.56 201 65200 110 38801 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 25575 73.26 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 73.26 101 67500 125 38802 ROBERT GILSON 25616 4,500.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 4,500.00 101 22520 38803 RICHARD BOYD 25741 70.00 MISCELLANEOUS 70.00 101 36330 000 1660 38804 COIN TECH 26173 192.78 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 192.78 530 65400 200 38805 DATABANK IMX 26176 3,897.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,897.57 531 65300 120 38806 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26270 691.19 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 175.39 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 515.80 101 67500 129 38807 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26271 580.31 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 131.60 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 448.71 101 67500 125 38808 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 26273 1,404.89 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 403.20 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 1,001.69 101 67500 125 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38782 BANK OF NEW YORK 23553 5,412.00 BANK TRUSTEE SERVICES 1,617.00 526 69020 763 BANK TRUSTEE SERVICES 833.00 527 66520 763 BANK TRUSTEE SERVICES 2,962.00 527 66530 763 38783 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 17.59 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.59 619 64460 120 38784 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 430.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5160 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 5130 38785 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 2,479.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,447.00 101 23620 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 32.00 101 64420 210 38786 PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 23983 1,848.47 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,848.47 101 67500 209 38787 INTERNATIONAL TRAINING RESOURCES 24033 1,370.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,370.00 101 65100 260 38788 K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION INC 24058 289,215.90 MISCELLANEOUS -32,135.10 327 20005 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 321,351,00 327 81800 220 38789 QUILL 24090 499.38 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 440.99 101 67500 129 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 58.39 101 67500 190 38790 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 4,200.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,800.00 101 66210 260 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,400.00 619 64460 800 38791 ALERT-ALL 24392 1,039.20 MISCELLANEOUS 1,039.20 201 65200 132 38792 JOE DITO 24460 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38793 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 24465 1,086.93 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 307.20 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 779.73 101 67500 125 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38767 EXPRESS PLUMBING 22092 1,122.00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,122.00 526 69020 801 38768 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 42.13 SUPPLIES 42.13 620 15000 38769 SLM DISTRIBUTING 22186 127.98 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 127.98 101 67500 125 38770 CUTTERS EDGE 22407 86.83 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 86.83 201 65200 200 38771 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 665.00 MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 201 35221 000 7100 MISCELLANEOUS 475.00 201 35220 000 7100 38772 ANZA ENGINEERING 22634 73,500.00 DITCH & CREEK CLEANING EXPEN 73,500.00 101 66210 223 38773 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 870.00 UTILITY EXPENSE 870.00 896 20281 38774 CARL DEQUANT 22842 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38775 ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 22851 9,758.00 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 9,758.00 618 64520 225 38776 GALE 23127 224.58 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 224.58 101 67500 129 38777 CALIFORNIA SPECIALIZED TRAINING 23220 2,600.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,600.00 201 65500 260 38778 OFFICE MAX 23306 433.51 OFFICE EXPENSE 53.46 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 306.01 101 66100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 74.04 528 66600 120 38779 AIRGAS 23307 11.68 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 11.68 101 68020 200 2300 38780 INTERNATIONAL LASER GROUP 23380 1,003.04 MISCELLANEOUS 1,003.04 101 67500 235 38781 REED AND GRAHAM INC. 23520 285.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 285.78 527 66520 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38754 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 1,500.15 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 224.06 101 66210 140 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 335.44 201 65200 220 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 340.41 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 224.04 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 46.07 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 94.80 619 64460 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 235.33 620 66700 140 38755 PRIORITY 1 19239 568.78 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 568.78 620 66700 800 38756 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 19258 73.90 OFFICE EXPENSE 73.90 101 67500 110 38757 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,380.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,190.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 2,190.00 527 66520 180 38758 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 691.86 COMMUNICATIONS 691.86 621 64450 160 38759 KAWANN SUMMERVILLE 20502 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 38760 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 789.85 OFFICE EXPENSE 30.36 621 64450 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 759.49 730 69581 120 38761 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 2,062.50 TRAINING EXPENSE 687.50 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 687.50 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 687.50 527 66520 260 38762 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 923.83 MISC. SUPPLIES 923.83 101 68020 120 2200 38763 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 5,940.34 MISCELLANEOUS 5,940.34 101 37010 38764 SEWER RAT 21821 750.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 750.00 101 22520 38765 F. FERRANDO 21861 1,264.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,264.00 101 22520 38766 IEDA 21981 3,046.28 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,046.28 101 64420 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38740 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 2,113.54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,113.54 101 65100 220 38741 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 69.30 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 69.30 101 64200 150 38742 RECORDED BOOKS, LLC 16052 704.28 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 704.28 101 67500 125 38743 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 783.28 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 783.28 620 66700 200 38744 HILTON, FARNKOPF & HOBSON 16656 1,110.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,110.00 326 82300 210 38745 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 692.15 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 692.15 101 68020 140 2200 38746 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 1,314.11 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,314.11 320 82020 120 38747 BAKER AND TAYLOR 18365 266.00 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 27.65 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 238.35 101 67500 125 38748 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 18419 3,080.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,080.00 130 20018 38749 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 18420 1,564.87 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 313.60 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 1,251.27 101 67500 125 38750 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 694.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 694.00 101 64420 210 38751 RICOH AMERICAS 18555 1,353.81 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,353.81 621 64450 200 38752 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 498.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 498.00 526 69020 240 38753 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 780.68 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 780.68 526 69020 140 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38729 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 483.35 MISC. SUPPLIES 83.35 101 65100 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 101 65100 220 38730 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 748.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 448.71 101 68020 120 2200 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 227.44 101 66210 219 MISC. SUPPLIES 71.99 527 66520 120 38731 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 869.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 869.00 327 81800 210 38732 WFCB OSH COMMERCIAL SERVICES 09670 1,341.91 MISC. SUPPLIES 149.27 101 68020 120 2200 SMALL TOOLS 164.59 101 68020 130 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 181.76 101 68020 190 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 59.30 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 351.08 526 69020 120 SMALL TOOLS 9.72 526 69020 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 130.62 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.16 619 64460 120 5170 MISC. SUPPLIES 28.96 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 39.26 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 78.71 619 64460 120 5160 MISC. SUPPLIES 74.07 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 32.41 619 64460 120 5120 38733 DARYL D JONES INC 10101 491.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 491.00 201 65200 220 38734 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 13753 10,159.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 10,159.00 101 64420 250 38735 FORTE PRESS CORP. 13759 482.80 OFFICE EXPENSE 482.80 101 65100 110 38736 BLACKWELL'S BOOK SERVICE 14153 771.65 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 771.65 101 67500 129 38737 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY 14358 898.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 531.00 326 80910 220 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 367.00 619 64460 210 5130 38738 HIGHSMITH INC. 15117 115.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 115.96 101 67500 120 38739 MICHAEL LENNON 15302 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 03/20/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38716 BAKER AND TAYLOR, INC. 01190 4,259.67 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 39.95 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 4,219.72 101 67500 129 38717 BURLINGAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY 01535 210.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 70.00 101 64100 120 ' MISC. SUPPLIES 140.00 101 69537 120 38718 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 36,907.28 OFFICE EXPENSE 156.72 101 64250 110 COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 36,450.56 621 64450 220 38719 ANASTASIA COLE 01945 421.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 421.92 101 68010 220 1644 38720 VEOLIA WATER 02110 58,977.29 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 12,791.20 527 66530 190 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 46,068.81 527 66530 270 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 117.28 527 66530 800 38721 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 638.46 MISC. SUPPLIES 540.06 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 98.40 619 64460 120 38722 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 847.40 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 847.40 101 66210 226 38723 MEG MONROE 02936 183.00 MISCELLANEOUS 183.00 130 20016 38724 P. G. & E. 03054 1,221.96 GAS & ELECTRIC 20.33 101 66100 170 GAS & ELECTRIC 925.43 101 68010 170 1286 GAS & ELECTRIC 276.20 201 65200 170 38725 AT&T 03080 216.34 UTILITY EXPENSE 216.34 896 20281 38726 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY 03361 862.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 862.50 526 69020 120 38727 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 105.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 70.00 101 64100 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 35.00 101 64150 250 38728 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL 03380 965.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 965.00 528 66600 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME 03-12-2009 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 FUND RECAP 08-09 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 107,550.01 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 5,987.27 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 20,137.50 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 49,789.81 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 86,290.70 WATER FUND 526 217,773.71 SEWER FUND 527 19,635.73 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 11,806.22 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1,394.81 BUILDING ENTERPRISE FUND 531 78,679.10 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 7,587.82 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 10,129.40 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 3,088.49 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 4,118.17 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,293.97 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 4,523.22 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,742.41 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 877.93 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $633,406.27 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 38560 THROUGH 38715 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $633,406.27, 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 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT ' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38704 AT&T 29312 21.26 COMMUNICATIONS 21.26 621 64450 160 38705 KATRINA DANILENKO 29319 15.75 MISCELLANEOUS 15.75 101 36330 000 1644 38706 MARILYN FUERTES 29320 58.00 MISCELLANEOUS 58.00 101 36330 000 1646 38707 VIVIAN LARKIN 29321 450.00 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 101 22525 38708 ANDREW WALLACE 29322 2,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,250.00 531 22546 38709 AFIF BABA 29323 1,125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,125.00 531 22546 38710 MARY BROWN 29324 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 101 36330 000 1422 38711 ERIK WILLIAMS 29325 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 38712 MICHELLE R. DIXON 29326 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 38713 KAREN SANCHEZ 29327 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 38714 MARY JO LAFAYE 29328 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 38715 SHANTHI GONZALES 29329 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 TOTAL $633,406.27 CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 11 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38690 ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY 28171 399.99 MISC. SUPPLIES 385.65 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.34 619 64460 120 38691 TONY LEUNG 28215 9,700.00 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 101 36630 MISCELLANEOUS 800.