Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2007.02.21 CITY G � Q BURUNGAME YW BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, February 21, 2007 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. City Hall, Conference Room A a. Consideration of options for funding storm drainage improvements 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 February 5, 2007 5. PRESENTATION a. Master Composting Program by RecycleWorks b. Best of Burlingame 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit to establish a baseline for activities for Sisters of Mercy facilities and Mercy High School, 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive b. Appeal of Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling at 3 Rio Court c. Final Adoption of an Ordinance calling for a Special Municipal Bond Election for approval of Bonds to finance construction and completion of municipal improvements for flood control and safety improvements to existing Recreation Center 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. 1 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduce Ordinance to clarify Sprinkler Retrofit Requirements for commercial buildings INTRODUCE b. Introduce Ordinance and Resolution of Intention to amend the contract for Miscellaneous Employees with the California Public Employee's Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Burlingame—INTRODUCE/APPROVE c. Introduce Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to establish new requirements for extending building permits, renewing building permits and construction site maintenance INTRODUCE/DIRECT STAFF 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Resolution accepting Skyline Water Service Laterals Project by Stoloski & Gonzalez b. Resolution delegating authority to impose and collect liquidated damages to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority(SBWMA) c. Recommendation to adopt the revised 2007 City Council calendar d. Resolution adopting 2007 amendments to the City's purchasing and contracting procedures e. Warrants &Payroll 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 12. OLD BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation, January 11, 2007; Traffic, Safety&Parking, January 11, 2007; Beautification, February 1, 2007; Planning, February 12, 2007 b. Department Reports: Building, January, 2007; Finance, January, 2007 c. Letter from Comcast concerning programming changes 15. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 2 CLOSED SESSION a. Threatened Litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C): Claim of Carla Ada 16. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—BUDGET STUDY SESSION,WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007 3 Presentation to the City of Burlingame Storm Drain & Safety Improvements — Altemative Funding Mechanisms February I N V E S T M E N T B A N K E R S 101 Montgomery St., Ste. 2150 San Francisco,CA 94104 Tel. (415)495-8863,Fax(415)495-8864 BURP NGAME Background Measure H - $44 million general obligation ("G.O.") bond election placed on November ballot to fund storm drain improvements & safety improvements - On November 7, 2006, Measure H failed to receive the required 2/3 voter approval On January 2, 2007, the Council was presented with alternative funding scenarios under a proposed new G.O. bond election These G.O. bond alternatives looked at funding varying amounts of storm drain & safety improvements The Council directed staff to develop additional G. O. bond scenarios to further reduce the tax burden on property owners ® DE LA • e� BURLINGAME Background , • , / • On January 16, 2007, the Council was presented with two additional G.O. bond scenarios The Council approved resolution and initial reading of an ordinance to hold a new G . O . bond election on June 5 , 2007 to fund $37 million in storm drain & safety improvements The Council reserved the right to defer the G.O. election to a future date at the February 21 , 2007 meeting The Council directed staff to provide information on alternative funding mechanisms at the Feb . 21 meeting ; the Council would decide whether to pursue a new G. O . election or pursue other alternatives at that time The City engaged NBS to provide information on various non-G.O. bond funding mechanisms Community Facilities Districts ("CFD ' s") Benefit Assessment Districts ("Assessments") Storm Drain User Fees ("User Fees") DE LA RosA 2 �,.., BURLINGAME Comparison / , , , Various , / : Mechanisms Characteristics G.O. Bonds CFD's Assess m- ents 'User .es,, Registered Property owners (or ._ voters Registered voters Property owners registered voters) `7 E Simple majority Simple majority of of weighted property owner votes (or 2/3 of votes 2/3 of votes ballots 2/3 of registered voters) "Flexible" based Based on on "reasonable" " Special benefit" Proportional cost of sevice property value basis ( 1 ) analysis required attributable to each parcel v �� Make payments on \\ Make payments CFD bonds or pay Make payments Pay for "property-related" on G.O. bonds for projects on Assessment projects directly (safety issued directly bonds projects would not qualify) (1 ) CFD allocation methodology cannot be based on property value. DE LARosA �^ BURLINGAME Comparison ' ' / , Various , / Mechanisms (continued/ • Assessments are problematic due to statutory requirements to fund "general benefits" from other funding sources and potential for legal challenge • User fees are problematic due to potential for legal challenge, difficulty in funding projects upfront and inability to fund safety projects • CFD 's allow "flexible" formulae in spreading the tax burden to the property owners and have similar voting procedures to G.O. bond elections NBS performed analysis to illustrate how the tax burden could hypothetically be allocated under a CFD DE. LA . I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 BURLINGAME Sample / I Allocation / / I / , / G. O. Methodology, , Sample CFD Scenario vs. $37MM G.O. Bond Scenario Hypothetical Annual Tax Burden By Property Class (For Illustration Purposes Only) ' ' ' ' • 1 11 =11;1 t • m i • ' ' $150 $175 $200 $206 $23 $125 • . 1 : $105 $123 $140 $144 $16 $88 • $1,133 $871 $588 - - - ' • 1 1 1 $0.026 $0.020 $0.014 - - - • • $19133 $871 $588 $594 $66 $360 I ' . I • $906 $697 $471 $828 $92 $501 i 1 . 111111ILVA 105 $99060 j $6 970 1 $49708 j $37,617 $�„If7 $229786 ' i 1 1 • ' 1 60 % 70 % 80 % 72 % ( 1) Assumes units taxed at 70% of single family rate. (2) "Residential" includes both single family residential and multifamily parcels. (3) G.O. tax rates assuming annual property tax roll growth of 3%. INVESTMENT BANKERS �i Alft Total Taxes Paid by Single Family Home Under Hypothetical CFD Scenario Sample CFD Scenario vs. $37MM G.O. Bond Scenario (For Illustration Purposes On $275 $250 $225 awl $200 $175 - - - - - - - - - - - - $6,300 Total Special $150 Tax Payments Over Life of Bonds $125 Communities Facilities District $100 - General Obligation Bond $75 $50 I�p 4's is tib 4 tic off° 4's Assumes average home price of$548,397 growing at 3.0% annually. DE LARosA 6 INVESTMENT BANKERS BURLINGAME Tax Rate / / of Single Family , Value * Under Hypothetical , ' , Scenario Sample CFD Scenario vs. $37MM G.O. Bond Scenario (For Illustration Purposes Only) 0.0400% 0.0350 % g a \ 0.0300 % > 0.0250 % 0 0228 % . 0 x 0 0.0200 % c 0.0150 % a -*--- Communities Facilities District 0.0100% --&- General Obligation Bond , 0.0194 % Average 0.0050 % 0.0000% ooh otio olti o�°` otib o�� otio otic otic` otib otic o'�o o'�ti o'��` o'�b o'�� opo oat• ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti * Assumes average home price of$548,397 growing at 3.0% annually. DE LARosA ANN BURUNIGAME Distribution ' , , Family Residential City of Burlingame Distribution of Single Family Residential Parcels By Assessed Value 20% 1200 18% 18% 18% 1000 16% Number of SFR Parcels 14% As a % of Total SFR Parcels 14% 13% ' 800 10% 9% 600 w 8% w < , 8% ° 8% . E 400 z 6% 5 % 5% 4% : • 3% 200 2% 1 % 0% 0 13 moo ' moo' moo' ho' moo ' oho ' moo . 000 . 000 . X100 SIO Soo SO so ^5 0, 1�%Qj �00, Solo1S1 E DELARosAll INVESTMENT BAN KERS • Alft Annual Tax Burden - $3 7MM G. 0. Bond Election I BURLINGAME 0 (SFR Parcels Only) "0 Annual Tax Burden - $37MM G .O. Bond Election $500.00 $450.00 $400.00 G.O. Tax Per Year for Relevant AV Range $350.00 $300.00 $250.00 $200.00 $150.00 $ 100.00 $50.00 $- Coll Coll COP 4011 Coll, �0116 �111 IFP VON" sip", Ell DE LARosA r r i i i r r r r r r r r r r r r i r Tax / ; • : iElection (SFBSIF�UNGAME I Parcels , nly Tax Distribution Among SFR Property Owners Based on AV - $37MM G .O. Bond Election 1001/ w_ ( 41 90(% e 80% 70(/r --- G v ^C L x H Wo 50( - _ _ - — --- r y F°. 40% w O 30% -- 20I/r 10'%; - --- - -_ 0�% 10 20(% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of SFR's Based on AV (Lowest to Highest) DELARosA to !_.._ 0 Alft Annual Tax Burden - Hypothetical CFD Scenari (SFR Parcels Only) Annual Tax Burden - Hypothetical CFD Scenario $500.00 $450.00 $400.00 $350.00 11�17 VIT, 'Mab A CC F5 $300.00 $175 Average CFD Tax Per SFR Parce $250.00 ca $200.00 $ 150.00 $ 100.00 $50.00 Coll 901, 901, 901, 901 90, Of, ote 09 , CO 9P S9 SO %RP Rp & S ORS U-1) 1 DE LARosA W09INVESTMENT BANKERS PIURL INGAM, Tax Distribution - Hypothetical CFD Scenario (SFR Parcels Only) Tax Distribution Among SFR Property Owners Based on AV - Hypothetical CFD Scenario 100% ............. 80% --- 70% 00000, 60% ——---—-----------------........................ 11110-00000L00000 X 50% CC 0000 40% O 30% 20% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of SFR's Based on AV (Lowest to Highest) DE LARosA 12 INVESTMENT BANKERS .E Drainof Storm Safety / / Fundingnts Sample CFD Scenario vs. $37MM G.O. Bond Scenario (For Illustration Purposes Only) XWIJ a=It 11 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 • • 8,868,422 8,863,099 8,857,759 8,857,759W359447..)0q • 8,868,422 - 8,863,099 - 8,857,759 - 818579759 35,4479039 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 • • 8,868,422 5,240,000 6, 100,000 7, 155,000 27,3639422 ' . - 1 ,809,998 1 ,812,628 1 ,379,720 1 ,377,630 851 ,818 851 ,823 890839617 N Eli V.11 898689422 198099998 79052,628 193791720 794779630 8519818 81006,823 35,4479039 Funding under a CFD enables projects to be funded directly from CFD taxes, resulting in fewer bonds being issued which saves property owners in financing & interest costs DE ILA RosA13 Aft BURLINGAME I Procedural / ' Steps / , • / , TIME REQUIRED 00 w . Month I - Begin process - Council approves local goals & policies - Develop CFD allocation methodology \10 - Draft study available for review Month - Council initiates formation of CFD (majority approval) Month - Council approves Resolution of Intention - Hold public hearing - Council approves Resolution of Formation Send mail-in ballots (or place onto regular election) - Special (or regular) election held; ballots tabulated - Council approves Resolution of Declaring Results - Council approves CFD financing documents - CFD bond sale - Bond closing; funds available for projects ® DE • 14 I i I I I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I SURUNGAME Council Actions / Considered, ' • Option 1 - Hold Public Hearing & Final Adoption of Ordinance to Hold a New G.O. Bond Election on June 5, 2007 • Option 2 - Defer June 5, 2007 G.O. Bond Election and Authorize Staff to Pursue CFD Funding Mechanism Engage NBS to develop CFD allocation methodology and draft study to be used in CFD formation proceedings Draft study would be available in 3-4 months Council would need to begin initiating CFD formation proceedings by August 2007 in order to place CFD vote as part of hypothetical February 2008 general election Council has the option to place the G. O . bond election on a future ballot Ell CITY G A BURUNGAME 1STco pure 0: m BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of February 5, 2007 STUDY SESSION a. SAFEWAY PROCESS At the study session Council heard and discussed a proposal for an approach that would be used to involve various community stakeholders to work with Safeway to develop a conceptual plan for Safeway's consideration in moving forward for review by the Burlingame Planning Commission. The approach, which was designed in consultation with David Bowlby, representing Safeway, and a Council subcommittee of Councilmembers Keighran and Baylock, would be facilitated by a neutral facilitator, Candace Hathaway, and City Manager Jim Nantell. 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Jo-Ellen Ellis. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2007 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Two corrections were made to the minutes of the January 27, 2007 Study Session meeting: Add to Item V. : "Council later voted to add six of the nine new items to the 2007-08 Council Goals." Change Item VI. : from ". . .one unidentified citizen. . ." to ". . .and Michael Dillon." Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the January 27, 2007 Study Session meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 1 Burlingame City Council February 5, 2007 Unapproved Minutes SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT Mayor Nagel announced the recent passing of former Mayor and Councilman Vic Mangini. He was first elected to the City Council in April 1970 and served until November 1989. He served as mayor in 1972, 1976, 1991 and 1986. He had been a teacher and sports coach at Burlingame High School and rose to the role of Vice Principal at the school. In 2001 the Burlingame City Council and the San Mateo Union High School District changed the name of the road that circles in front of Burlingame High to Mangini Way, and the school's official address is now 1 Mangini Way. A teacher of the year award named in his honor was presented two weeks ago. A prayer vigil will be held for Mr. Mangini at Our Lady of Angels Church (OLA) on Thursday, February 8, at 7 p.m. His funeral will be on Friday, February 9, at OLA at 10 a.m. Mayor Nagel asked for a moment of silence in memory of Vic Mangini. 