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 8,450.00 531 22546 38692 AT&T MOBILITY 28264 112.18 COMMUNICATIONS 112.18 619 64460 160 38693 MICHELLE HURIN 28337 53.00 MISCELLANEOUS 53.00 101 36330 000 1646 38694 THE OFFICE CITY 28427 361.30 OFFICE EXPENSE 149.91 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 78.40 101 67500 120 LIBRARY EXPENSES 132.99 731 22531 38695 CAINE COMPUTER CONSULTING 28458 9,551.52 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,551.52 101 65100 210 38696 JIM SCHLOETTER 28521 25.00 MISCELLANEOUS 25.00 101 36330 000 1660 38697 METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 28717 3,450.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,450.00 101 64400 210 38698 MUNICIPAL AUDITING SERVICES 28938 4,906.89 BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 4,906.89 101 22503 38699 PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICES 29033 153.00 COMMUNICATIONS 153.00 101 67500 160 38700 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 29049 180.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 180.00 526 69020 240 38701 HANNA GROUP 29061 13,750.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 13,750.00 327 81360 210 38702 GANTRY CONSTRUCTION 29144 48,494.30 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 47,744.30 327 81360 210 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 38703 COLE SUPPLYCOINC 29293 562.51 MISC. SUPPLIES 562.51 201 65200 111 � 1 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38675 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 240.19 OFFICE EXPENSE 240.19 527 66520 110 38676 BUREAU VERITAS 26854 62,772.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 62,772.60 531 65300 220 38677 MOVIE LICENSING USA 27325 720.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 720.00 101 67500 220 38678 EPC CONSULTANTS 27676 1,866.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,866.00 327 81800 220 38679 THOR AUDIO SOLUTIONS 27703 1,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500.00 101 68010 220 1950 38680 AT&T MOBILITY 27714 65.80 COMMUNICATIONS 65.80 101 64150 160 38681 AT&T MOBILITY 27717 777.01 COMMUNICATIONS 777.01 101 66100 160 38682 AT&T MOBILITY 27722 42.19 COMMUNICATIONS 42.19 530 65400 160 38683 AT&T MOBILITY 27724 774.13 COMMUNICATIONS 774.13 201 65200 160 38684 AT&T MOBILITY 27744 64.23 COMMUNICATIONS 64.23 101 65100 160 38685 AT&T MOBILITY 27760 877.93 UTILITY EXPENSE 877.93 896 20281 38686 A+ SPANISH ACADEMY 27960 528.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 528.00 101 68010 220 1331 38687 R&S ERECTION NORTH PENINSULA 27969 547.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 547.00 619 64460 210 5170 38688 IPR 27976 2,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,250.00 531 22546 38689 SIGN A RAMA 28122 1,636.74 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,636.74 101 64400 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT * Denotes Hand Written Checks 38659 EXCEL FITNESS SOLUTIONS 24854 325.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 325.00 201 65200 200 38660 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS 25020 577.95 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 408.00 201 65200 220 OFFICE EXPENSE 169.95 526 69020 110 38661 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 413.24 OFFICE EXPENSE 413.24 101 65100 110 38662 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 173.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 173.00 526 69020 190 38663 CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 25729 74.10 TRAINING EXPENSE 74.10 101 68020 260 2200 38664 KENNETH NEUMANN 26065 57.00 MISCELLANEOUS 57.00 101 36330 000 1644 38665 LANCE BAYER 26156 437.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 437.50 101 64350 210 38666 COIN TECH 26173 98.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 98.00 530 65400 200 38667 PATRICIA EATON 26184 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1660 38668 MR/MRS EVERSON 26199 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 101 36330 000 1422 38669 JOHN FISKE 26244 36.00 MISCELLANEOUS 36.00 101 36330 000 1660 38670 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 234.65 COMMUNICATIONS 234.65 621 64450 160 38671 CALIFORNIA SUPPLY NORTH, INC. 26716 464.98 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 464.98 101 67500 190 38672 THOMAS REX HARDY AIA 26740 2,405.04 DEPOSIT REFUND 2,405.04 101 22590 38673 DONALD DOUGHERTY 26803 106.00 MISCELLANEOUS 106.00 101 36330 000 1644 38674 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 70.82 COMMUNICATIONS 70.82 526 69020 160 � 1 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38646 KEITH MARTIN 23788 89.58 OFFICE EXPENSE 3.99 526 69020 110 TRAINING EXPENSE 33.25 526 69020 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.28 527 66520 120 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 8.00 527 66520 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 11.06 619 64460 260 38647 DAVE CREAMER 23876 1,005.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,005.00 101 68010 220 1644 38648 WEST PAYMENT CENTER 23940 51.97 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 51.97 101 67500 129 38649 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 250.33 COMMUNICATIONS 34.48 101 65300 160 MISCELLANEOUS 215.85 731 22554 38650 QUILL 24090 647.73 OFFICE EXPENSE 39.84 101 67500 110 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 58.39 101 67500 190 MISCELLANEOUS 549.50 101 67500 235 38651 POLIZZI CONSTRUCTION 24179 870.00 MISCELLANEOUS 870.00 531 22546 38652 KUMUDINI MURTHY 24210 1,182.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,182.75 101 68010 220 1644 38653 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 2,400.00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,400.00 619 64460 800 38654 GOLDEN GATE SIGNS 24461 752.82 MISC. SUPPLIES 752.82 101 66210 120 38655 COMPUCOM 24467 3,489.13 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 3,489.13 621 64450 200 38656 XEROX CORPORATION 24634 369.39 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 369.39 101 67500 220 38657 SPRINGERWEST LLC 24704 513.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 513.75 101 68010 220 1660 38658 THE POWER SOURCE 24718 1,136.63 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,136.63 530 65400 200 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38632 JOHN KAMMEYER 22612 585.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 585.00 201 65200 260 38633 TURF STAR 22682 75.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 75.00 101 68020 200 2200 38634 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 240.00 MISCELLANEOUS 240.00 526 69020 233 38635 PITNEY BOWES INC 22878 325.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 325.00 621 64450 200 38636 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 32.00 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 32.00 101 65100 140 38637 DANIEL SCHOENTHALER 23278 961.50 MISCELLANEOUS 961.50 531 22546 38638 OFFICE MAX 23306 591.34 OFFICE EXPENSE 33.74 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 411.57 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 146.03 101 64400 110 38639 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 23382 7,800.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,800.00 320 79360 210 38640 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 49,789.81 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 49,789.81 326 82300 210 38641 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 34.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.96 619 64460 120 5110 38642 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 15,805.10 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 15,805.10 327 81800 210 38643 AT&T 23661 48.13 COMMUNICATIONS 48.13 621 64450 160 38644 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 9,925.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,925.00 101 68010 220 1331 38645 SCS ENGINEERS 23727 2,977.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,977.50 528 66600 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38618 BAYSIDE BUILDING MATERIALS INC. 20650 575.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 173.20 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 402.70 527 66520 120 38619 CHANNING L. BETE CO., INC. 20761 255.57 MISCELLANEOUS 255.57 731 22554 38620 CEB 21210 400.09 MISC. SUPPLIES 400.09 101 64350 120 38621 CIR 21211 1,450.55 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,450.55 527 66520 120 38622 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 394.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 394.00 619 64460 210 5120 38623 AUTOMATIC CONTROLS 21336 1,063.73 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,063.73 619 64460 210 5120 38624 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 135.48 OFFICE EXPENSE 135.48 101 64400 110 38625 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 3,000.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 708.00 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 425.00 101 64420 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 450.00 101 68020 260 2100 TRAINING EXPENSE 709.00 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 708.00 527 66520 260 38626 R&B COMPANY 22178 6,488.21 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,764.65 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,723.56 527 66520 120 38627 BUSINESS 2000 INC 22326 12,150.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,150.00 320 81580 210 38628 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 200.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 200.00 620 66700 210 38629 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 7,617.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,617.50 528 66600 210 38630 BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER 22582 701.58 GAS & ELECTRIC 701.58 101 68010 170 1286 38631 VERIZON WIRELESS 22593 376.67 COMMUNICATIONS 376.67 101 68020 160 2100 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *' Denotes Hand Written Checks 38604 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 19.90 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 19.90 101 68020 200 2200 38605 GOLDEN NURSERY 17128 278.64 MISC. SUPPLIES 278.64 101 68020 120 2200 38606 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 18419 982.37 WATER PURCHASES 982.37 526 69020 171 38607 SCHOLASTIC LIBRARY PUBLISHING 18666 534.76 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 534.76 101 67500 129 38608 BAY ALARM 18854 934.93 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 47.49 619 64460 210 5230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 159.00 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 345.00 619 64460 210 5140 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 179.44 619 64460 210 5121 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 204.00 619 64460 210 5150 38609 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 21.68 WATER PURCHASES 21.68 526 69020 171 38610 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 1,137.75 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,137.75 201 65200 203 38611 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 187.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 187.50 320 81080 220 38612 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 38613 ELESCO 19972 325.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 325.00 619 64460 210 5120 38614 NIAGARA CONSERVATION 19979 6,092.59 MISC. SUPPLIES 6,092.59 526 69020 120 38615 NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20376 7,125.30 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,125.30 327 81360 210 38616 CMC FLUIDIQS INC 20421 6,824.39 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 6,824.39 527 66520 230 38617 KIMBERLY YEE 20450 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 101 36330 000 1422 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38591 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 388.80 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 388.80 101 64350 210 38592 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 3,760.61 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,760.61 527 66520 120 38593 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 1,913.18 MISC. SUPPLIES 175.24 101 65100 120 COMMUNICATIONS 160.00 101 65100 160 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 42.80 101 65100 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 526.00 101 65100 260 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 9.14 101 65100 292 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,000.00 730 69530 120 38594 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 2,403.25 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 380.00 527 66520 230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 598.25 619 64460 210 5170 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 315.00 619 64460 210 5110 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 370.00 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 370.00 619 64460 210 5170 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 370.00 619 64460 210 5130 38595 BLACKWELL'S BOOK SERVICE 14153 814.25 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 814.25 101 67500 129 38596 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHINES 14252 2,013.03 OFFICE EXPENSE 2,013.03 101 68010 110 1101 38597 HIGHSMITH INC. 15117 181.74 MISC. SUPPLIES 181.74 101 67500 120 38598 AIR EXCHANGE, INC 15625 187.90 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 187.90 619 64460 210 5150 38599 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 69.30 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 69.30 101 64200 150 38600 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 3.19 MISC. SUPPLIES 3.19 619 64460 120 5130 38601 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 520.95 GAS, OIL & GREASE 520.95 201 65200 201 38602 TEAM CLEAN 15827 240.