5. PRESENTATIONS a. BEST OF BURLINGAME AWARD Mayor Nagel presented Cathy Foxhoven with the Best of Burlingame award for her many contributions to the Burlingame community. Ms. Foxhoven teaches skills she has learned as a professional actress, singer and voiceover artist. Among her many volunteer efforts, she directs the Il Piccolo Players and coaches the Living History Players who take on the roles of famous Burlingame personalities to perform for Burlingame Historical Society members. Ms. Foxhoven is a member of the Burlingame Historical Society, President of the American Association of University Women— San Mateo Branch, member of Citizens for a Better Burlingame and Burlingame P.E.O. b. COLLECTION SYSTEM OF THE YEAR AWARD Phil Scott, Public Works Superintendent, advised that with Council support, the Street and Sewer Division has improved work procedures, emergency response procedures, and the quality of their equipment. As a result, there has been a reduction in sewer-related calls, better compliance with wastewater regulations and fewer claims against the City. The division's personnel have been attending the California Water Environment Association's (CWEA) training classes resulting in certification of 86% of the division's employees in the Collection System vocation. This year the City of Burlingame received the Small Agency Collection System Award from the Santa Clara Valley Section of the CWEA. Mr. Scott presented Council with the award. Vice Mayor O'Mahony thanked the citizens of Burlingame for their part in paying increased sewer rates to improve sewer services. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 13-2007 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. 2 Burlingame City Council February 5,2007 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke: Kevin Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road; Oscar Braun, President of Save Our Bay Foundation; Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Nicole Rochette, 1457 Rollins Road. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. After Council discussion, Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 13-2007 approving amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan; Councilwoman Baylock seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCES FOR(1) ZONING FOR THE EL CAMINO NORTH (ECN) ZONING DISTRICT AND (2)AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP FOR THE ECN ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of(1) an ordinance for the El Camino North(ECN)District and(2) an ordinance amending the Zoning Map for the ECN Zoning District to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1796 amending Title 25 to adopt an El Camino North (ECN) District; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1797 amending the Zoning Maps incorporated in the Burlingame Zoning Code by reclassifying the area east of El Camino Real, south of the city line in Murchison, west of California Drive and north of the lots fronting on Dufferin Avenue from C-1/R-4 to El Camino North(ECN); seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of both ordinances within 15 days of adoption. C. (i) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO CHANGE 2-HOUR PARKING TO 24-MINUTE METERED PARKING AT 135-139 PRIMROSE ROAD, MODIFY THE NO PARKING TIME LIMITS ON RHINETTE AVENUE AND (ii) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE OCCIDENTAL AVENUE/HOWARD AVENUE INTERSECTION TO A 3-WAY STOP DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of(i) an ordinance to change 2-hour parking to 24-minute metered parking at 135-139 Primrose Road and modify the No Parking time limits on Rhinette Avenue and (ii) an ordinance to change the Occidental Avenue/Howard Avenue intersection to a 3-way stop. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1798 authorizing parking meters on the west side of Primrose Road south of Howard Avenue, fixing parking meter times and rates for 3 Burlingame City Council February 5,2007 Unapproved Minutes 24-minute meters on Primrose Road, and to modify the No Parking times on Rhinette Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1799 amending Section 13.20.010 for installation of a stop sign at Occidental Avenue approaching Howard Avenue; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of both ordinances within 15 days of adoption. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Alfred Kirk, 1515 Floribunda, spoke on a disturbance at a construction site on Floribunda the previous Saturday. Nicole Rochette and Ethan Lester, 6220 & 6240 Skyline Blvd., requested a letter from Council supporting construction of a soundwall on the east side of Highway 280 behind her properties. Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive; Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive; and Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue, requested the appeal hearing date be set for April 16, 2007, for 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive. Jean Hastie, 2300 Adeline Drive and Laura Held, 2750 Adeline Drive, requested the appeal hearing date be set for February 21 or March 19, 2007. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Planning's notification process. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. UPDATE ON PLANS FOR CELEBRATION OF BURLINGAME'S CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and stated that the Centennial commemorative piece would be the creation of a Centennial Plaza on the west side of the Burlingame Train Station. He then gave a complete overview of Burlingame's Centennial events starting in June 2007 and culminating with a Centennial Ball and fireworks on the centennial date, June 6, 2008. Mr. Schwartz introduced each event chair, as well as the Marketing Chair Dan Andersen and Event Chair Gene Condon. Mr. Schwartz then reviewed the overall Centennial budget and encouraged citizens interested in volunteering to contact the City Clerk. b. CREATION OF A FIELD IMPROVEMENT DONATION ACCOUNT P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council direct staff to open a Field Improvement Donation account and authorize the local non-profit sports organizations to seek donations to fund synthetic grass fields at Bayside Park and Murray Field. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion that Council allow the founding of an account to which citizens may donate for the improvement of our fields; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. C. RESOLUTION NO. 8-2007 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INCREASING THE 2007 SOLID WASTE RATES BY FIVE PERCENT (5%)WITHIN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council to approve Resolution No. 8-2007 setting a public hearing on March 19, 2007, for public input on the proposed 5%rate adjustment increasing the 2007 Solid Waste rates for residential and commercial accounts. 4 Burlingame City Council February 5,2007 Unapproved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 8-2007 setting a public hearing to consider a rate increase for solid waste collection and recycling services for Allied Waste in the City of Burlingame; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE SETTING CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS AND LOAN REIMBURSEMENT LIMITS FOR CAMPAIGNS FOR ELECTIVE CITY OFFICES CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance setting contribution limits and loan reimbursements limit for elective City office campaigns. After Council discussed the contribution limits for individuals and organizations and loan reimbursement limits, they voted to determine the limits. Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve $300 as the contribution limit for individuals, $600 for organizations, and $10,000 for the loan reimbursement limit; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion failed by voice vote, 2-3 (Baylock, Keighran and O'Mahony dissented). After further discussion, Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve $500 as the contribution limit for individuals, $1,000 for organizations, and $12,000 for the loan reimbursement limit; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance establishing contribution and loan reimbursement limits in campaigns for elective City offices. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Mayor Nagel then moved to New Business due to public interest to set an appeal hearing date for 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Nagel addressed the letters Council received requesting an appeal hearing be set for Mercy properties at 2300 &2750 Adeline Drive. Councilwoman Keighran and Mayor Nagel were recused from the discussion since their residences are located within 500 feet of the subject property. Councilman Cohen was recused from the discussion since a close family member is employed occasionally by Mercy. CA Anderson advised that to maintain a minimum three-member body for voting purposes, Councilmembers Cohen, Keighran and Nagel must draw lots to determine who would be the third voting member for this appeal hearing process. Mayor Nagel declared a five-minute intermission at 10:05 p.m. to set up the lot drawing. The meeting was reconvened at 10:10 p.m. Councilmembers Cohen, Keighran and Nagel drew lots. Councilwoman Keighran drew the lot placing her as the third voting member for this appeal hearing process. 5 Burlingame City Council February 5,2007 Unapproved Minutes Vice Mayor O'Mahony stated that the appellant and some of the neighbors requested the hearing date be set for April 16, and the applicant requested the hearing date be set either February 21 or March 19. Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to hold the appeal hearing on February 21, 2007; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved by voice vote, 2-1 (Baylock dissented). 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 9-2007 IN SUPPORT OF VIRGIN AMERICA CC Mortensen requested Council approve Resolution No. 9-2007 expressing support for Virgin America Airlines' effort to receive regulatory approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. b. RESOLUTION NO. 10-2007 ACCEPTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 10-2007 accepting improvements for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Reliability Improvements by C.W. Roen Construction Company. C. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 11-2007 AMENDING THE FY 06-07 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $700,000 FOR THE PREPAYMENT OF A FIRE LADDER APPARATUS FOR CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 11-2007 approving budget amendments to the budget for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2007, for the purchase of fire ladder apparatus. d. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 12-2007 COMMITTING TO THE SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (SBWMA) CONTRACTOR SELECTION PROCESS FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 12-2007 committing to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority contractor selection process. e. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR TO NORWALK, CONNECTICUT FinDir Nava requested Council approve out-of-state travel for the Finance Director to Norwalk, Connecticut to attend the Winter Meeting of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council on February 22 and 23, 2007. f. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR DEPUTY TREASURER AND ASSISTANT DEPUTY TREASURER TO LAS VEGAS, NEVADA FinDir Nava requested Council approve out-of-state travel for the Deputy Treasurer and Assistant Deputy Treasurer to Las Vegas, Nevada to attend the Annual Governmental Investment Officers Association Meeting on March 21 through 23, 2007. Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6 Burlingame City Council February 5,2007 Unapproved Minutes 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, spoke on the Mercy appeal hearing for 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive. There were no further comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 13. NEW BUSINESS (CONTINUED) Vice Mayor O'Mahony stated that a letter was delivered to Council from Stephen Clarkson requesting an ordinance regulating wood burning in a fireplace or wood-burning stove. CP Monroe suggested adding this letter to the Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting agenda for March 24, 2007. a. ITEMS FOR MEETING AGENDA WITH SENATOR LELAND YEE Mayor Nagel requested the following items be added to the agenda for the meeting with Senator Yee on February 7, 2007: Election Slate Mailers, Electronic Campaign Filing, and Incentives for Solar Energy Use. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety&Parking, September 21, October 12, and November 9, 2006; Library,November 28, 2006; Beautification, January 11, 2007; and Planning, January 22, 2007 b. Department Reports: Police, December 2006 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. in memory of former Mayor and Councilman Vic Mangini and Marie Del Rosso, a long-time parishioner of Our Lady of Angels. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 7 Burlingame City Council February 5,2007 Unapproved Minutes C O U N T Y O f S A N M A T E O RE CYC L E WO R KS San Mateo County RecycleWorks Presents 2007 Sustainable Gardening Lecture Series Seasonal Organic Gardening: Spring Sustainable Preparation Whether you garden for beauty or for food production, this season-appropriate lecture will guide you through the steps of getting a garden started and maintaining it in an organic and sustainable manner. Be an environmental activist by learning the basics of gardening without harmful pesticides and chemical fertilizers that can pollute our surrounding land and waterways, and expose us to toxic residues. This lecture will focus on spring garden maintenance and preparation for late spring and summer vegetable gardens, as well as basic ornamental garden care. In addition to planting seeds and seedlings, the most important topic of care and feeding of the soil will be discussed, including organic fertilizers, compost,mulch and cover crops. This lecture will be informal and interactive in style, feature lots of demonstration props and freebies, and is designed to answer all your questions. Alane Weber Certified Advisor, Soil Foodweb,Inc.