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 201 65200 220 38603 RECORDED BOOKS, LLC 16052 166.06 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 166.06 101 67500 125 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38581 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 22,445.59 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 22,445.59 101 68020 220 2300 38582 NOLO 09312 113.64 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 113.64 101 67500 129 38583 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 1,310.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,310.00 101 65100 220 38584 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY 09490 1,532.85 MISCELLANEOUS 84.36 101 36320 MISC. SUPPLIES 84.01 101 67500 120 LIBRARY--PERIODICALS 91.72 101 67500 122 COMMUNICATIONS 24.28 101 67500 160 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 66.68 101 67500 250 STAFF & MEETINGS 43.80 101 67500 252 MISCELLANEOUS 1,138.00 731 22552 38585 NOEL L. MILLER, INC, 09499 1,322.18 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,322.18 625 65213 203 38586 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 7,587.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 257.95 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 7,329.87 618 64520 601 38587 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 1,005.74 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 193.26 101 68020 200 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 255.89 101 68020 200 2300 GAS, OIL & GREASE 14.61 201 65200 201 SUPPLIES 541.98 620 15000 38588 WFCB OSH COMMERCIAL SERVICES 09670 203.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 145.56 101 65100 120 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 58.41 201 65200 190 38589 LEONA MORIARTY 09979 3,948.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,948.00 101 68010 220 1644 38590 CAL-STEAM 10557 1,460.34 MISCELLANEOUS 117.03 101 68020 192 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 250.57 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 780.31 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 94.77 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 148.14 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 27.51 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.01 619 64460 120 5180 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 38568 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. 02599 338.82 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 117.99 101 65150 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 102.84 101 65100 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 117.99 530 65400 140 38569 PENINSULA BATTERIES 02625 503.99 MISC. SUPPLIES 140.94 619 64460 120 5273 MISC. SUPPLIES 182.60 619 64460 120 5270 SUPPLIES 180.45 620 15000 38570 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 445.55 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 291.93 101 68020 190 2200 MISCELLANEOUS 12.72 101 68020 192 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 140.90 526 69020 120 38571 UNITED ROTARY BRUSH CORPORATION 03002 1,211.22 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,211.22 528 66600 120 38572 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 1,745.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,745.54 730 69560 120 38573 SANDRA POBE 03175 661.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 661.50 101 68010 220 1646 38574 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 70.36 MISC. SUPPLIES 70.36 619 64460 120 5150 38575 DOROTHY RADYK 03235 660.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 660.00 101 68010 220 1644 38576 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT 03271 1,073.41 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,073.41 730 69560 220 38577 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 203,805.29 WATER PURCHASES 203,805.29 526 69020 171 38578 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 19,872.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,362.73 101 66100 220 TRAINING EXPENSE 509.62 201 65200 260 38579 SERRAMONTE FORD INC. 03523 959.48 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 959.48 620 66700 200 38580 TAP PLASTICS 03739 58.66 MISC. SUPPLIES 58.66 619 64460 120 5170 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 03/12/09 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 38560 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 91.27 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.13 101 68020 120 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 23.26 101 68020 190 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 29.22 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 23.66 619 64460 120 5110 38561 WHITE CAP 01250 2,222.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,164.33 527 66520 120 TRAINING EXPENSE 57.71 527 66520 260 38562 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 2,581.05 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 17.73 101 68020 190 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 26.04 101 68020 200 2200 SMALL TOOLS 20.55 201 65200 130 GAS, OIL & GREASE 60.37 201 65200 201 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 277.99 201 65200 203 SUPPLIES 1,206.58 620 15000 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 971.79 625 65213 203 38563 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 316.15 SMALL TOOLS 147.49 201 65200 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 168.66 730 69535 120 38564 DUN & BRADSTREET INF. SVCS. 02058 761.84 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 761.84 101 67500 129 38565 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 748.56 MISCELLANEOUS 748.56 101 68020 192 2200 38566 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 2,014.23 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 116.53 201 65200 190 MISC. SUPPLIES 102.10 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.35 619 64460 120 5190 MISC. SUPPLIES 81.84 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 85.66 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 224.88 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 257.08 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 142.61 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 397.52 619 64460 120 5190 SMALL TOOLS 17.89 619 64460 130 5130 SMALL TOOLS 10.16 619 64460 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 535.61 730 69535 120 38567 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 1,175.90 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,175.90 101 66210 226 BURLINGAME - The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Approved Thursday, February 12, 2009 Commissioners Present: Mark Noworolski, Vice-Chair Jeff Londer Jerry McDonnell Commissioners Absent: Michael Bohnert, Chair Dan Conway Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Dawn Cutler, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Jim Evans, 1917 Devereux Drive Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive 1. CALL TO ORDER. 6:59 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 3 of 5 Commissioners present. Chair Michael Bohnert and Commissioner Dan Conway absent. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Vice Chair Noworolski publicly acknowledged and thanked Commissioner Dan Conway for his years of service to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of January 8, 2009 with the amendment of 8.3.1 Future Commissioner Goals and Objective 2009, "Commissioner McDonnell would ideally like to see the radar trailer replaced and if that is not possible then perhaps signs in the interim". � M/S/C: Londer/McDonnell; 3/0/2 (Chair Bohnert and Commissioner Conway absent) 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jim Evans brought to the attention of this commission the need for a crosswalk at Cowan Road and Bayshore Highway, by the entrance to Bayside Trail. Mr. Evans said that due to limited parking on the weekends, vehicles tended to park on Cowan Road which resulted in foot traffic crossing Bayshore Highway. Pat Giorni noticed that the traffic radar cart in San Mateo recorded her speed on a bicycle and questioned whether or not these radar trailers could do traffic counts for vehicles and bicycles. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS Art Morimoto, Assistant Director of Public Works, postponed the presentation on the City's urgent storm drain needs to the following month. 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1 .1 Transportation Development Activity (TDA) Article 3 Grant Applications — Verbal Update Mr. Chou said he wanted to provide a verbal update on the TDA Grant activities. He stated that two grant applications were submitted and that the County B/PAC group would be visiting the sites on Saturday, February 21 . Mr. Chou added that he and Jane Gomery would be present during the visit to answer any questions the group might have. Mr. Chou also reported that one to two weeks later, formal presentations would be made at San Mateo City Hall and scoring of the grant applications would occur that evening. 8.1 .2 California Drive Signal Controller Upgrade Project — Verbal Report Mr. Chou reported that the City received several bids for this project, with the apparent low bidder being W. Bradley Electric for the bid amount of $232,000. He added that a staff report would be going to City Council to accept this bid on February 17. Vice Chair Noworolski asked what effect this project would have on drivers. Mr. Chou replied that drivers should see signal timing changes on this corridor. He added that before this system could be fully operational, the Bayshore system would have to be running first. 8.1 .3 Bayshore Highway Signal Interconnect Project — Verbal Report Mr. Chou reported that the specifications and drawings for the project was still being worked on; and, that he expected to advertise for bids mid-March. 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Sergeant Cutler provided information that was asked at the last meeting regarding meter revenue versus parking citation revenue, as well as the number of meters in the City. She also provided current data on the number of citations, collisions and the current Selective Enforcement list. Sergeant Cutler also informed the Commission that she would be bringing the in- coming Traffic Sergeant to the next meeting, if the personnel for that position was determined by then. 8.3 Commissioners' Comments and Concerns 8.3.1 Commission Goals and Objective for 2009 — Discussion Commissioner McDonnell reiterated the need to go back to the radar trailer concept. Vice Chair Noworolski suggested that this item (Commission Goals and Objectives) be left on the agenda for next month so that the Commission can continue the discussion with Chair Bohnert. 8.3.2 Miscellaneous Comments and Concerns None. 9. COMMUNICATIONS None. 10. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Mr. Chou reported that the committee met before the Commission meeting and that one of the ideas being looked at was the development of a bike-loaning program for the hotels, similar to programs currently being used at Napa hotels. He added that discussion occurred about how to give the hotels tools to implement a program to attract casual visitors and/or bike enthusiasts to the area. Commissioner Londer added that other discussions dealt with bicycle issues in the business areas, such as suggestions for new developments of mixed-use properties to �' provide indoor secured bicycle parking. 10.2 Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Mr. Chou stated the need for a subcommittee to be formed to represent the Commission at the DSP meetings. Vice Chair Noworolski asked for volunteers for this subcommittee. Commissioner Londer volunteered. Vice Chair Noworolski stated that it would be ideal to have three subcommittees consisting of two members each. B/PAC — Chair Bohnert and Vice Chair Noworolski DSP — Commissioner Londer IT (Webpage) — Commissioner McDonnell He added that the subcommittee-vacancy discussion should be revisited again next month to allow the new incoming commissioner an opportunity to volunteer. 10.3 Website/Communications Subcommittee None. 11 . FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 11 .1 City Parking Lot Q — Possible lot re-configuration Mr. Chou said that he would report to the Commission on possible study results in April or May, depending on when the work can be scheduled. 11 .2 Burlingame Avenue — Post signs prohibiting bike riding on sidewalks Mr. Chou explained that there was already in city ordinances prohibiting bikes on sidewalks, but that a determination might need on whether or not actual signs were necessary on Burlingame Avenue. He said that if staff found that this issue might be controversial, discussions by the Commission and public would be scheduled in March, April or May. 11 .3 Various City Parking Lots — Future parking meter-to-paybox conversion Mr. Chou stated that this matter would be coming to the Commission in March or April, specifically for City Lot X, next to the Lions Club building and Washington Park. 11 .4 Stop sign petition for Martinez Drive and Toleda Drive Mr. Chou explained that this item would be addressed in the March meeting, at which time the warrant study results would be presented. 12.