& Master Composter Program Instructor Alane Weber brings over 35 years of professional horticulture experience to this important topic of organic gardening. She currently teaches composting and sustainable gardening for the Master Composter Program and lectures throughout the greater Bay Area and State at garden clubs and local events, and occasionally on local television and radio. Date: Tuesday, March 20,2007 Where: San Mateo Garden Center 605 Parkside Way (Located just off Alameda de las Pulgas, 4 blocks south of Hwy 92) Time: 7:00-9:00 pm (doors open at 6:30 pm) Cost: Free...Open to the Public...No advance reservations necessary Our lecture series is offered to further our goals of promoting composting and organic and sustainable methods of caring for your home and garden. Please join us to hear these informational and inspiring speakers. For more information on future Sustainable Gardening Lecture Series topics and dates, call 650/599-1498 or visit http://www.recycleworks CO N TV OF SA. n MA " EC R F C Y C L F W O R K S Are You Interested in Learning to Compost/Garden... Without the Use of Toxic Chemicals... "&Wig" While Reducing Your Household Food & Yard Waste? r**%- Learn... Q To Garden Without Toxic Chemicals Q } To Use Compost to Improve Your Garden N The Difference Between Good and Bad Insects How Worms Can Eat Your Garbage To Reduce Household Food & Yard Waste (� The Master Composter Program... Q Is a comprehensive educational program of classroom and hands-on experience teaching the fundamentals of recycling, backyard composting and vermicomposting (the magic of .. worms). r, Combines extensive training, an all-inclusive manual, books L and other resource materials. 4_0 U) No Cost... O The program is FREE to San Mateo County residents in exchange for volunteer community service sharing what you've learned with your neighborhoods, schools and peers. O VEligibility: This certification program is limited to San Mateo County residents only. No W formal gardening background is necessary. Classes begin: March 3, 2007 COJ College of San Mateo, Horticulture Dept. `" For more information: Jacqueline Rosine at(650) 599-1498... www.RecycleWorks.org... or toll free(888)442-2666 "Master Composter Certification" Upon Completion San Mateo County Master Composting Program 2007 Certification Course Class Schedule & Syllabus 12 Saturday Classes 2pm—5pm, and 3 Field Trips, 9am—Noon: Class#1: 03/03/07 Introduction& overview; hands on compost demonstration Class#2: 03/10/07 Compost: Basic compost lecture, compost pile project building Class#3: 03/17/07 Compost: Basic compost lecture, project maintenance, discussion Class#4: 03/24/07 Compost: Soil Food Web lecture, project maintenance, discussion Class#5: 03/31/07 Compost: Soil Food Web lecture,project maintenance, discussion Break for Easter Weekend.........no class 04/07/07 Class#6: 04/14/07 Vermicompost: Hands on worm, bin building & lecture Class#7: 04/21/07 Vermicompost: Hands on harvesting, lecture, &project discussion Class#8: 04/28/07 Compost: Harvesting, use, & compost review Class#9: 05/05/07 Workshop training, RecycleWorks' recycling lecture, & literature Class#10 05/12/07 Sustainable gardening: overview of principals & practices Class#1105/19/07 Sustainable gardening: Integrated Pest Management(IPM) Optional Class: 05/26/07—Alternate class period for student presentations & review Class#12 06/02/07 Student lecture presentations &completion celebration Graduation Dinner& Compost Community Celebration 06/23/07, 5 —9 p.m. Several Class Field Trips to local Master Composter Program workshops, TBA Optional Field Trip to Yerba Buena Nursery, CA native plant tour, TBA Optional Field Trip to San Francisco Presidio compost project, TBA Ca For registration or further information contact w A w.RecycleWorks.org or the Master Composting Coordinator for San Mateo County RecycleWorks, Jacqueline Rosine @ (650) 599-1498 of Burfii, BURLINGAME Prudential Fine Homes IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED ONE OF THE (4at of I W&O FOR PROVIDING OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE irl� I TtRRY NACEL,MAYOR CITY 0� BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 6a MTG. DAATED 1WJVHE6 DATE 2.21.07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2007 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY ^ Contact No.: (650) 558-7250 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO AL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, 2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the request to adopt a conditional use permit which will establish a baseline for activities for the use of Sisters of Mercy Facilities and Mercy High School at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive. Affirmative action should be by resolution, including the approved conditions of approval. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Action alternatives and the generic findings from the code for a conditional use permit are included at the end of the staff report. The Council's choices of action are: o Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve the conditional use permit; or o Reverse the Planning Commission's action and deny the conditional use permit; or o Deny without prejudice the conditional use permit and send the item back to the Planning Commission with direction for further work. Notice of the appeal hearing was mailed to neighbors within 500 feet of the Sisters of Mercy site on Friday, February 9, 2007. General Plan: Low density residential, private school. Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301, existing facilities, Class 1, operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. Conditions Recommended by the Planning Commission: Following are the conditions approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on January 22, 2007. Since this item was appealed to the City Council these conditions become the recommendation of the Planning Commission to the City Council. These conditions reflect the direction of the Planning Commission at the public hearing, so are not exactly the same as the conditions which appear in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 22, 2007, (Attachment 2). However they are the conditions which appear in the January 229 2007, minutes of the Planning Commission (Attachment B) and in the Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment G) which will be replaced by a Council Resolution (Attachment H). APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas, no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; 4. that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; 6. that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the site and drop students off or pick them up on-site in front of their school; 8. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school, number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; KOHL MANSION 9. that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise and other requirements for operation included in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall be required to comply with each of these requirements or cease their event on the Kohl Mansion site; 10. that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Sisters of Mercy site and the sisters of Mercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five (5) decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. 11. that the agency on site responsible for leasing the Kohl Mansion for non-school events shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s) as appropriate designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; that the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters; that the Center and/or school staff shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Sisters of Mercy campus site; and that during each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year, the noise levels at these established locations shall be 2 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 measured and recorded in a log, the log shall document which events used mechanical amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside, including those events with music; and that this data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and that noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; 12. that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be only used: for events, including, but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays; weekday evenings after school; and, in addition, up to a maximum of six (6) events may be held on weekdays during the school year, provided most guests arrive by bus. Such uses of the Kohl Mansion shall be considered along with the other events on the Sisters of Mercy campus and the collective events shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus a total of fifty (50) event support staff on the campus, for a maximum of 350 persons; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums as stated in this and the other conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 13. that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; 14. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; 15. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints, that this telephone `ho line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and that, in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion, a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; 16. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online to the public and directly by mail to the neighbors a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy, the calendar of events shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the event, the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled, maintained and distributed regularly through out the year; MERCY CENTER 17. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three(3) days and a maximum of ten(10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; 18. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service; Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings, Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; 3 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 SISTERS OF MERCY 19. The Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset. 20. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; 21. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 22. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 23. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE 24. that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time; and 25. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site, there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets. 26. that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year (January 2008) to evaluate the effectiveness of the conditions in establishing a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy which compose this site, this review shall include a review of any complaints logged, including the responses and resolutions of the complaints, and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or from the administration of the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on January 22, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg recused) to approve a conditional use permit with specific conditions to establish a base line for the use of the Sisters of Mercy land and Mercy High School. In their action the Planning Commission discussed the following : noise should be evaluated using the same standards as used in the rest of the City, increase of 5 decibels over the ambient at property line, with the exception of the occasional student pep rally, adjust condition 10 to reflect that; timing of the closing of events on week-days and week-ends, one catering truck leaving after 11:00 p.m. OK, but not take down tents after 11:00 p.m.; that the applicant should provide Planning commission with an update on complaints and their resolution, and the adopted conditions should be monitored and measured; and all should be reviewed in a year; applicant should obtain a portable decibel meter and monitor outdoor noise at various locations along the property line; that the conditions regarding noise should be included in every rental contract; add a condition to require that all students are dropped off and picked up on the Sisters of Mercy site; and add a condition that these conditions should be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a year to evaluate how effective they are in establishing a baseline for the operations of the collective uses on the site. 4 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO VAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 The applicant introduced the item and commented on the history of the Sisters of Mercy acquisition and use of this site, their preservation of Kohl Mansion as landmark, making it available to the community for cultural and educational purposes (Mercy High School); the need to use Kohl Mansion to support the education and operation of Mercy High School; and noting the support of the Sisters of Mercy to establish a baseline conditional use permit to formalize the activities on the site; with their suggested amendments, they commented on several operational actions which they felt would insure compliance with the conditions proposed in the staff report (see Attachment B: PC minutes page 6). A number of neighbors spoke on the application: their comments focused on inadequacy of roadway access; the presence of parking in the service access driveway; noise generated by outdoor activities, particularly late at night including during the summer months out of doors events; the frequency of use of Kohl Mansion for events open to the public; need for direct access to a person to take complaints, not a voice mail machine, and the need for a staff member to supervise at party events to insure that complaints are responded to in a timely manner. (Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2007) BACKGROUND: In May 2005 Mercy High School made an application for a conditional use permit to remodel and expand their Physical Education/fitness center building. In their review, the Planning Commission asked the applicant for more information about the current operation and activities on the site so that a baseline could be established for the existing uses. In June 2005, Mercy High School withdrew its application for the addition to the fitness center, and decided to limit the work on the building to maintenance and repair. A building permit was issued and the maintenance work is being done on the physical education/fitness center. The applicant, at the Commissions suggestion after the study meeting in May 2005, followed up with a series of neighborhood meetings to address questions which were raised around initial request to expand the fitness center by 320 SF of storage area, 2 new trellis structures (56 SF and 110SF) to announce the entry, new bleachers and an equipment storage shed. The current application is in response to the Planning Commission's request that a baseline be established for existing operations for both the Sisters of Mercy facility(32.77 acres) and Mercy High School site (3.74 acres). The Mercy High School is located on a separate parcel which is surrounded by land owned by the Sisters of Mercy. The activities on these sites include Mercy High School on one site and on the Sisters of Mercy site, Mercy Center and uses for the Sisters of Mercy order. These uses are documented by the applicant in the Table of Existing Uses dated November 1, 2006, attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report, Attachment 2, Part 2. Summary of the Reported Current Activities by Site Mercy High School The Mercy High School activities primarily are confined to the 3.74 acre parcel owned by Mercy High School. The areas used for the school activities include portions of Kohl Mansion and the grounds and greens, a fitness center, swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts and a cafeteria. In addition, some of the offices for Mercy High School are housed in Russell Hall on the Sisters of Mercy site. Mercy High School operates from Monday through Friday and includes the following components: • Grades 9-12: Operates from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. from August to mid-June. Up to 500 students may 5 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO VAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, 2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 be enrolled in the high school. There are currently 43 instructors and 30 staff members for the High School. • Montessori Preschool (ages 2 %2 to D: Operates from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. year round with up to 30 students. • After School Programs: Held from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. from August to mid-June. These activities include athletic programs such as water polo, tennis, swimming and cross country running. • Summer School/Camp: These activities operate during the summer months from mid-June to July from 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Enrollment for their 2004 summer school and sports camp program was 266, but total attendance depends on actual enrollment. Summer programs include Tools for Schools (Grades 6-8), High School Prep Courses (Grades 6-9), High School Courses (Grades 9-12) and Summer Sports Program (Grades 6-9). Other Activities on the Mercy High School Site In addition to the school activities, the following activities occur at Kohl Mansion and on the grounds: • Music at Kohl Mansion: Twelve Events are scheduled annually that occur from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday or Sunday nights. Four events are scheduled annually that occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a weekday. Attendance is limited to no more than 300 guests. • Private Rentals: Kohl Mansion and the surrounding grounds are rented for private events on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays at times when school is not in session and music events are not scheduled. Evening events end no later than 11:00 p.m., and all events are limited to no more than 300 guests. Sisters of Mercy Site Uses on the Sisters of Mercy site are divided into two categories, Mercy Center uses and non-Center uses. These are summarized below: Mercy Center Uses • Overnight Programs: Meeting and sessions for the overnight programs are held in the Mercy Center meeting rooms and participants stay overnight in the Mercy Center guest rooms. Meetings and sessions conclude by 9:00 p.m. The number of participants would not exceed the 97 available guest rooms. Internship programs are held in July with up to 60 participants. Retreats are held for an average of three days, and have an average attendance of 33 residents. • Day Programs: Day Programs are held at the Mercy Center and Chapel and consist of the following: o Speaker Series: Held on six Sundays a year from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. There are an average of 65 attendees for this program. o Spiritual Direction Program: This program is held on Saturdays and concludes by 9:00 p.m. There are an average of 75 participants in this program. o Meditation, Chapel and Prayer Groups: These are conducted daily and conclude by 9:00 p.m. Generally, these are small groups, but on the first Friday of every month a Taiz6 evening service is conducted with up to 150 attendees. Sisters of Mercy Uses • Room and Board for Sisters of Mercy The Motherhouse contains residential facilities for up to 50 Sister residents. Currently, 32 Sisters reside at the Motherhouse. • Marian Care Center and Infirmary The center is a residential care facility with 40 units. The center includes resident rooms, kitchen, dining room, lounge facilities, chapel and utility rooms. • Cottage House: There is a lodge structure on the site which provides housing for up to four Sisters; currently there are two Sister residents. • Administrative Offices: The administrative offices for Sisters of Mercy are housed in Russell Hall, on 6 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO VAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FA CILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 Sisters of Mercy property. The administrative offices are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily; and there are 25 employees in the administrative offices. Traffic and Parking Analysis Based on Table of Existing Uses As a part of their application, the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School joined together to have a parking and traffic study done based on the existing uses documented in Table of Existing Uses. The traffic study prepared by Farr and Peers is attached to the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 2, Part 2). The study documents the peak hours for use of the site and estimates traffic generation for each of the three types of events which typically occur at Kohl Mansion. Kohl Mansions traffic impact is week day and week end nights, and if included in the evening peak hour(5:00 to 6:00 p.m.) would increase the peak from 100 trips to 212 trips for a corporate event and to 247 trips for a wedding. The parking analysis shows that there are 382 parking spaces on site. The typical peak parking demand is 291 vehicles and occurs at 11:00 a.m. This represents 76% of occupancy of the available parking spaces. Typically 90% occupancy of on-site parking is considered full. Currently there appears to be adequate capacity in the roadway system and adequate parking on site. The study includes details both for traffic and parking for the documented uses. (See Existing Uses, Attachment 2, Part 2) Staff Comments During the Planning Commission review it was noted that the Sisters of Mercy had a conditional use permit from the County of San Mateo prior to annexation to the City of Burlingame. The properties were annexed into Burlingame along with this conditional use permit. The current conditional use permit is based on the earlier permit, included in the Planning Commission Staff Report, but is less vague and provides more details about the uses on the site. The purpose of the current conditional use permit is to establish a baseline for the operations on the site. Such a baseline will ground the expectations of the neighbors and facilitate any future actions on the site which involve the city, such as seismic retrofit or other improvements. The applicant recognizes the value of having better understanding and has come forward voluntarily to make this application. Staff would note that the jurisdiction for the City Council for dealing with the application by the Sisters of Mercy is limited. The history of this property and its annexation to the city, as well as the limitations on city action are discussed in the City Attorney's Memo, February 12, 2007, "Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy Property—Nonconforming Use and Conditional Use Permit"which is attached. (See Attachment�. He notes that the purpose of this conditional use process is to establish the existing baseline of the conditional use of the property with the appropriate conditions by pulling together the history of the land use approvals for the properties and the lessons learned from the experience gained from the 45 or more years this use has operated at this site. Staff would like to clarify the intent of two conditions. Regarding Condition 11 the Planning Commission noted when they reviewed the meeting minuets for the January 22, 2007, meeting, that the term `agency' refers to the staff in the employ of the Sisters of Mercy or Mercy High School who are required to be on site supervising the lessee, not the lessee. Condition 24 addresses the review of the conditional use permit in one year. This is a common condition of approval and involves a public hearing with public notice to the neighbors before the Planning Commission. The present wording of this condition does not make it clear that a public hearing will be held and that there will be 500 foot notice of this hearing. The condition would be improved, and better understood, if the public hearing and public notice requirements were added to it. 7 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 Finally, following the Council's setting the appeal hearing for February 21, 2007, staff received a number of letters about the proposed conditional use permit. These are attached in your staff report as Attachment D. Any additional comments received after the Staff Report is completed,but before it is delivered, will be attached to the cover of the staff report. EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Action Alternatives and Code Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit Attachment B: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2007 Attachment C: City Attorney Memo, February 12, 2007, RE: Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy Property-Nonconforming Use and Conditional Use Permit. Attachment D: Correspondence to City Council Received Since Planning Commission Action • Jean Hastie, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, letter, January 26, 2007, to neighbors. • F. Johnston, 2509 Adeline Drive, letter, February 10, 2007. • Stan Baun, letter, date stamped February 12, 2007. • Mr. and Mrs. Robert K and Jill Harmon, 1476 Alvarado Avenue, letter, February 12, 2007. Kristen and Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue, letter, February 12, 2007. • Justin and Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive, letter, February 12, 2007. • Margaret A. Slone, attorney, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure &Flegel, letter, February 12, 2007, RE: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit, responding to legal arguments against the approval of an conditional use permit in a letter submitted to the Planning Commission by attorney at Shute, Mihaley&Weinberger for Linda Abbey. • Margaret A. Slone, attorney, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure &Flegel, letter, February 12, 2007, RE: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit, clarifying conditions as approved by the Planning Commission. • Matthew D. Zinn, attorney, Shute, Mihaly&Weinberger, letter, February 12, 2007, RE: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit for 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive. • Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, letter, February 12, 2007, with attachments including letters to Frank Erbacher, City Engineer(October 12, 2001) and City Traffic Engineer Augustine Chou (November 10, 2005) and pictures. • Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, letter, February 13, 2007, Addendum to February 12, 2007, letter. Attachment E: Submittals to the Planning Commission after the packet was prepared and at the public hearing. • Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, letter, January 24, 2007. • Margaret A. Slone, attorney, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure &Flegel, letter, January22, 2007, RE: Sisters of mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit. • Matthew D. Zinn, attorney, Shute, Mihaly& Weinberger, letter, January 22, 2007, RE: 2300- 2750 Adeline Drive-Conditional use Permit. • Virginia Wright and Richard Blarney, 2811 Adeline Drive, letter, January 22, 2007. • Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive, memo to Planning Commission, January 22, 2007. • Linda Abbey, hand written notes submitted at Planning Commission Public Hearing, January 22, 2007 with pictures attached. Attachment F: Request for Appeal • Leigh F. Prince, attorney, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, letter, February 5, 2007, 8 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPRO VAL OFA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR ACTIVITIES FOR SISTERS OF MERCY FACILITIES AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,2300 and 2750 ADELINE DRIVE. February 21,2007 RE: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit, RE: request to hear appeal on February 21, 2007. • Linda Abbey, letter, February 5, 2007, RE: request to hear appeal on April 16, 2007. • Linda Abbey, letter February 1, 2007, RE: request appeal hearing. Attachment G: Planning Commission Resolution Attachment H: City Council Resolution Notice of Public Hearing, mailed February 9, 2007, notice within 500 feet. Attached Under separate cover: Attachment 1: Plot Plan Showing Ownerships, November 1, 2006 Attachment 2, Part 1: Planning Commission Staff Report, Conditional use permit to Establish a use Baseline for Existing Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy Facilities, 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, January 22, 2007, in two volumes. Attachment 2, Part 2: Second volume of attachments begins with Existing Uses Report, Mercy High School, Mercy Center, Sisters of Mercy, November 1, 2007. 