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, March 19, 2009 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Shanus at 7:03 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Shanus, Castner-Paine, Carlton, Fisher, La Mariana, Eaton, Hesselgren Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Recreation Superintendent Mutto; City Manager Nantell; Administrative Secretary Joleen Helley Others Present: Tom O'Connor, 411 Rollins Rd, Burlingame MINUTES The Minutes of the February 19, 2009 regular meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Tom O'Connor requested if public comments can be moved to after the aquatics issue on the agenda as he would like to be able to hear what the Commission has to say and be able to ask questions and respond. Nantell explained that consistency in the agenda posting is the preferred method due to public notice. However, it is up to the Commission if any change is made. The public can approach the Chair of the Commission prior to the meeting to request a change in order or to make "a comment during an item' . O'Connor officially requested that the public comments section be moved to after the aquatics issue was discussed. Chairman Shanus and the Commission agreed to the change. OLD BUSINESS A. Update on City Budget Status — Superintendent Mutto distributed the current budget sheets and explained the tiers and the reductions that have been and are to be implemented. Staff will be working to determine which programs may have to be eliminated. Commissioner Eaton inquired if there are any revenue increases available to help out. Mutto explained that the class registration fee has been increased by two dollars and pre-school fees have been raised by about 5%. City Manager Nantell stated the options for reductions are being pursued as the hotel tax report for January shows that revenues for the last four months have been down 11% from the previous year and all total 16% from last year. If the bond measure is not successful, a third round of reductions needs to be implemented. Currently the Parks Superintendent has been reduced to a '/2 time position and Brisbane may help out by picking up '/z time Director position. The Parks Division will be reducing high climbing tree work by $50,000 for the 2009- 10 year. The Recreation Division is looking at options such as eliminating the pre-school program or raising the fees to cover the direct costs of the people in the program and the person running the program. (Handout is being revised; the final version will be attached upon completion) Parks& Recreation Commission Minutes March 19,2009—Page 2 Nantell explained that the recreation department needs to look to provide programs that no one else offers. Decisions need to be made such as if you want to play a sport that someone else offers then go to them, we reduce the workload on staff by eliminating those types of programs. Areas that will be looked at are Aquatics, seniors and pre-school. Nantell went on to explain that if the storm drain bond measure fails (if the measure passes it will bring in two million to cover the Storm drain repairs, if the bond measure fails then the two million for repairs will come from the general fund which covers general operating costs), we need to look at what programs to eliminate or enhance (fully fund). The public needs to know what will happen if the measure does not pass. If the union's agree to a salary freeze and pay ten percent of medical costs, it will help, if not, then we have to look at cutting programs. Commissioner Castner-Paine voiced that she does not relish the idea of cutting senior programs. She stated a concern that the needs assessment survey does not ask what programs the public would pay more for and finds that disappointing. Easton inquired if we have any information on what programs the seniors can and cannot afford. Castner-Paine explained that the Citizens for a Better Burlingame is putting together a list of senior statistics. Most seniors are covered by Medicare; they own their homes, cannot afford to sell them and are living off$20,000 a year per couple. There is a senior community out there that needs assistance financially. Seniors want programs as each generation they are "younger" and more tech savvy. Commissioner Shanus stated that the teen programs will be evaluated as well. Commissioner La Mariana spoke in response to Nantell's comments regarding the pressing financial situation within the City. He just had the same conversation with the county manager. It is tough all over as evidenced by the fact the he will be leaving the meeting early to give similar news to a city in the southern part of the peninsula. La Mariana suggested that on the aquatic issue perhaps the day could be split up between the City and Burlingame Aquatic Club, a handing off of responsibility. La Mariana inquired of Nantell if there was any word or sense that the Bond measure would not pass. Nantell expressed concern about the measure not passing due to the residents not understanding the severity of the financial situation. Nantell stated that Mutto was trying to come to grips with what the tier 4 & 5 cuts means in the long run. This is a challenge for us. What does the impact really mean? Example: No Art in the Park, Hole-in-One tournament, etc. The public does not understand the impacts until they hear that we have no more preschool, we had to cut for financial reasons. Commissioner Carlton inquired as to the prospect of sharing a director and whether we have looked down the line to keep our programs by job sharing other positions. Nantell responded that the only position considered is sharing a police chief and -� partner up dispatch centers. These options save $100 for so here and there to save a position or so. Parks& Recreation Commission Minutes March 19, 2009—Page 3 Commissioner Shanus pointed out that the City is running the BSD afterschool sports program. BSD provides the facility and the City is also giving them ten percent of the fees collected for the programs. He questioned how much staff time we are really putting into that program. He suggested we work with BSD to possibly provide personnel to help out. Nantell stated that when he worked in recreation in San Mateo, when they stopped offering afterschool'programs, a non-profit opened up to provide the program. Mutto is thinking if an afterschool program is eliminated it would be the elementary program as the BIS kids need the constructive activities more. Nantell stated that the District has no operating money, they have capital money. The artificial turf,they are installing they can charge for to use for education and reduce operating costs. (Mutto stated that the City currently maintains BSD's fields) Eaton inquired if the department has asked for volunteers to run the afterschool programs. Mutto responded that currently, BIS coaches, (who are often teachers) get a stipend. Elementary teachers have not traditionally helped out. At that level it is mostly volunteers who are parents, high school kids, etc. Nantell stated that the savings at the elementary school level is a savings in staff time. B. SMUHSD Fee Structure Update — Nantell reported that a sub-committee of council has met and been able to clear up some frustration and confusion on both sides. It appears the situation is getting better. Eaton stated that he often has the chance to speak with a representative from SMUHSD due to his affiliation with another organization and that the District is confused why some groups are charged different rates by the City. Nantell explained that non-profit youth groups go through a process with the Parks & Recreation Commission to be certified to get a per person/player fee per group rate. SMUHSD does not understand this process. Mutto has amended the fee schedule to reflect this fact. An example of why the fees are so different would be that most of the Burlingame High School baseball team is non- residents and they are being charged accordingly. Burlingame High School wants to use two fields and the batting cage which costs extra. Nantell explained that SMUHSD is still frustrated that we do not charge AYSO (AYSO is a certified group) the same as we do them. Connie and Liz drive by the high school track and see the lights on and people who aren't kids and think we are lying to them about the fees — we do not pay for lights for our programs per giving SMUHSD $600,000, per the contract, we do not pay for lights for our programs. The frustration of SMUHSD is that we are not charging Burlingame School District the same as them. We have a 1955 agreement with the Burlingame School District. Fees for public programs cannot be more than the cost to run the programs. Carlton asked if we were getting closer to a common ground and Mutto responded that she felt things were getting better. Nantell mentioned that at a meeting with SMUHSD the issue of control of the lights was handed over to SMUHSD. Carlton was told this by Connie of SMUHSD and had asked her the procedure for requesting light hours for Lacrosse. Mutto explained that revenue on both ends has been lost due to inefficient scheduling in the past by SHUHSD. By handing over the control of the �- light schedule to SMUHSD, hopefully this issue will be resolved. Parks& Recreation Commission Minutes March 19,2009—Page 4 C. Aquatics Update — Mutto explained that there was a meeting held on the first Friday of the month with the Burlingame Aquatics Club and the high school. The manual was discussed, Suze gave here changes and Alyse will be working on those. Also covered were the opening/closing procedures which will be posted at the pool with a checklist/initial sheet. There is more work to be done on the checklist. Eaton asked if there was an overlap in categories such as "last employee to leave or last person to leave". Mutto explained that some things will be unchecked on the list. Some maintenance issues were covered at the meeting as well. Saturday will be another in-service training day. Eaton asked if topics such as dress, lifeguard location and topics of lifeguard conversations will be covered. Mutto stated that these will be covered in spot checks. The City has signed up for an unscheduled audit to be rated. Carlton asked that staff report the results back to Commission. Eaton mentioned that he has frequently walked by the pool and has noticed that the pool covers have been on and the door/gate closed. He extended his compliments to the improvements that he sees at the pool. Carlton stated she was pleased to see that the lifeguards were not hanging out under the awning and that they are sitting in the chair. She witnessed a shift change that was done properly. She spoke with Carlos and asked him about the AED and some other small items. She is happy to see some improvements have been made. Commissioner Fisher asked if the operations manual corrections would still have to wait for Lindsy to return. Mutto confirmed that they would have to wait as Alyse is working on the training manual. Fisher also asked if the City has received any comments on the improvements being observed from the public. Mutto responded that no comments have been received. As per Commission decision earlier in meeting to move Public Comments to after the Aquatics item, the Public Comments section are now open. Public Comments — Tom O'Connor suggested that push button shower knobs with timers be installed at the aquatic center to save on water. He mentioned that he has seen improvements in the procedures at the pool as well as implemented with a spirit of cooperation. Safety issues are key in this case. He requested that the City share the results of the surprise audit with the Burlingame Aquatic Club as well. He noted that he has noticed the gate between the pool and the high school has been left ajar during programs and after hours. He mentioned that the BAC board is going through their goals. They are a competitive club but also would like to be community oriented as well. Nantell asked if there was stability in their board. O'Connor confirmed that Suze and Kurt have been with the club for many years. Eaton asked Nantell if the City is at a point in the budget to think about giving up the swim program. Nantell said not at this time, however, if the bond measure does not pass, perhaps that is a possibility. Mutto mentioned that we are all set for programming for the summer of 2009. If any changes were to be made, it would be in 2010-11. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes March 19,2009-Page 5 Tom stated that the BAC has made an effort to hire Suze as a part-time manager. He asked if the Commission was familiar with Menlo and Team Sheeper. The City of Menlo Park has entered into an agreement with Team Sheeper Multisport to operate the Burgess Pool facility and it seems to be working well. Shanus thought it reasonable to partner with a non-profit to provide the service if the City so chose. Hesselgren stated that she was walking by the pool and there were two large charter buses blocking the roadway. The neighbors were complaining. Mutto pointed out that was a rental group of the pool and that it would be made clear to future rentals to park in front of or in the back parking lot the school. NEW BUSINESS A. Washington Park Tennis Courts-Mutto reported that the BIS Team will be using the Washington Park courts in lieu of the BHS courts this year. The Recreation Departments Serve `n Splash program will be using the Washington Parks courts from ten in the morning to one in the afternoon. Shanus asked if we have reached out to the tennis club that is behind the high school to see if their courts would be available. Hesselgren said that the club runs there own summer program and all the courts are full. B. Art in the Park 2009 Kids Booth- Shanus, stated that the kid's booth did not make it into the contract between the City and Pacific Fine Arts. Mutto mentioned that AITP is being handled differently this year. The Youth Advisory Committee will not be participating and there will be no booth for young artists in the artist area unless the City pays for the booth. Shanus felt the booth was important in terms of educational and self esteem for the young artists. Mutto stated that volunteers were needed to staff the booth. This includes setup Saturday and Sunday mornings, monitoring during the event both days, teardown on Saturday & Sunday evenings. Shanus stated that he would try to find a parent or two who would be willing to volunteer for the weekend to run the booth. (A youth and teen art booth at Art in the Park will be run by Raziel Unger. He can be contacted at razielgrazielunQar com. 650-773-8277) REPORTS/HANDOUTS A. Staff Reports 1. Monthly Report- attached 2. Correspondence-attached. Mutto read an email from Ray Park neighbors. 3. Revenue Report- attached Parks& Recreation Commission Minutes March 19,2009—Page 6 B. Commissioner Reports 1. Commissioner Hesselgren reported that she was on the committee for the Walk of Fame for the second year in a row. She felt there was some clean up that needed to be done on the applications and the process as written. She felt that the Walk of Fame needs to be made more of an honor than it currently is. Hesselgren will meet with staff to make corrections. Hesselgren mentioned the battle on the Burlingame Voice regarding the Washington Park batting cage and how it is always locked. Comments about the cage being on public property and it should be open for use. Mutto stated that the cage belongs to BYBA and they have control of the cage and who uses it. They allow other groups in if they provide insurance and their coaches must attend a batting cage safety training session. They provide special insurance as well. (The gate in the outfield at Washington Park has been removed) 2. Commissioner Castner-Paine has received several complaints about dogs off- leash on off-hours in Washington Park and she asked that P.D. do drop in's around 8 am and 5 pm. 3. Commissioner Eaton inquired about status of the and soil sampling for the turfing at Bayside Park He mentioned that he spoke with engineers last week and they said the cap did not need to be touched in order for the turfing to be -� done, that grading the area was all the was necessary. He will be meeting with another engineer to get a second opinion. 4. Commissioner Shanus reported that he and Commissioner Carlton attended the youth sports programs evaluation in the fall and they had a series of recommendations. None of which seem to have been implemented by staff. He suggests that if any of the programs will around still with a staff person to run them, then the issues should be discussed again. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:56 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joleen elley Administrative Secretary Burlingame Parks & Recreation -� BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION APRIL 2,2009 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Lahey. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Lahey, Commissioners Benson, Carney, Dittman, Hunt, McQuaide, and Wright Staff: Interim Parks Superintendent Foell and Admin. Secretary Harvey MINUTES —Minutes were approved as corrected, under OLD BUSINESS/Business Landscape Award — Committee Report (paragraph 1) to read: "Commissioners Benson and McQuaide had made contact with the merchants on Burlingame Avenue. . . " CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Sharon O'Byrne (1533 Meadow Lane) and a copy of an independent certified arborist's report (deeming the Redwood tree unsafe), for the Commission's reconsideration of the denial to remove the tree at 1533 Meadow Lane. Staff Report to the Commission from Parks Superintendent Foell and Arborist Porter recommending the Commission reconsider and reverse the February 5, 2009 denial of the removal of the Redwood tree at 1533 Meadow Lane, due to the reports of two certified arborists deeming the tree structurally unsound and a safety hazard. FROM THE FLOOR There was no business `From the Floor'. OLD BUSINESS Reconsideration of Denial to Remove Redwood Tree A 1533 Meadow Lane Superintendent Foell reviewed item with the Commission, noting additional information had been received from an independent arborist report, and that, now based on the reports and findings by two certified arborists, Staff recommends reversal of the Commission's February 5, 2009 decision to deny the removal, and instead approve removal and require replacement with a 24"box size tree. Superintendent Foell noted that from City and Staff perspective, structural safety issues that can not otherwise be mitigated and pose potential liability, take preference over preservation and that Arborist Porter's decisions are generally conservative, even handed, and generally weigh in favor of preservation of a tree. The Commission reviewed and discussed the independent arborist report and agreed that the report was a comprehensive and detailed report. Chairperson Lahey then opened the meeting for public hearing. Erin Stannard, 1528 Westmoor Road, stated that though the tree has structure problems that it still had some potential and that all preventative measures should be tried; that the tree is so old and so big, that everything should be done before killing the tree. She added that perhaps the tree could be topped or another independent third party arborist could submit a report. Mark Sagorsky, 1536 Westmoor Road, stated he felt there had been no genuine effort to save the tree and the Commission should discuss obligation of the property owner to maintain the tree; that some things could be done to save the tree. Chairperson Lahey closed the public hearing. 1 OLD BUSINESS - Reconsideration of Denial to Remove Redwood Tree A 1533 Meadow Lane — Contd. Superintendent Foell stated that there are standards in place with regard to evaluating health and structure of trees. In cases where safety of a tree is at issue, the Commission must weigh in with the recommendation of the professional staff. He concluded that the City Arborist determined that based on his findings the Redwood tree was structurally unsound due to the multiple co-dominant trunks extending from the crotch of the tree,posing a potential hazard, and that the tree should be approved for removal. Following a brief discussion of the Commission, Chairperson Lahey stated that the independent Arborist report was very extensive and moved that the action of the Commission at the February S, 2009 meeting (denying the removal of the Redwood tree at 1533 Meadow Lane), be reversed, and that the permit be issued to the applicant to remove the Redwood tree because the tree had been evaluated by two certified arborists as structurally unsound and a safety hazard, having multiple co-dominant trunks; and that, the applicant (owner) is required to replace the tree with one 24-inch box size tree; seconded,Benson. Motion carried 7—0—0. Chairperson Lahey thanked those who had spoken to the issue and stated all parties concerned would be by mail of the Commission's decision and appeal procedures and concluded that pending there are no appeals to the Council, the permit would be issued for the removal of the Redwood tree. Commissions Level of Involvement—Broadway Planters Chairperson Lahey noted she asked this item be placed on the agenda in order to gauge the Commission's determination of their level of involvement with regard to the maintenance of the planters on Broadway. Superintendent Foell explained that when the Commission takes on extra items such as volunteering it should be organized and sustainable and should also include checking in with City Council to make sure it is within the realm of the Council's expectation for the work of the Commission. The Commission discussed the history of maintenance responsibilities of the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway planters, irrigation issues, weeds, trash, as well as the current volunteer planting and watering efforts of Commissioner Benson on the Broadway planters. Chairperson Lahey then asked the Commission if the Commission would want to take on the responsibilities of volunteering and assisting in the maintenance of the Broadway planters. Superintendent Foell stated the Parks Division is making improvements on the irrigation in the small planters on the Broadway and has most recently installed a time clock, and commented that volunteer work is often difficult to sustain, and needs to be consistent and long term; adding that it could become difficult to sustain a constant influx of regular ongoing volunteers. The Commission further discussed. Following the discussion, Chairperson Lahey moved that the Commission form a committee to draft a proposal to present to the Council that would allow for the Commission to oversee and establish a citizen's committee for the planting, care, and maintenance of the Broadway planters;seconded,McQuaide. Chairperson Lahey called for discussion. Commissioner Benson expressed concern volunteers might not be available for the long term and dead plants and unkempt planters could lead to making the Commission look bad. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Lahey called for the vote. Motion carried 6 — I (opposed/Benson)—0. Commissioners McQuaide,Benson, and Carney volunteered to serve on the Committee to develop a draft proposal to Council for the Commission to oversee and establish a citizen's committee for the planting, care, and maintenance of the Broadway planters. Superintendent Foell asked Commissioner Benson to also provide the Commission with an estimate of her time and effort involved in maintaining the Broadway planters. 2 OLD BUSINESS—(Contd.) Business Landscape Award 2009—Committee Report Commissioner Wright noted that 4 applications had been received, the Committee would review the nominations, visit the sites for compliance, and would make recommendation to the Commission meeting on May 7`h; the Commission would then conduct a site visit and announce the winner of this year's award at the June 4`h meeting. Street Tree Fundraising Superintendent Foell reported, that if interested, the Commission could reserve a booth for one or both days at the Art In the Park, scheduled for Saturday and Sunday June 13`h and 14'h, but that the booth would need to be set up at 9:00 a.m. and"manned" from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. After a brief discussion, the Commission asked Staff to tentatively reserve the booth for Saturday and to table this item to the May 7`h meeting for further discussion. NEW BUSINESS Preliminary Budget Discussion 2009-2010 Superintendent Foell reported that the current economy had also strained the City budget and that cuts in the Parks & Recreation Department are significant: Proposed cuts to the Parks Division include: 2 Park Maintenance Workers (1 of which is a retirement that will not be filled, and the other worker will be reassigned to the Public Works Department); Parks Superintendent cut to 50-60% time, and 1 Tree Maintenance Worker is on the "Alternate" list and may be lost depending on the severity of cuts needed. In the Recreation Division, proposed cuts include: 1 Recreation Supervisor and 1 Recreation Coordinator on the "Alternate" list, as well as some program cuts due to the loss of personnel. The Parks & Recreation Director position had also been reduced to 50% time and would be shared with another City. Superintendent Foell concluded that further budget adjustments and/or cuts are dependent on the passage or failure of the Storm Drain measure. REPORTS Commissioner Dittman Commissioner Dittman reported that she is serving on the Walk of Fame Committee, that the Committee had reviewed applicants, and would soon be selecting 3 qualifying individuals from which the Council will choose to award the honor. Commissioner Benson Commissioner Benson stated she had assessed that 120 plants are needed for the Broadway planters and that the plants should be annuals because they are cheaper. She concluded that she would plant when irrigation could be guaranteed. Commissioner Hunt Commissioner Hunt reported that the Newcomers Club sent out 60 mailings and the tree brochures had been included in the mailing to new neighbors in Burlingame. Commissioner Carney The tree planted in Washington Park in honor of Tim Richmond looked healthier and noted that the weeds and litter along the new sound wall on Rollins Road looked terrible. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 3URLItvGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 13, 2009— 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers—501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the April 13, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Terrones, and Yie Absent: Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director,William Meeker; Planning Manager Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Gus Guinan; and Senior Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES CommissionerAuran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the March 23, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ® Page 6, last bullet under"Commission Comments", correct statement in parentheses to read "he thought it was suggested to use stucco foam". ® Page 9, under"Discussion of Motion", second line, change "that"to "than". Motion passed 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the March 21, 2009 joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission, as submitted. Motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Cauchi abstained, Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). W. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: ® Congratulated Commissioners Cauchi and Auran on their reappointment to the Planning Commission. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1616 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PARKING IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT (GEOFF BURNS, APPLICANT; SANJAYLYN COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER; AND LEA & BRAZE ENGINEERING, INC., ENGINEER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 13, 2009. Commission comments: ® Cammisa Hyundai is parking at the site now; clarify if these are the trade-in vehicles and in running order; there is also a boat trailer on the property. ■ Regarding the one-way ramps for the red-legged frog; consider a condition that requires the exits to be cleaned-out periodically. ® The report indicates that with respect to habitat enhancement,the applicant may either do planting or pay an in-lieu fee, what would be the amount of the in-lieu fee? (Meeker—will research.) ■ What will the applicant do for habitat enhancement? (Meeker—will research.) 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 7:12 p.m. 2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE(ZONING CODE)TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA A OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR"SNACK SHOP",AND TC CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. STAFF CONTACT MAUREEN BROOKS Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 13, 2009. Commission comments: ® With respect to the additional five (5) food establishments; why remove the requirement to re-visit once the number of restaurants drops below 40? (Brooks—unlikely that it will ever drop below 40 again; but could remain in as an option.) ® Clarify that snack shops must be "maintained and operated" as such. ■ Consider adding language to ensure that existing businesses that may qualify as a snack shop will retain the flexibility to remain food establishments. ® Clarified the rationale for the revising the definition for snack shops was to not impact the bona fide food service uses. ® Perhaps look at the method of delivery of food, versus the type of food; for example, consider classifying such businesses as "ready to eat" food sales. ■ Consider establishing a maximum floor area for the business if staff feels it has merit. 