9 ATTACHMENT A 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School ACTION ALTERNATIVES LCity council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance,use permit, hillside area construction permit,fence exception,sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance,the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2.City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3.City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably,with clear direction,denied without prejudice;or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff,applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CS 25.52.020) The zoning code requires that the following criteria must be met on the property in order to grant a conditional use permit or amendment to a conditional use permit: (a) The proposed use,at the proposed location,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; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties. ' ATTACHMENT B City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 21, 2007 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR AN EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL AND RELIGIOUS FACILITYUSE (JEAN HASTIE, SISTERS OF MERCY AND LAURA HELD,MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (191 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS C. Brownrigg noted that he lives within 500 feet of the property so must recuse himself from this deliberation. He passed the gavel to Vice-Chair Deal and stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report January 22, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria, letters received from the public and applicant since the staff report was delivered, and staff comments. Twenty conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff: letters indicate that there is no one on site after business hours to answer noise complaints? Staff suggested that the applicant address this. CA did not agree with contention that City could not allow Kohl Mansion to continue to be used for community and private events as part of a school or religious facility use. Conditional permit granted by San Mateo County in the 1960's was very broad and purpose of current proceeding is to define the operational limits to that broad permit. Does the Commission have the authority to require the applicant to have an event manager on the site during the events at the Kohl Mansion? CA noted yes,regarding how the use occurs. Can on site use be controlled by a contract and state what criteria must be met during the event and after? CA yes. Concern with conditions 9, 10, and 11. Can these conditions be modified to address any amplified sound,not just music and could condition 11 be changed to say no take-down indoors and outdoors after 11:00 p.m.? Would like the word `only' be added to conditions 8 and 18 to clarify that only Kohl Mansion shall be used in these cases. Can Mercy publish a schedule of events available online? CA noted that the Commissioners should ask the applicant about these matters. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Sister Ellene Egan, 2300 Adeline Drive,representing Sisters of Mercy; Jean Hasty, 2300 Adeline Drive, Executive Director of the Campus, representing Sisters of Mercy, Laura Held, 2750 Adeline Drive, Principal, representing Mercy High School and Sandy Slone, attorney, 1100 Alma Street,Menlo Park,representing the applicants; spoke: Sisters ofMercy purchased this property in 1924, when it was surrounded by pasture and before any of the City development extended around the campus; they have maintained the Kohl Mansion and preserved it as a landmark making it available to the community for cultural and educational purposes; the Sisters of Mercy support the establishment of a baseline conditional use pen-nit with the conditions in the staff report as amended by their attorney's letter submitted tonight. Used to live in the residential area near the Sisters of Mercy site in the mid-1980's, do not think the use has changed much since then, this application is not about change but to establish a baseline to formalize what is going on on-site today;reviewed the activities which are on-site and related to the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy Center; support the application with the following findings: the use is not detrimental and if approved would not provide an unequal benefit,the site benefits the community,provides open space which they allow the community to use, Mercy High School provides an important educational benefit to the community, and the site provides a place for the community to grow spiritually; the use is consistent with the City's General Plan which acknowledges its role as open space, the present R-1 zoning allows the present uses with a conditional use permit and the uses fit within those allowances;the residential neighborhood grew around the campus not the reverse; proposal is not to add uses to the site but for a determination that the use is compatible,have made reasonable changes when asked to do so, as recently as January 1, 2007, have established a program to have a campus receptionist answer the main line 24/7 and that person is empowered to take action regarding complaint calls received. Mercy High School is a co- applicant for this conditional use permit, the idea of a baseline grew out of an earlier request to remodel the school's fitness center, the school opened in 1931 with 530 students, today have 500 high school students and 30 Montessori pre-school students on the campus. Regarding the High School -Kohl Mansion is a part of the school,built in 1913, always used as a cultural center and for weddings, the money raised from rental 4 t City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 of the Kohl Mansion goes to the support of the school for maintenance, capital improvements, and scholarships; studies show that there is enough parking on site, visiting students and teams are provided parking on site, campus facility booking policy and requirements limit guests on site to 300 at one time; regarding noise, do not allow the removal of tents after 10 p.m., hire security for each event, they are responsible for closing doors if noise is heard in the neighborhood, all the events are managed by one staff member,have voice mail to reach the Principal at any time,if complaint comes in over the weekend will be addressed on Monday;as a result of the first meeting with Planning Commission over the fitness center held three out reach meetings with the neighbors,had a good turnout,answered all the issues raised,will create a neighborhood-community program for the future;urge Commission to approve the proposed conditional use permit. Comments from the floor: Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, Donna Colson, 2616 Hale Drive; Michael Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; Friederike Johnston, 2509 Adeline Drive; Charlotte Kiesel, 2105 Hale Drive; Alexandra Kromelow,2621 Adeline Drive;Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue;Ed Watson, 1444 Balboa Avenue; Aileen Whelan, 3029 Rivera Drive; Virginia Wright, 2811 Adeline Drive; David Tillman, 2533 Hayward Drive. Live across from the service driveway,Sisters of Mercy give a lot of good service but they are stressful to live near, have been a lot of changes since annexation and am opposed to granting them a conditional use permit with abase line as outlined,all the questions are not answered,roads serving the area were not built for the number of uses there, would like to see an environmental document done on this request; feel that the 17 parking spaces on the service driveway are a safety issue, my cars have been hit, sudden noises at night wake them up,submitted comment letter and pictures of damaged cars. Aware of the uses on the Sisters of Mercy site and all they do for the community,attended two of their outreach meetings, addressed issues in a positive manner,have contacted representatives with questions and concerns,all have been resolved,encourage approval. Resident and contractor in Burlingame for 20 years,purchased propert, from Sisters of Mercy,built a house which now live in,very accommodating during his construction;traffic, noise and parking do not seem to be a problem in the neighborhood,his construction had a greater impact; long family relationship with the Sisters of Mercy, feel they are a huge asset to the community with the school,religious facilities and free public use of the trail,they are an asset to the homeowner as well,provide open space, quality education, urge approval. Further comment from the floor: Not concerned with the school use,concerned with the night club type use on the site during the summer;the use of the batting cage with pinging from the bats 50 feet from the houses, drunk drivers after events, this has nothing to do with religious activities, if need parties to raise funds, should do it off site. 30 year resident,attended Mercy High School,Kohl Mansion was available for music, fine arts,weddings, etc.when she was a student,makes us feel welcome, give the property to all of us and not ask for return,they were surrounded by cows when they came,now the city owes them a lot. Support the high school and retreat center, not use as a party center, questions about the conditions: condition 8 is referring to what events,does it include school vacations,what happens during the summer—use 4 nights a week; condition 10 is DJ outside in a tent,have they done noise measurements to determine if proposal is within city code;numbers allow rental of Kohl during the year,happy someone on campus now to take night calls,last year called Police more than 3 times,know others called also,but log says only three, seems to be a problem with the logs. Resident 40 years, traffic has increased a lot,problem is Adeline and Alvarado, traffic through school should be made one way to protect the neighborhood, in 1979 not hear parties and there was no traffic;should be allowed one party per weekend,should stop at 10:00 p.m.on Friday,Saturday and 6 p.m. on Sunday. Lived in Burlingame entire life, Sisters of Mercy tremendous resource, relative's sisters at the convent, ask not to do anything that would harm this resource, without Kohl Mansion th revenue to the school would be reduced and the economic viability ofthe school would be damaged;parking has been made available on the campus,not nearly as bad today as was in 1979 when guests parked on the dirt edge on the north side of Adeline Drive along the edge of the campus;have walked by at night and do 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22,2007 not hear a lot of noise,about the same as a neighborhood party. Alumnae,Member of Board of Mercy High `-/ School,local business woman,long term resident as is family,not heard relatives who live nearby complain about noise,invite neighborhood at Christmas,allow the public to use their trail and site to enjoy open space, ask approve conditional use permit. Continued comment from the floor: live across and up from the high school since 1988,high school activity is consistent, the greatest change is in the late night events and noise from them;Commission should look at being sure the existing noise regulations continue to apply,would like a direct means to address the noise problem, switchboard covered 24/7 is good; all amplification,not just music should be kept inside; 11:00 p.m. is too late for week night events; conditions for use of Kohl Mansion should be clearer to renters and should be included in their contracts, so not a surprise when asked to comply during an event. Commissioner asked if 11:00 p.m. is too late on weeknights for all events, or just parties? Really just parties. Property backs up to Kohl Mansion,people walk the trail all the time,have never head noise,flutes at night on occasion;wedding music is stopped at a certain time (was married at Mercy). Applicant Response: letter from neighbor's attorney is written as if the uses on the Sisters Mercy site and High School are nonconforming,this is not so,they have a conditional use permit from the County which runs with the land, were asked by City staff and the community to accommodate them to establish a more specific baseline;it is clear from the LAFCo letter,exhibit E page 2,that part of the activities on the site at the time of annexation were cultural and community events;they hold weddings at the school and that is not incompatible with school use, many schools are used for weddings,they also host community events and concerts,these are common ways that private schools fund improvements and scholarships. Regarding the conditions would like a heading `Sisters of Mercy' added before condition 14; would like to correct condition 18 to allow 35 not 25 employees,that count does not include the 10 employees of the school who work in Russell Hall; are fine with providing a contact person on site, started such a program January 2, 2007;will work with staff to add a calendar of events on their web site,may need some time to get this done; are fine with adding a condition which requires that students be dropped off on site not off campus and have suggested wording;not fine with changing condition 10 to prohibiting all amplified sound outside,clearly students at Mercy need opportunity to have student events outside during the day,pep rallies are important to school spirit. Commissioner asked,good that 24/7 switchboard operator added,what happens after the call is received? Person who answers is trained to handle an event problem, over sees the security guards on campus,security guard will contact the event manager who is a staff member who is present for the full term of the event. Commissioner asked,if an event is over at 11:00 p.m., and the party planners cannot take the tents down what can they do? The party planners may pack up the kitchen and put dishes away,can put the extra food,dishes etc.in catering trick parked in the service area behind the Mansion,truck leaves between 11:30 and 11:45 pm. So there is one truck after 11:00 p.m.? Yes. How hard would it be to stop week-day events at 9:00 p.m.? In May and June through Summer have events on Thursday evenings both weddings and parties. Commissioner asked how did you monitor music before the complaints? Security guards on campus also provide security for the events at the Mansion, one of their jobs is to monitor the level of the music,they walk the perimeter of the campus and see how it sounds outside. There is no objective standard? No but would welcome suggestion by the City for a more objective measure. There are easily available portable decibel meters, could establish a baseline and measure during an event and log. Seems from testimony that some nearby areas are affected by noise from events at Kohl Mansion and other areas are not, have you looked at that? No,have no data to support but would be happy to evaluate. CA asked what does the applicant expect the total number of events to be a Kohl Mansion each year? Applicant noted don't know if prepared to answer that, Mansion can be used week-end nights through out the year, never had a limit,larger events are always on Friday and Saturday nights. What kinds of events occur at Kohl Mansion? Weddings,parties,speakers,music,high school events like sports awards night. The approach used is not to address the number of events; but the fact that there will never be more than 300 guests on the site at one 6 a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 21, 2007 time plus 50 staff or support personnel. This year there have been four(4) events at the Mansion since the,--,., beginning of January,including a reception for the departing Bishop on a Sunday 7—9 p.m.,a fund raiser foi the Catherine Center which was dinner with piano music. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: Mercy High School and Center are integral parts of the cultural fabric of the city, compatible with the city and glad that the hotline with formal process to communicate with events in process and get instant response has been put into place;truck traffic noise leaving is not an issue,one catering truck leaving after 11:00 p.m. seems acceptable; use of a noise meter would begin to define the neighbor's concerns in terms of the city's requirements, when measure should look at the measurement location to determine if noise is traveling differently,a meter would be a more objective measure, 11:00 p.m.should be all right on week-days with good monitoring; should add a condition that the applicant shall provide the Planning Commission with an update on the complaints received and their responses,this would allow an evaluation of the effectiveness of the various conditions approved. Agree that the Sisters of Mercy are invaluable to the community and generally a good neighbor, should add a condition that they acquire a portable decibel meter, that the on-site security force be trained in its use and that no noise from the site should exceed the city's noise standard of a an increase of 5 decibels over ambient at property line, also a copy of the city's noise ordinances and requirement should be available on site and should be included in every rental contract; the word `only' should be added to condition 8 relating to use of Kohl Mansion and condition 18 relating to use of Russell Hall, and should add a condition that these conditions shall be reviewed in a year to evaluate how effective they are in establishing a base line for the operations of all the collective uses on the Sisters of Mercy site. The condition requiring the drop off of students on site should also be added. Commissioners comments continued: support these conditions and think the details can be worked out when revisit in a year,can remember cars parking on the unpaved north side of Adeline,no longer happens;would like to add a condition that a calendar of events for the whole site be published and the 24/7 hot line as now implemented be included in the conditions. CA noted would like to see the quantity of events defined some how,maybe the log of events could be included in the annual response noting those events with amplified music and sound and those without. C. Osterling moved to approve the application,by resolution, including the added conditions noted in the discussion and with the following conditions: MERCY HIGH SCHOOL (1) that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,from August to mid-June,with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; (2) that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; (3) that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas,no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; (4) that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site;parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; (5) that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants;summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.Monday through Friday; (6) that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; (7) that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites ori picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to tht site and drop students off or pick them up on-site in front of their school; 7 f City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 KOHL MANSION (8) that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school,number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number,which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; (9) that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise and other requirements for operation included in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall be required to comply with each of these requirements or cease their event on the Kohl Mansion site; (10) that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Sisters of Mercy site and the sisters of Mercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five(5)decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; (11) that the agency on site responsible for leasing the Kohl Mansion for non-school events shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s) as appropriate designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; that the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters; that the Center and/or school staff shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Sisters of Mercy campus site; and that during each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year,the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log, the log shall document which events used mechanical amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside,including those events with music; and that this data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and that noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; (12) that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be only used: for events,including,but not limited to,receptions and musical concerts,only on Fridays,Saturdays,Sundays;weekday evenings after school;and,in addition,up to a maximum of six(6) events may be held on weekdays during the school year,provided most guests arrive by bus. Such uses of the Kohl Mansion shall be considered along with the other events on the Sisters of Mercy campus and the collective events shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus a total of fifty(50) event support staff on the campus, for a maximum of 350 persons; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums as stated in this and the other conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; (13) that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; (14) that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.,the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district,in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; (15) that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints, that this telephone `hot line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received,and that,in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion,a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; (16) that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online to the public and directly by mail to the neighbors a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy,the calendar of events shall include, at a minimum,the nature of the event, the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled, maintained and distributed regularly through out the year; 8 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22, 2007 MERCY CENTER (17) that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests;meetings ano sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.;these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants,and retreats which last an average of three(3)days and a maximum often(10)days with an average of 33 retreat participants; (18) that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs;daily meditation,chapel and prayer groups;evening services,including,but not limited to,the Friday evening Taiz6 service;Sunday mass;non-profit organizational meetings,Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY (19) The Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset; (20) that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; (2 1) that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; (22) that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; (23) that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School,shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE (24) that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center "1 shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time; and (25) that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event;participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site,there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets; (26) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year(January 2008)to evaluate the effectiveness of the conditions in establishing a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy which compose this site, this review shall include a review of any complaints logged, including the responses and resolutions of the complaints, and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or from the administration of the conditions of approval. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comments on the motion: noise standard used should be the same as used throughout the city,increase of five(5)decibels over ambient at property line; do not think in condition 10 music should be replaced with the word`sound',should weekend and weekday be different in terms of ending time of evening events;these conditions will be monitored and measured and will be reviewed in a year;suggest that remove the wording in condition 10 which limits amplified music to inside Kohl Mansion and replace with city noise standard of increase of five decibels over ambient at property line,the occasional pep rally for the high school students should continue to be allowed. Vice-Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the base line conditions for the uses on the Sisters of Mercy site at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive as amended by the Commission. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. Chair Brownrigg returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. Vice-Chair Deal passed the gave back to Chair Brownrigg. 9 ATTACHMENT C MEMORANDUM CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY ATTORNEY DATE: February 12,2007 TO: Vice Mayor and Council FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attome RE : Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy Property — Nonconforming Use and Conditional Use Permit INTRODUCTION This memorandum is intended to provide the Council with an outline of the limited jurisdiction that the Council has in dealing with the pending application by Mercy High School and the Sisters of Mercy for a conditional use permit. DISCUSSION The Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy properties were annexed to the City in 1979. The property was pre-zoned by the Municipal Code as R-1,so the uses existing on the site were entitled to continue. Vested rights and annexation. Under Federal and State law,uses lawfully existing on the date that property is annexed into a municipality are entitled to continue to exist, even if the zoning by the annexing city is at variance with the existing uses. Nemmers vs. City of Dubuque(81,Cir. 1983)716 F.2d 1194, 1197. If a city were to violate this standard,the city would be liable for damages under the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions. See Goat Hill Tavern vs. City of Costa Mesa(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1519. In other words, a use that may be at variance from the city's zoning upon annexation becomes a "legally"nonconforming use subi ect to limitations on expansion and intensification under the city's codes. That use can continue in its "reasonably contemplated"form indefinitely. With regard to the Mercy High School property, the School applied for annexation in 1979; the annexation was not(and under California law cannot be) imposed on a property owner without the owner's consent. The application described the uses on the Mercy High School property as the following: Classrooms Cafeteria f 1 Vice Mayor and Council Use and Conditional Use Re: Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy—Nonconforming Permit February 12, 2007 Page 2 Libraries Auditoriums Athletic Facilities, swimming pool,tennis courts Ancillary Facilities Kohl Mansion The Burlingame Zoning Code provides that land annexed to the City automatically becomes classified as R-1 without any other action by the City. Section 25.12.030. This is the assumption that is built into the application filed by Mercy High School as well and on which the High School explicitly relied in making its application for annexation. In addition,the High School and the Sisters had applied lied t the eecounty of all related Mateo eo and d obtained a conditional use permit to "allow high l, ties" on the properties in 1961, subject to three conditions: 1 Providing adequate off-street parking to the satisfaction of the Planning Director 2. Permit is for the Library and Administration building extensions and the building now under construction. 