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 7:26 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 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. There were no Consent Calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 3202 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (FARIBA MOKHHTARI KARCHGANI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND NGHI THANH LE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 23, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated April 13, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Raymond Babaoghli, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the base of the columns appears to only be 4" in height. (Babaoghli—will be completed as shown on the plans.) • Appreciated the lowering of the water table with the sill on top. Public comments: • None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: • Still not satisfied with the window choice; but also doesn't want to see the new windows removed and placed in a landfill. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 3, 2008, sheets A0,A0.2,A1,A2,A5, and 1-1.0, and April 1, 2009, sheets A3 and A4, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the roof shall be finished with composition shingles. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 93, 2009 3. that the existing brick pillars at the outside edge of the property shall be clad in a material similar tc, that used at the base of the pillars flanking the entry to the residence. 4. that the windows shall be installed with a traditional stucco mold jamb detail. 5. that the columns flanking the entry shall be reduced in scale to between twelve to fifteen inches,the final design of the columns shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI. 6. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 13 and October 18, 2007 memos, the City Engineer's July 23, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 11, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 16, 2007 memo shall be met; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that 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; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required- the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11. that the 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; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL DE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 93, 2009 roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 15. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ® Must complete the project per the approved plans. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2(Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. 4. 1212 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FORA FOOD ESTABLISHMENT(FRANK KIM,APPLICANT; DAY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER; AND BRIAN MILFORD ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 13, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ Asked if this use would qualify as a "snack shop"? (Brooks— no, the seating area is too large.) Frank Kim, 2901 Silva Way, San Ramon and Brian Milford, 520 Sutter Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Felt that the waiting area near the door is too small,will be congested. (Milford/Kim—will not queue around this area, it is the crepe station; will have separate point of sale areas for the crepes and frozen yogurt) ■ Asked if this is the first "Crave" location? (Kim — yes, modeled after "Pinkberry" in Southern California.) Public comments: ■ None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Concerned about the policy for collection of the in-lieu parking fee being too general. ■ Perhaps consider the magnitude of the reduction in spaces being sought through the Variance request as a basis for determining the need to pay the parking in-lieu fee. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 ® Continue the discussion regarding the parking in-lieu fee; don't hold up this application. Commissioner Cauchi 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 Division date stamped March 11, 2009, sheets A001, Al 01, and A201; 2. that the on-site seating of the food establishment shall only be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space (including the rear patio) by an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that this food establishment may be open seven days a week,from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.,with a maximum of 5 employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 5. that any changes to the use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fift, (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 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 other retail use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 10. that the maximum number of clients in 1212 Donnelly at one time shall not exceed 30 person(s); 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; and 12. 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 as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 ■ There is precedence in the past where properties are built lot line to lot line and there is no feasible way to provide parking on the property. ■ People are already shopping in the area and will use the business; perhaps the snack shop definition should not be so limiting on the seating. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2(Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:49 p.m. 5. 1150 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INCREASE TO SEATING AREA, HOURS OF OPERATION AND EMPLOYEES FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (DICKSON CONSULTING GROUP,APPLICANTAND DESIGNER;AND KJ NICKMEG LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 23, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Reference staff report dated April 13, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ® None Jim Ma and Jack Ng, 1150 Paloma Avenue; and John Lau, 5616 Geary Boulevard, San Francisco, represented the applicant. ■ There will be no tour buses. ■ Will have a designated smoking area and break room. ® Will have a garbage room. ■ Will take deliveries at non-peak hours. ■ Have reduced operating hours as suggested. ■ Will not see a lot of people waiting outside of the restaurant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Expressed concern about some of the clearances inside of the restaurant;the door to the party area is not wide enough. (Lau —the design is acceptable from and ADA requirement.) The Building Division will require the opening to the party area to meet ADA requirements. ■ Check the clearances inside the restrooms to make sure they are compliant. ■ Thanked the applicant for attempting to speak to the neighbors and adjusting the hours. ■ With respect to the front elevation, calling out five (5) new external flood lights; these could create glare for the neighbors; ensure that they are down-facing. (Lau — are all existing lights, but will install new fixtures.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 93, 2009 ■ Reinforced the need for ADA compliance; ensure that the widest possible doors are provided t meet ADA. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Appreciated changes made by the applicant. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 1, 2009, sheets A-0.1 through A-3.1; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 13, March 2 and March 10,2009 memos, the City Engineer's February 20, 2009 memo,the Fire Marshal's February 17, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 13, 2009 memo shall be met; 3. that any existing building code violations, including the water heater installation and building sewer lateral replacement/repair, shall be corrected as part of the building permit issued for tenant improvements for the new food establishment; 4. that tour buses shall not be allowed to bring customers to this food establishment; the restaurant operator shall be responsible for informing groups interested in dining at this food establishment or this restriction; 5. that the applicant shall apply for an entertainment permit with the Police Department for any entertainment proposed at this business, as defined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 6.16.020; 6. 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; 7. that cigarette and trash receptacles shall be provided and maintained by the restaurant operator at the front and rear of the building; 8. that any mechanical equipment associated with the food establishment shall be located behind the existing parapet wall and shall not extend above the top of parapet; any new mechanical equipment shall be of a non-reflective material; 9. that this business location presently occupied by a full service food establishment,with 2,450 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; 10. that the 2,450 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment may be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 93, 2009 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 14. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 15. 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; 16. that this full service food establishment may be open from 11:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, 11:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday and 11:00 a.m.to 9:30 p.m. on Sunday, with a maximum of 11 employees onsite at any one time; 17. that seating on the sidewalk outside the food establishment shall require an encroachment permit and shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; and 18. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: ® Condition prohibiting tour buses is very strict, should the prohibition apply to Broadway? ® Requested elimination of reference to shuttle buses in the condition prohibiting tour buses. ® Refer the matter of shuttle buses to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-0-2(Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:03 p.m. Ix. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 2600 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND HEIGHT FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND JANICE GUMAS PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated April 13, 2009,with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue and John Gumas, 2600 Summit Drive, represented the applicant: 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 ■ Addressed neighbor concerns raised in letter from owners of 2606 Summit Drive. ■ Addition is designed to minimize impacts. ■ Trying to create a nicer home design; have created hierarchy of forms that will not result in the appearance of a large addition. ■ Willing to work with the adjacent neighbor to develop a compromise with respect to the design. Commission comments: ■ Impacts will be illustrated by the story poles. ■ Existing house has solar panels, hope that the applicant will remain committed to reinstalling solar panels. ■ With respect to left side elevation; looks like it is on stilts; encouraged to consider installing stone on the lower walls to make it look like a foundation supporting the structure. ■ Clarified the depth of the garage; could the garage be pushed in a bit to help reduce potential view impacts; could also consider moving storage to the laundry room to further minimize impacts. (Geurse —the depth of the garage is about 2' shallower due to encroachment of storage into the area. Could also change the roof pitch.) ■ Leave the best telephone numbers forthe applicant and neighborto ensure that Commissioners can visit the sites when the story poles are erected. ■ Should look at taking away the mass of Bedroom#4 from over the garage, placing it over the family room and shifting the master bedroom forward? ■ On the existing front elevation; is there habitable space above the garage? (Geurse—the master bedroom is at that location.) ■ What is the overall height of the structure from adjacent grade? (Geurse —28' 10") Public comments: Chris Ngai and Yolanda Leung, 2606 Summit Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Referenced photographs that they provided with their letter. ■ Only had 10-days to review the information related to the project. ■ Addition will present a massive wall. ■ Will block view of airport runways. ® Like the design; the story poles will show the impact. ■ When was the street sign placed in front of the property; considering the state of the postal service; a lot of times the cards are received late. (Brooks — noted that notices are mailed out 10-days in advance and the project site is posted at the same time.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. Additional Commission comments: ■ Story poles shall be erected. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ None 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2(Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:26 p.m. 8. 1715 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (AUDREY TSE, INSITE DESIGN,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;AND JIM AND DARLENE JAWORSKI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 13, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Audrey Tse, 1534 Plaza Lane, represented the applicant: ■ Owners wish to remain on the property. ■ The lot presents challenges, as does the existing architectural style. ■ Part of the design challenge was to provide the addition, while still preserving the limited sunlight within the rear yard. Commission comments: ■ Nice job on design and calling out materials. ■ Owners commended for remodeling rather than demolishing. ■ The proposed garage door style is not as appealing as the existing door. (Tse—may be able to re- use the existing door.) ■ There is a compelling case for the Variance, due to the small lot and the deep planting strip in front of the house. ■ Clarify which windows are existing, and which are new. ■ On overhangs; side elevations show exposed rafter tails; what will detail be? (Tse—is existing,will match; gutters are above the rafter tails.) ■ Note that the gable vent will be new; call out the specific details to assist staff in identifying what will change. ■ What is material below deck on the rear of the house; looks like it may be open? (Tse—proposed to be stucco below or filled with lattice as is now existing.) ■ Clarified that the entire deck will be re-built; provide details of the pickets and other details. ■ Essentially the entire second-story is being removed. (Tse—no,the ceiling height is being raised in the area of the shed dormer; children's room remains in-tact; bulk of the addition is at the rear. Will use the existing roof structure.) ■ Could move the entire addition to the rear without imposing upon the yard. (Tse —projecting the addition to the rear will block sun to the deck.) ■ Would like more work done on the front door;will appear like a cave; not welcoming; encouraged to enhance the front door, or pull it forward. (Tse—was a conscious decision to design it the way it is; but can look at pulling it forward somewhat.) Public comments: 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Agreed with comments regarding front door. ■ The wide planting strip provides the opportunity to pull the addition to the front. ■ The design is on the right track; a good remodel and design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The front porch encroachment should be a special permit. ■ Perhaps another window at the entry to add more light. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: ■ None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m. Commissioner Yie recused herself from participating in the discussion for Item 9 (1021 Cortez Avenue), since she lives within 500-feet of the property. She left the chambers. 9. 1021 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (FARSHID SAMSAMI, APPLICANT; KWANG PAK, PROPERTY OWNER; AND SAMUEL K. WONG, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 13, 2009,with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Commission comments: ■ Hard for the current Commission to consider design reviewers comments without seeing the original submission. Farshid Samsami, 200 Valley Drive, Brisbane, represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Assume that it is a speculative home; only concerned because there are a number of different players; need to ensure that the project is built as approved. ■ Prior approval was a little bulky. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 ® Clarified that plans show "true divided light" windows; if "simulated" need to indicate this on the plans. ® With respect to the porch; provide more detail regarding the columns and gable timbers on the porch; concerned that it might not be built as shown. ® Window trim details need to be provided. ® With respect to the stone veneer; need to indicate material choice. ® On the north elevation; there is a guard rail on the porch that is not shown on the front elevation. ® The declining height envelope does not appear to be delineated on the front elevation;is the arched window allowed to encroach? (Brooks—yes) ® Clarify that wood shingled roof is to be provided. ® Clarify that leaded glass windows will be provided. ® Consider enhancing the depth of the porch by 1' by reducing the depth of the living room. (Samsami —original design was shallower; the design was a compromise.) ® Look harder at the garage; the garage vent could be vertical; and the garage doors could be nicer, look at carriage style doors. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: ® A porch less than 6' deep is unusable. ® Should require a street tree; none is currently present. Magnolia appears to be the standard tree; will also need to likely install a planting well to protect sidewalk. Further Commission comments: ® Will existing tree in front yard to remain? Consider transplanting it. (Samsami—will be removed, but can look at possibly transplanting it.) ® There is a lot of impervious surface; consider using permeable pavers, show installation detail to show how permeability is achieved. ® There is a large apron in front of the garage; plus a concrete walkway along the garage; consider pavers at this location as well. ® Commented on the lack of load-bearing walls on the first floor. (Samsami — have designed to include soffits for support.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Terrones made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ® None Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-2 (Commissioner Yie recused, Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009 X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ® Appeal of 2843 Adeline Drive is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on April 20, 2009. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 6, 2009: ® The ordinance placing an R-4 overlay zone on the properties located at 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road was introduced; a public hearing is scheduled before the City Council on April 20, 2009. ® The ordinance amending the City's demolition ordinance providing a procedure for requesting an exemption from the requirement to obtain a demolition permit concurrently with a building permit for a new project was adopted. The amendment will become effective on May 6, 2009. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — March 2009: ® Accepted. FYI: 1244 Jackling Drive— requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ® Accepted. FYI: 2538 Hayward Drive— requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ® Schedule for public hearing. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Vice-Chairperson S:tMINUTESIMINUTES-2009-UNapprovedlPC Minutes-041309 UNapproved.doc 14 CITY OF BURLING/AME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary March 31, 2009 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF&County Pool 14,991,148.93 14,991,148.93 14,991,148.93 40.51 1 1 1.772 1.797 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 20,000,000.00 20,362,800.00 19,994,654.91 54.04 1,672 1,336 4.176 4.234 Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon 2,000,000.00 2,017,400.00 2,016,120.00 5.45 242 82 4.192 4.250 36,991,148.93 37,371,348.93 37,001,923.84 100.00% 917 727 3.203 3.247 Investments Total Earnings March 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 110,402.54 1,042,292.76 Average Daily Balance 38,943,886.46 36,605,586.18 Effective Rate of Return 3.34% 3.79% 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). JE S NAVA FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 03/01/2009-03/31/2009 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:04/09/2009-09:15 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments March 31, 2009 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. 13,920,045.56 13,920,045.56 13,920,045.56 1.822 1.822 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 1,071,103.37 1,071,103.37 1,071,103.37 1.470 Aaa 1.470 1 Subtotal and Average 14,900,853.49 14,991,148.93 14,991,148.93 14,991,148.93 1.797 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 31331YGR5 545 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/07/2007 1,000,000.00 1,025,200.00 1,000,000.00 4.490 4.490 1,346 12/07/2012 31331YJ76 553 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/01/2008 1,000,000.00 1,002,600.00 1,000,000.00 4.250 4.250 1,491 05/01/2013 31331Y4Y3 559 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 07/30/2008 1,000,000.00 1,014,900.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 5.000 1,581 07/30/2013 3133XKL94 534 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/23/2007 1,000,000.00 1,002,800.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,118 04/23/2012 3133XMKS9 541 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/22/2007 1,000,000.00 1,023,900.00 1,000,000.00 5.020 Aaa 5.020 1,300 10/22/2012 3133XMSW2 544 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/16/2007 1,000,000.00 1,025,700.00 1,000,000.00 4.850 Aaa 4.850 1,325 11/16/2012 3133XNW21 546 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/07/2008 1,000,000.00 1,010,400.00 1,000,000.00 4.375 Aaa 4.375 1,377 01/07/2013 3133XNYV5 547 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/22/2008 1,000,000.00 1,025,500.00 1,000,000.00 4.050 Aaa 4.050 1,392 01/22/2013 3133XP3C6 548 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/29/2008 1,000,000.00 1,025,700.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 Aaa 4.000 1,399 01/29/2013 3133XQEH1 549 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/18/2008 1,000,000.00 1,015,100.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 Aaa 4.000 1,447 03/18/2013 3133XQZT2 552 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/30/2008 1,000,000.00 1,030,300.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 Aaa 4.000 1,490 04/30/2013 3133XRYR5, 560 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 08/22/2008 1,000,000.00 1,030,100.00 1,000,000.00 4.400 Aaa 4.400 1,604 08/22/2013 3133XS7K8 561 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/25/2008 1,000,000.00 1,016,000.00 1,000,000.00 4.000 Aaa 4.000 1,273 09/25/2012 3133XSA24 562 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/01/2008 1,000,000.00 1,016,800.00 1,000,000.00 4.250 Aaa 4.250 1,644 10/01/2013 3133XSFC7 565 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/02/2008 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 3.400 Aaa 3.400 1 04/02/2009 3128X6AZ9 538 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 08/30/2007 1,000,000.00 1,008,500.00 1,006,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.254 1,160 06/04/2012 3128X7RW6 554 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 06/09/2008 1,000,000.00 1,030,900.00 991,154.91 4.000 Aaa 4.200 1,503 05/13/2013 3128X7W26 566 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/16/2008 1,000,000.00 1,042,600.00 997,500.00 4.375 Aaa 4.432 1,616 09/03/2013 3136FHAL9 568 FANNIE MAE 02/19/2009 1,000,000.00 1,007,400.00 1,000,000.00 2.200 Aaa 2.200 870 08/19/2011 3136F97K3 569 FANNIE MAE 02/18/2009 1,000,000.00 1,008,400.00 1,000,000.00 3.250 Aaa 3.250 1,784 02/18/2014 Subtotal and Average 22,026,912.97 20,000,000.00 20,362,800.00 19,994,654.91 4.234 1,336 Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon 13063A3P7 567 CA ST-RANS-A 10/23/2008 2,000,000.00 2,017,400.00 2,016,120.00 5.500 4.250 82 06/22/2009 Subtotal and Average 2,016,120.00 2,000,000.00 2,017,400.00 2,016,120.00 4.250 82 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a Run Date:04/09/2009-09:15 .Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Investments March 31, 2009 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Total and Average 38,943,886.46 36,991,148.93 37,371,348.93 37,001,923.84 3.247 727 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:04/09/2009-09:15 PM(PRF_PM2)Sym Rept 6.41.202a CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity By Type March 1, 2009 through March 31, 2009 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 1.470 468,754.96 1,398,000.00 Subtotal 15,920,393.97 468,754.96 1,398,000.00 14,991,148.93 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 31331YYZ7 563 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 3.900 03/20/2009 0.00 2,000,000.00 3128X7BK9 550 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 4.200 03/26/2009 0.00 1,000,000.00 Subtotal 22,994,654.91 0.00 3,000,000.00 19,994,654.91 Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon Subtotal 2,016,120.00 2,016,120.00 Total 40,931,168.88 468,754.96 4,398,000.00 37,001,923.84 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF SynnRepl6.41.202a Run Date:04/09/20' 15 Repan Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Activity Summary March 2008 through March 2009 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 March 2008 22 38,707,871.96 4.460 4.522 4.026 2 0 933 818 April 2008 23 44,873,173.03 4.017 4.073 3.336 2 1 852 747 May 2008 23 42,497,726.30 3.830 3.883 3.032 1 1 857 746 June 2008 21 39,888,592.43 3.753 3.805 3.051 1 3 857 756 July 2008 22 38,053,831.40 3.813 3.866 2.994 1 0 946 825 August 2008 23 37,083,836.47 3.800 3.852 2.822 1 0 11020 879 September 2008 24 35,589,727.12 4.065 4.121 3.408 2 1 1,145 990 October 2008 27 33,298,877.35 3.974 4.030 2.615 5 2 1,253 1,097 November 2008 26 32,766,685.78 3.911 3.966 2.547 0 1 1,218 1,046 December 2008 25 38,128,735.98 3.619 3.669 2.373 0 1 11010 848 January 2009 23 39,451,958.47 3.332 3.378 2.038 0 2 920 759 February 2009 25 40,931,168.88 3.249 3.294 1.859 2 0 954 782 March 2009 23 37,001,923.84 3.203 3.247 1.797 0 2 917 727 Average 24 38,328,777.62 3.771% 3.824% 2.761 1 1 991 848 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF_PM4)SyrnRepl 6.41.202a Run Date:04/09/2009-09:15 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURL.INGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Distribution of Investments By Type March 2008 through March 2009 March April May June July August September October November December January February March Average Security Type 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 by Period LAIF&County Pool 45.7 51.0 50.6 . 52.4 47.5 43.4 35.4 18.9 20.6 34.4 41.7 38.9 40.5 40.1% 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 54.3 49.0 49.4 47.6 52.5 56.6 64.6 75.1 73.2 60.3 53.2 56.2 54.0 57.4 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon °0 Federal Agency Issues-Discount Treasury Securities-Coupon Treasury Securities-Discount 6.1 6.2 5.3 5.1 4.9 5.5 2.5% 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 PM(PRF PNA5)SymRept 6.41.202a Run Date:04/09/2009 -1.15 Report Ver.5.00 r CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 7 Interest Earnings Summary March 31, 2009 March 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: 116,215.98 691,588.89 Interest Collected 281,424.46 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 281,424.46 310,797.95) ( 192,079.56) Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) 49 780,933.792. Interest Earned during Period 86,84 3,750.