3. This permit also overs general operation of high school, college, convent, and related activities on this site. Nonconforming status. In the R-1 district, all of the listed uses at Mercy High School would be allowed as part of a City conditional use permit. As approved by the County,there is nothing in the City Zoning Code that prohibits the activities;it only makes them a conditional use. In addition,the LAFCO checklist"Plan for Providing Services"finds that the City's prezoning to R 1 would have no effect on the properties. Therefore, the nonconforming aspect of the uses was simply that there was no express, Citv conditional use permit in effect for the property. There is no case law that I have been able to locate that determines whether a conditional use that has been approved by another government agency loses its conditionally approved status when the property on which the use is located is annexed or incorporated into another agency and when the annexing agency has the same conditional use allowance. California law holds that a land use approval"runs with the land"—in other words,the transfer of title in the property from one owner to another does not require the new owner to apply for a new ' land use approval. However,there is no case law holding that the same rule applies to the regulating government agencies. In City of South San Francisco vs. Berry (1953)120 Cal.App.2d 252, the Vice Mayor and Council Re: Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy Nonconforming Use and Conditional Use Permit February 12,2007 Page 3 Court rejected the idea of a County-permitted use"running with the land"upon annexation when the annexing city prohibits the use. Yet the uses approved by the County have not become nonconforming because they are prohibited in the R-1 district by City zoning as is the usual case for a nonconforming use. They are only "nonconforming"because the use permit was issued by the County rather than the City. If the properties are considered as a nonconforming use,they are then subject to the provisions of Chapter 25.50. A nonconforming use is entitled to a number of protections to continue,but if the use is"intensified" or a new structure built, then the intensification or new construction has to be integrated into a permit process in some way. There is concern in the neighborhood that use of the Kohl Mansion has begun to exceed what might be reasonably contemplated for use as a high school or college. California standards found in caselaw and the Municipal Code focus on three points in evaluating the operation of a nonconforming use:First,an increase in volume alone is not an expansion of a nonconforming use; the example given is that if a grocery store that was a nonconforming use experienced an increase in the e of uld not be an enlargementer of customers or the of the use. See HansenBrothershers Enterprise�s,IInc. vos. Bd. of Supervorintensification1996) 12 CalAth 533, 573. In other words, if enrollment were to increase at a school operating as a nonconforming use, that increased enrollment would not constitute a intensification or expansion. However,construction of additional classrooms would. Second, however, a nonconforming use can be limited to ensure that it is not a public nuisance. County of Imperial vs. Mcdougal (1977) 19 Cal.3d 505, 512-13 (as can a conditional use — see Burlingame Municipal Code § 25.16.140(a)(5). Third, under the Burlingame Municipal Code, a nonconforming use cannot be transformed into another nonconforming use;instead,a conditional use permit approval d even rezoning ewould be required. For example, transforming the campus into a winery probably ed without a zoning change. See City of Los Altos vs. Silvey(1962)206 Cal.App.2d 606. The test could be further phrased in possibly two ways: 1)has the nonconforming use changed in such a substantial or fundamental way that it could not have been within the contemplation of the originally described use(high school,convent, etc.);and 2)has an accessory or a P redominant or primary use s`'vithoud t benefit of a use on the property (that is also nonconforming)become conditional use permit or amendment? 4 1 vice Mayor and Council Re: Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy—Nonconforming Use and Conditional Use Permit February 12, 2007 Page 4 This analysis also responds to the question as to whether the City should attempt to determine exactly how things worked on the property in 1979 and set the limits at that point or instead,should use this current process to apply the three steps set out above and develop a conditional use permit that meets the basic findings of such a permit under the Zoning Code: (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, 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: (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. CONCLUSION This application will establish the baseline of use in a comprehensive conditional use permit, and then any new construction or intensification will be integrated in the future into that baseline as an amendment to this conditional use permit. As you may recall,this is the same process that was used in 2002 when the City approved conditional use permits for existing restaurants in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas. Over the past 10 years, the City has worked to define conditional uses in a way in which their performance can be measured against the expectations that were expressed when they were approved. That is the same effort being made on this application. Therefore,this process is to establish the existing baseline of the conditional use of the property with appropriate conditions by pulling together the history of land use approvals for the properties and the lessons learned from the experience gained from those 45 or more years. ATTACHMENT D ilm Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Regional Community of Burlingame Hermanas de la Misericordia de las Americas We understand that some of our neighbors may not have received this previous mailing. We However, it is important to us that all neighbors apologize if you are now receiving it twice. who wish to have this information do so. January 26, 2007 Dear Neighbor: As you may have heard,the Sisters of Mercy (Burlingame) campus can now be contacted by telephone twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Over the last few years,the campus has taken a number of steps toward improving access for neighbors to campus information and for voicing concerns. This recent change provides another means to facilitate this. With this expanded telephone coverage,the following process is in place for contacting on-site campus representatives: Daytime Hours (8 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.) For matters related to Mercy High School Burlingame Laura Held,Principal 650-762-1100 For matters related to Kohl Mansion(Weekdays 9 a.m to 5 p.m.) Terri Baldocchi or Dianne Devine 650-762-1134 or 762-1137 �- For other matters related to the Sisters of Mercy campus Jean Hastie, Campus Executive Director 650-340-7441 Early Evening and Early Mornina Hours (5:00 p.m. to 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.to 8 a.m.) For matters related to Mercy High School and the Campus Campus Receptionist, Sisters of Mercy Main Telephone Number 650-340-7400 For matters related to Kohl Mansion Kohl Mansion Event Staff 650-762-1135 Or Campus Receptionist, Sisters of Mercy Main Telephone Number RECONED Night Hours FEB 12 2007 (10 p.m.to 6 a.m.) For matters related to Mercy High School,Kohl Mansion,and the CITY OF BURLINGAME Campus PLANNING DEPT. Assistant to the Campus Executive Director Sisters of Mercy Main Telephone Number 650-340-7400 We hope that the above information will clarify any questions regarding what numbers to call for information or assistance. If you have any questions regarding this new process,please don't hesitate to call me. jine rely Administration an S.H tie 2300 Adeline Drive Burlingame,CA 94010-5599 Campus Executive Director (650)340-7410 Fax(650)347-2550 VAe ' v vSb Ca , 0 �V�(Y LAI o J viv Qa -T-vi t � Q o v 1002 ems. ' m 60 A �S t VVA lk V, �� V, he.A4 &Plllk ckk Vkk� Q",- e-vv�eA -4�,` ., SFE , � D t �a Gds✓ceryl � BY r �'M be, INM41, rlis sc hoo I gur/ aoo6 �/c � . J fG, er� h � s onl �� L � olu �✓jbu S c 11'C le /e�r�%^�y- 7L(2 fi� e back � a �e o ?L /y/ � s f A so��� �uY� ti �� J ha��.l bye( �( /v � b �J 1S fhe � X � I�� hq fhE r �e ct � excessi� fd e � bac 1�O C( vxl� b a � re C�, �tfeG� Wh � nJ Usi�✓ res� �lehf �� � Siv(� S '/ �-2e�S / �U �h (, G� q�� /SID !" !�' �/✓ � She ✓� .�ay��l VFE�81 2 2007 1476 Alvarado Avenue By ==A& Burlingame, California 54010 February 12, 2007 Burlingame City Council RE: Mercy: parking, traffic, noise About a month ago I sat through 2.5 hours of irrelevant statements on how wonderful Mercy was, is and will be. None of the statements related to the issue at hand-their conditional use permit. Bottom line-Mercy is a business and, as such, is seeking ways to make money. This business is, however, in an R-1 zone which demands tranquility and quietness. No neighbor disputes the community service, educational opportunities or open -spaces offered by Mercy. The problem is - and always has been - parking, traffic and noise. Parking has generally been addressed after, many years of neighborhood complaints. When students now park on residential streets our vigilence and Mercy's cooperation usually resolve the problem. Traffic has never been addressed. Mercy has 3 main gates with cars picking-up and dropping-off twice on school days. Outcoming traffic generally turns left Which always slows traffic on Adeline and Alvarado. It is not uncommon to have a 30 ,;minute back-up on Alvarado each afternoon as school lets out. Home owner's parked cars are often hit and residents cannot get into or out of driveways. Event traffic is generally one-way in at the begging and one-way out at the end. The steady stream of departing cars, busses and trucks at midnight is noisy and disrubtive. The most practicle solution is making traffic •rrithin Mercy one way ... though this does not reduce the number of cars it will facilitate flow and offer safety to students, drivers and parked cars. Noise...never truly addressed. ..can too be controlled by eliminating all electronic enhance,—, ents for voice and music, stopping Sunday through Thu,qday functions by 9:OOPM, stopping Friday-Saturday functions by 1 O:OOPM and requiring all traffic (cars, busses, rental trucks) off the grounds within 1 hour after closure. I truly wonder about the legality of Mercy's even holding commercial evens on school grounds within the R-1 zone. Nueva Day School and Crystal Springs/Uplands can no longer offer commercial events. S' rely, i if[) Harmon r. and s. Robert K J [FFEB Kirsten and Jok Legallet 12 2007 1474AlvaradoAve. Burlingame, CA 94010 650 344-7094 kirsteniok(iDaol.com February 12, 2007 City Council of Burlingame Burlingame, Ca Subject: Mercy's Conditional Use Permit on the city council's agenda February 21 , 2007 Madam Mayor and City Council Members, My wife and I helped draft the Mercy Neighborhood Proposed Solution for the Mercy Baseline/Conditional Use Permit which represents a consensus of the neighborhood. We have lived at 1474 Alvarado Ave., four homes from the upper entrance to Mercy, for over forty years. We support and appreciate having Mercy School and related religious entities as our neighbors. Earlier, about twenty or more years ago, traffic, parking, noise and commercial events were not a nuisance or a problem and therefore accepted. Today this has changed, especially since more and more parents are delivering their student to the school, in most cases one student per vehicle, more students are driving to school thus requiring more parking demand and the `— number of commercial events has increased dramatically. Even more distressing is that the commercial events are now using amplified sound more, longer and louder. Neighbors and we would have liked to have had the opportunity to have input after Mercy applied for a conditional use permit. Before applying Mercy said they would have a neighborhood meeting to discuss their conditional use permit application but this meeting never happened. Neither did we have an opportunity to discuss the conditional use permit and give our input with the Planning Department. We were unaware that Mercy had applied for a conditional use permit until we received a notice five days before the Planning Commission was going to vote on accepting Mercy's conditional use permit, as proposed by the Planning Department, on January 21'. In the past, I estimate twenty years ago and before, there was traffic through the Mercy complex. Since there was traffic through the complex then it seems possible and reasonable to have one way traffic through the complex today thus spreading out the heavier traffic present today. Having a one way traffic pattern would greatly improve the traffic flow in and out of the campus as well as in the surrounding neighborhood. This would greatly reduce the two daily traffic jams and greatly increase the safety of the students, the vehicles bringing them to the school and all of the residents and visitors in the neighborhood. Burlingame's noise regulations, in regards to loud speakers, specifically states there will be no amplified sound in a public or private place which disturbs the neighborhood's peace and good order.We do not have quiet enjoyment of our homes when many of the non school events are being held at Mercy.We are requesting that amplified sound be restricted to inside the buildings and sound at the property line should not exceed the city's regulations for residential areas. We have been advised by council that commercial activities,renting out buildings for profit,is not allowed in R-1 zoning in Burlingame.R-1 zoning allows conditional use permits for operating schools but renting out the premises is not among the uses authorized with a conditional use permit in R-1 zones.This subject is covered in a letter to the Planning Commission,dated January 22,2007,and authored by Mathew Zinn,our council.We are not asking for the elimination of commercial events,only to limit them to one non school event per week.This would also reduce the incidents of property damage and debris disposed in our neighborhood which occurs with many of the commercial events. Further our council has also advised that a conditional use permit passes from one owner to the next owner of a piece of property,but when a property passes from one public jurisdiction to another,as happened when Mercy went from the San Mateo Count to the city of Burlingame, then the conditional use permit does not go with the property.Therefore Burlingame is not bound by the county's conditional use permit and there is no carrying forward of the county's conditions and the city has a clear slate when issuing a conditional use permit to Mercy.Therefore Mercy has been operating,since their entrance into the city,without a conditional use permit and out of compliance with R-1 zoning. Attached is Mercy Neighborhood Proposed Solution for the Mercy Baseline/Conditional Use Permit.We feel this is an equitable solution for both Mercy and the neighborhood and the conditional use permit should be modified to reflect these proposed solutions. Sincerely, Kirsten and Jok Legallet MERCY NEIGHBORS PROPOSED SOLUTIONS FOR THE MERCY BASELINE/ CUP: 1. One non -school event a week. 2. All events shall end by 9pm except Friday and Saturday, those events shall end by 10pm. All event traffic to exit Mercy property one hour after the event concludes. (This includes attendees, event staff, and trucks.) 3. Establish and maintain a one-way traffic pattern in and out of the Mercy campus. 4. Amplified sound shall only be allowed in the Kohl mansion (no amplified sound systems in any tents or outside on the lawn.) The noise from these events shall adhere to the noise regulations set in residential areas in Burlingame. 