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 Earnings during Periods 86,842.49 784,683.79 Pass Through Securities: 0.00 0.00 Interest Collected 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: 0.00 345,516.48 Interest Collected 422,357.97 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 422,357.97 398,797.92) 510,265.48) Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( Interest Earned during Period 23,560.05 257,608.97 Total Interest Earned during Period 110,402.54 1,038,542.76 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 3,750.00 Total Earnings during Period 110,402.54 1,042,292.76 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 Run Date:04/09/2009-09:15 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary March 31, 2009 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 100.00 1 1 1.797 1.822 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 100.00% 1 1 1.797 1.822 Investments Total Earnings March 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 21,705.62 181,290.00 Average Daily Balance 13,684,640.68 Effective Rate of Return 1.87% TJ US AV FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Portfolio 07BD Reporting period 03/01/2009-03/31/2009 CP PM(PRF PMI)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Run Dale:04/09/2009-09:12 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments March 31, 2009 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS80 80 Local Agency Investment Fund 10/09/2008 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 1.822 1.822 1 Subtotal and Average 13,684,640.68 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 1.822 1 Total and Average 13,684,640.68 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 13,174,189.07 1.822 1 Portfolio 07BD CP Run Date:04/09/2009-09:12 PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRepl 6.41.202a eport Ver.5.00 City ®f Burlingame ��•• �-W E MARCH PERMIT ACTIVITY r *'F Although residential permit activity was slow activity in the commercial sector was strong. The valuation of non-residential projects was three times theAR) vit seeen i March of 2008. A permit was issued for one new single family dwelling. p 9 rFICt Four pre-application meetings were held during the month of March: a commercial tenant improvement at 855 Mahler Road a tenant improvement Ty 0 i ?L119G4MF- Ballet at 1322 Marsten Road; a Community Bank at 400 Primrose Road; and for the Millenium Project at 301 Airport Boulevard. THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2009 F. Y.2008 DIFF Pem-it Type # # % # # WATER HEATER 1 8,000 15 32,351 25 45,372 -29 2 43,000 6 151,000 -72 SWIMMING POOL SIGN 1 1,725 2 3,050 -43 23 120,303 32 134,605 -11 ROOFING 16 222,150 16 254,932 -13 133 2,060,492 173 2,472,210 -17 RETAINING WALL 1 75,000 1 4,000 1 75,000 -95 PLUMBING 15 43,107 13 20,185 114 90 327,995 105 386,324 -15 NEW SFD 1 800,000 8 4,950,000 6 3,395,000 46 NEW COMMERCIAL 1 5,347,500 1 42,000,000 -87 NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 2,500,000 NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT MECHANICAL 1 5,245 3 13,785 -62 26 177,448 31 210,998 -16 KITCHEN UPGRADE 1 48,000 2 55,000 -13 27 886,904 43 1,294,543 -31 FURNACE 1 0 12 97,633 19 85,699 14 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2 9,500 2 2,000 375 22 74,200 24 100,965 -27 . . . City of B .1game MARCH PERMIT ACTIVITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F.Y. 2009 F. Y.2008 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # ELECTRICAL 4 6,900 5 36,900 -81 32 401,720 38 152,539 163 BATHROOM UPGRADE 5 74,000 7 116,354 -36 34 577,779 39 663,609 -13 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 20 903,121 26 1,074,891 -16 224 10,789,750 279 11,460,316 -6 ALTERATION NON RES 9 400,500 6 129,030 210 81 23,327,973 80 13,959,734 67 Totals: 75 2,514,248 85 1,789,127 41 732 51,719,047 902 76,587,914 -32 Memorandum CENTRAL COUNTY To: Tony Constantouros, City Manager HIRE Jim Nantell, City Manager From: Don Dornell, Fire Chief Date: 4/7/2009 Re: Monthly Report - March 2009 CALLS FOR SERVICE: The Fire Department responded to 340 calls for service during the month. The average response time for two hundred and eighteen (218) EMS/Rescue calls responded to by Central County Fire Department was 4:36. The exception report for responses that exceeded our target on-scene time of 6:59 was not available from the Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Group JPA at the time of this report. We had twenty-five (25) responses on the freeways in our area. Automatic Aid (AA) was given by Central County Fire Department thirty-two (32) times and we received AA on fourteen (14) occasions. ACTIVITIES UPDATE: Six (6) new Fire Prevention Permits were issued; one (1) was for a project in Hillsborough. Fire Prevention personnel conducted thirty-six (36) construction inspections with nine (9) in Hillsborough. Ten (10) plan reviews were conducted; there were no vegetation management inspections. Fire companies conducted six (6) business inspections; there were eleven (11) school fire drills and four(4) station tours. Our NTSB certified personnel performed ten (10) car seat inspections. KEY EVENTS: The Department rolled out its Wellness Evaluation and Training Program during the month. Led by Firefighter Eric Fuge, our Wellness Committee has worked to bring in outside fitness and wellness experts to work with our personnel. We 1 hope this begins to bring better health and wellness to our department members. On March 11`h,our Disaster Preparedness Coordinators coordinated members of our CERT team to participate in the Silver Dragon III Exercise. The county-wide event was sponsored by grants from the Centers for Disease Control.Communities participated in a simulated intentional release of weaponized anthrax. In an actual event it may be necessary for the Health Department to deliver medical supplies directly to the affected population. For anthrax,antibiotics would need to be administered within 48 hours of exposure.The narrow window of opportunity to mitigate the effects of anthrax on the population of the County is a difficult logistical task.This exercise tested the ability of our fire department to organize CERT members to deliver antibiotics(CERT Brochures were provided in lieu of antibiotics). Central County Fire Department's first year of participation set the goal for 300 homes.With a very small team of six CERT members,we exceeded our goal by reaching of 332 homes in a three hour operational period. We hosted three(3)students from Burlingame High School on March 24th as part of their career day. They spent the morning with crews from Station 34 and 36 who told them about our chosen career,the required education and commitment to successful pursuit,and what it means to provide service to a community. Also on March 24"',we had a badge ceremony for Captain Jake Pelk to recognize his recent promotion. Jake's wife,Linda,was proud to pin on his new badge while their daughters Eva Marie age 3 and Mary-Klaire age 2 watched. The number of personnel from both our department and outside agencies was a tribute to Jake's involvement in fire service training and his commitment to his chosen profession. Throughout the month many of our personnel responded to intensely traumatic accidents that would challenge most people. The training and experience of our personnel allowed them to perform in an extremely professional manner during difficult times. The department utilizes the services of the San Mateo County Critical Incident Stress Management team for defusing or debriefings after these types of events. We make the physical and mental well-being of our personnel a high priority. 2 February Last Jan - Feb 2009 2008 Month 2009 2008 % Diff RESPONSE INFORMATION: Total Calls 312 328 360 672 849 -21% EMS/Rescue Calls 187 209 217 404 423 -4% Average Response Time - EMS/Rescue Calls 4:59 4:42 4:36 Freeway Responses 24 25 19 43 56 -23% Automatic Aid Given 27 43 38 65 82 -21% Automatic Aid Received 18 17 13 31 49 -37% OTHER ACTIVITIES: Fire Prevention Permits Issued 8 21 10 18 38 -53% Construction Inspections - Including Finals 51 55 30 81 105 -23% Plan Reviews 14 14 17 31 38 -18% Business Inspections 40 42 109 149 84 77% School Fire Drills 11 8 12 23 17 35% Public Education - Station Tour(s) 3 4 0 3 5 Car Seat Inspections 5 3 4 9 7 29% Vegetation Management Inspection 0 0 1 1 0 #### Fire Investigations 1 0 0 1 0 #### Notes: Fire Prevention Permits-6 issued, 5 in Burlingame & 1 in Hillsborough Construction Inspections-36 conducted, 27 in Burlingame & 9 in Hillsborough POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten WJ/ Chief of Police g April 14, 2009 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Police Department statistics and highlights for the month of March, 2009 DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS: -One new recruit officer was hired (funded with the state COPS grant) and is in the 6 month Police Academy -Two new officers are currently in the FTO Program (14 weeks) -One sworn officer (18 months) remains out on long-term leave -Neighborhood Watch presentations continue (upon community request) -Citizen crime identification system "Crimereports.com" is in place; RapidNotify (a reverse 911 notification system) is currently in use by the police department, CCFD and PW -BPD continues its involvement with the County Gang Task Force which is currently in maintenance mode throughout the winter/spring months -Reported Part 1 crimes in Burlingame (for the 1St quarter of 2009) are down slightly (226) compared to (246) the same time last year; while Part 2 crimes (for the 1 St quarter of 2009) are down slightly (526) compared to the same time last year (538). Our community should NEVER take safety for granted. We have seen a decrease in reported crimes for the past several years, due to the diligence of our police department. However, with the downturn in the economy, unemployment and uncertainty, crime will certainly be on the rise at some point in time in all communities, as well as ours TRAFFIC MATTERS: -Moving citations continue to increase for the I' quarter of 2009 (1,578) compared to the 1St quarter of last year 2008 (1,244). This is due to specialized traffic motorcycle officer enforcement, selective enforcement of citizen generated traffic problem areas by patrol officers -and the diligence of our new officers; all of which are committed to our community's safety -Parking citation totals have increased for the 1 St quarter of 2009 (9,789), compared to the same quarter last year (9,154) -Red Light photo enforcement will go live at the end of April at ECR and Broadway -The pilot daytime parking permit program continues without any major problems or issues MONTHLY STATISTICS: -Please remember that the monthly police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. When reviewing the police department report remember to consider the actual numbers of various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Kindly feel free to ntact me if, you have any questions. Van Etten Burlingame Police Department 1111 Trousdale Drive - Post Office Box 551 - Burlingame, California 94011-0551 - (650) 777-4100 - Fax (650) 697-8130 04-14-09 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: MARCH, 2009 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Attempt.to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 0 0 3 1 2 200.00 Robbery Knife 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 1 0 1 0 1 Robbery Strong-Arm 1 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 1 0 1 0 1 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 3 2 11 4 7 175.00 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 1 2 3 4 -l. -25.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 18 7 35 26 9 34.62 Burglary - Forcible Entry 4 4 9 19 -10 -52.63 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 12 5 20 22 -2 -9.09 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 3 0 4 3 1 33.33 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Larceny Shoplifting 1 3 10 7 3 42.86 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 27 18 64 61 3 4.92 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 3 11 13 32 -19 -59.38 Larceny Bicycles 0 0 3 4 -1 -25.00 Larceny From Building 4 4 19 17 2 11.76 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 2 0 2 0 2 Larceny All Other 4 10 15 18 -3 -16.67 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 3 4 9 13 -4 -30.77 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 1 1 1 7 -6 -85.71 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 89 72 226 246 89 72 226 246 04-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2009 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change 1k Change All Other Offenses 31 42 111 103 8 7.77 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 Arson 2 0 2 4 -2 -50.00 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 7 5 14 13 1 7.69 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 4 1 3 300.00 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 1 0 1 Death Investigation 0 2 6 8 -2 -25.00 Disorderly Conduct 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Driver's License Violations 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 Driving Under the Influence 7 8 23 29 -6 -20.69 Drug Abuse Violations 0 3 6 6 0 0.00 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Drunkeness 2 4 4 8 -4 -50.00 Embezzlement 1 0 3 1 2 200.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 2 8 9 16 -7 -43.75 Found Property 5 3 14 19 -5 -26.32 Fraud 3 1 5 4 1 25.00 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 2 1 4 2 2 100.00 04-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2009 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change Hit and Run Accidents 4 4 7 8 -1 -12.50 Impersonation 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 0 0 0 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 3 0 14 0 14 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 2 0 7 3 4 133.33 Menta]. Health Cases 9 4 30 17 13 76.47 Missing Person 1 3 5 6 -1 -16.67 Missing Property 6 2 15 13 2 15.38 Municipal Code Violations 3 4 9 14 -5 -35.71 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Offenses Against Children 2 0 3 1 2 200.00 Other Assaults 18 7 35 26 9 34.62 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 2 1 6 -5 -83.33 Other Police Service 0 1 2 9 -7 -77.78 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 0 0 Prowling 0 0 3 0 3 Resisting Arrest 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Restraining Orders 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 1 0 1 0 1 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 04-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2009 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 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Suspended License 6 3 21 13 8 61.54 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 2 0 4 -4 -100.00 Towed Vehicle 20 37 76 97 -21 -21.65 Trespassing 3 1 3 2 1 50.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 0 0 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 13 17 43 48 -5 -10.42 Vehicle Code Violations 9 4 15 10 5 50.00 Violation of Court Order 1 1 5 6 -1 -16.67 Warrants - Felony 2 3 3 6 -3 -50.00 Warrants - Misd 5 6 17 19 -2 -10.53 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 172 180 526 538 172 180 526 538 04-14-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2009 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 3155 3 , 109 9, 789 9, 154 Moving Citations 493 440 1, 578 1, 244 ------- ------ ------ ------ 3648 3 , 549 11, 367 10, 398 ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ 3648 3 , 549 11, 367 10, 398 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 04/14/2009 at 11 : 46 : 49 AM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 03/01/2009 to 03/31/2009 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids % All officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 485 16.75 9 20.00 98.18 DOTSON 509 705 24.35 5 11.11 99.30 MACDEVITT 511 698 24.11 11 24.44 98.45 SERRANO 510 823 28.43 18 40.00 97.86 SMITH 654 184 6.36 2 4.44 98.92 Total 2895 45 Page 1 of 1