5. Mercy high school should remove the 17 parking spaces added at the entrance of the service road in 2002. This parking is unnecessary, and creates additional dangerous traffic on Adeline Drive. Please be aware of these facts: I. In Hillsborough, Crystal Springs and Uplands School and Nueva School are not allowed to have non-school events in their mansion. 2. In the last few years Mercy has held up to 4 back to back events in the evening with amplified sound (Thursday -Sunday). 3. Because of the topography, the sound travels differently and therefore some neighbors are impacted severely while others don't hear the noise at all. 4. Police noise complaints are not accurate and do not reflect the reported or unreported number of calls complaining of the loud noise, accidents and property damage. S. Neighbors have had cars hit by drunk drivers leaving the events, attendees have vomited on our front lawns and in the street and have been known to throw out empty liquor bottles and cans on our property. 6. There are 2 daily traffic jams that are the result of 2-way traffic entering and exiting the school. 7. There are other ways that Mercy can raise funds to support their school. They could raise their fees, solicit from alumni and create an endowment. The neighbors should not be inconvenienced by Mercy's commercial non-schoor events. Thnredav Fehnuwry R. 2007 JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW February 12, U207 I'! Dear Honorable Mayor and Honorable City Council members, We are petitioning the Burlingame City Council as a result of the Conditional Use Permit that was granted to the Sisters of Mercy on January 22, 2007. While we are very supportive of the contributions to our community by the Sisters of Mercy, we have concerns over the current circumstances and future of our neighborhood. We realize that the Sisters of Mercy have many loyal and active supporters that do not experience any direct consequences from activities on the Campus. This perspective has been well represented in previous public forums. We represent a part of your constituency that is directly affected, on a daily basis, by the activities that take place on the Mercy Campus. Irrespective of the number of Mercy supporters that are not directly affected by noise, and property damage, we represent a group of neighbors whose quality of life and personal safety is threatened by the unchecked and ambiguous scope of the conditional use permit There are 3 main points that we believe are critical to a establishing and maintaining a strong balance between neighborhood residents and Sisters of Mercy desired land use: 1 . Neighborhood historic experiences are inconsistent with representations made by Mercy in the documents submitted to the planning commission for the 1/22/07 meeting. 1 . The department of City Planning process places the Burlingame resident at a disadvantage and has resulted in a Conditional Use Permit whose language is incomprehensible. 1 . Provide recommendations to amend the Conditional Use Permit in a way that will add balance to the Burlingame neighborhood residents, and address the needs of those neighbors directly affected by Mercy activities. Neighborhood historic experiences are inconsistent with representations made by Mercy. Issues between Sisters of Mercy, with respect to the Mercy Campus and Kohl Mansion have existed for many years. While each of us has different experiences and perspectives, I am representing a collective set of concerns. We all have been living in this neighborhood from 4 years to 40 years. There can be no debate that from the early 90's to today, there has been a consistent rise in- the number of events, noise, traffic and physical changes to the campus. Throughout these years, the neighborhood has endured many inconveniences resulting from the noise and amplified noise of late night parties. We hear the event related music and noise through our closed windows. We hear the tents being broken down until 2am and the diesel trucks barreling down our streets. We have had our cars hit by reckless `.- and drunk drivers who don't leave notes on windshields. We have Kohl Mansion event 2621 Adeline Drive. Burlingame 650-347-0157 1 JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW attendees stop their cars and vomit on our lawns and litter our homes with empty beer cans,liquor bottles and used condoms. We live with diesel buses waiting on Adeline, with their motors running,because they prefer not to enter the campus. We deal with the parents of the students and the students speeding on our streets,running stop signs and driving in the middle of the street forcing us to move out of the way to avoid head on collisions. This occurs up and down Alvarado,Adeline drive,and Poppy drive.There are 2 daily traffic jams that are the result of 2-way traffic entering and exiting the school. We have had to hire and pay professionals to enter the Mercy Campus to address serious issues of insects and vermin that the Sisters of Mercy were unwilling to address. During the summer of 2004,a resident paid to have over 10,000 wasps across over 10 nests eradicated from Adeline Street. The Sisters of Mercy refused,on numerous occasions,to take any responsibility for the impact of unmanaged wasp populations on their property. These problems represented significant safety and welfare threats to all of the residents bordering Adeline Drive When the noise becomes intolerable,we call the Burlingame Police to file noise complaints. These calls have resulted in no impact to the activities at Kohl mansion. We purchased our homes knowing that Mercy High School and Mercy Center were here. We saw the beautiful serene open space across the street as a positive thing and thought -� this would be a perfect place to raise our families. While we are supportive of the High School and Mercy Center activities,the use of Kohl Mansion for parties is not consistent with our residential community. In 2006,we noticed that there were fewer events at Kohl Mansion than in previous years. Mercy has not presented any detailed information with respect to the number of events that have been held at Kohl Mansion for any year of operation. It is perplexing that a Conditional use permit based on a current baseline performed by Mercy could not address that very basic information. It is also perplexing that at no stage of the City's planning process,was this information ever required. As neighbors,we are not looking forward to this summer. In the past,during the summer,we have been subjected to weeks of events,sometimes 4 nights in a row (Thursday evening,Friday evening,Saturday evening and Sunday evening.)where the noise from the Kohl Mansion flows freely throughout the neighborhood. When it is warm out,we wish to open our windows and cool our houses for necessary comfort. When we do this,we must live without any noise barrier as the noise enters from the Kohl Mansion's open door and windows and open tents,into our bedrooms. Department of Burlingame Ci1y planning process places the Burlingame resident at a disadvanta a and has resulted in a Conditional Use Permit whose language is incomprehensible. 2621 Adeline Drive.BurlinLyame 650-347-0157 2 JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW In 2004, Mercy requested for a permit to fix their aging gym. The neighborhood saw this as an opportunity to again voice our concerns and describe the inconveniences and disruptions that we live with on a daily basis. We attended the Planning Commission meeting to tell our story. The Planning Commission gave us 10 days to submit questions to Mercy. The neighbors worked diligently and submitted a thorough list of questions to the City within the allotted time frame. Mercy held three neighborhood meetings to discuss the gym project. We ask questions about the gym and ask what can they do about the noise and traffic from their events. Mercy declined to answer any questions that were not directly related to the gym project during the meetings. A few months later Mercy subsequently canceled the follow-up meeting that had been scheduled to discuss their answers to our questions. Mercy gave no explanation for the cancellation of the meetings. On January 17, 2007 we received a blue postcard from the City of Burlingame Planning Department. We asked our neighbors living on Benito, Hale, Poppy, Adeline,Alvarado, Hoover and Columbus, if they receive the postcard and if they planned to attend to the meeting. Most of them did not receive the postcard and had no idea what Mercy was requesting from the planning commission. As concerned neighbors, we went to the department to request copies of the CUP and baseline proposal that was submitted in December 2006. The Mercy report submitted to the City Planning Commission for the January 22, 2007 meeting claims that in 2006, according to Police records, there were only 2 noise complaints that have been filed with the City against Mercy/Kohl Mansion. A quick survey of fewer than 6 neighboring households indicated that there were at least 15 noise complaints made to the Police during 2006. This is over 2 noise complaints per household,further discussions with the Police about the numbers of complaints indicate that there is not a clear and consistent process used to log the and track the noise complaints. The information presented by Mercy has been using to paint a baseline that is not accurate and further supports a minimized position of Mercy's impact on our neighborhood. There were a number of recommendations made by the City Planner that were unclear and ambiguous. In addition, a number of inconsistencies were discovered. Recommendation#8 and Recommendation#10 do not make any sense and could not be explained by the City Planner, or The City Planning Commission in a clear and consistent manner. Kohl Mansion 8.That outside of ordinary school events,Kohl Mansion shall be used weekly for events,including,but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays,Saturdays, Sundays, weekday evenings after school,and up to a maximum of six(6) events during the school year, provided most guests arrive by bus during weekdays. Such uses shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests 2621 Adeline Drive. Burlimame 650-347-0157 3 JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW plus appropriate support staff per event; that any changes in the area --� leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 10. That amplified music (planning commission changed that to read amplified sound), with the exception of occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events,shall only occur inside the Kohl mansion and the music shall conclude by 11:00 p.m.; Prior to the Planning Commissions meeting held on Monday,January 22, we faxed in a list of questions and comments to the Planning Department. This was the first opportunity that the public was notified of the process that Mercy was undertaking, with respect to the CUP. At the meeting we patiently waited for our tum to speak in the 3- minute time allotment provided by the commission. We asked if the planning commission could please interpret items #8 and 10. "How many events will be allowed in one year? What about the music and the noise in the tents?The Planning Commission never addressed these questions. We asked what are Burlingame's laws on noise levels?" The response is 5 decibels over ambient noise. We know that the noise exceeds that limit. These same event and noise related questions were asked in our questions submitted to Mercy in 2004. None of this information was ever provided by Mercy at any point in the baseline study process. During the Planning Commission meeting, held on January 22, 2007, Mercy was asked specifically about the number of events that were held in Kohl mansion last year. Mercy responded that they did not know but could find out. None of the documents submitted to the City of Burlingame for the CUP approval process contained any information about the current part rental business being run by Mercy. What does a baseline represent if such basic information is not even provided? After our 3-minuted allotted time, several residents voiced support for Mercy and explained how the noise levels did not negatively impact them. As any high school physics student can explain, sound does not disperse evenly across open or built spaces. The wind direction, topography, building material and spatial configuration will all have an impact on sound dispersion. The information submitted by Mercy did not address or quantify in any manner, the frequency, volume and direction of the sound emanating from indoor and outdoor sound amplification equipment that is regularly used during Kohl Mansion events. When several neighborhood residents pointed out that the For-Profit activities of the Kohl Mansion were inconsistent with RI zoning, inconsistent with Mercy High School land use and inconsistent with the Sisters of Mercy land use, the Mercy spokesperson responded that: "Crystal Springs and Uplands school and Nueva school rent out their mansions for profit events." This statement was used as the justification of for-profit Kohl Mansion parties. Our research indicates that this statement presented to the Planning Commission by Mercy is false. Neither Crystal Springs Uplands nor Nueva 2621 Adeline Drive. Burlineame 650-347-0157 4 JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW will rent any of their facilities for any non-school for-profit or related event. In fact, the Town of Hillsborough specifically prohibits the schools from this type of use. This is based on many years of noise complaints from residents. This raises a number of interesting questions: • Why doesn't the City Planner and the Planning Commission look for similar circumstances in neighboring communities as a guide to help enlighten possible courses of action with respect to potentially inconsistent land uses? • With consideration of the misrepresentation of facts by Mercy, the presentment of questionable police statistical information and the lack of quantifiable land use/impact data with respect to inconsistent uses (noisy parties at the Kohl Mansion) how can the City of Burlingame take a position that disadvantages Burlingame citizens? • How can the City have a public process that allow the applicant to have the last word, and allow that last word to go unchallenged based on any facts. The statements made by Mercy were as a rebuttal to neighborhood concerns. The Planning Commissions process did not allow for anyone to make a comment about the false and incorrect information provided by the Mercy representative. Mercy pointed out that the funds raised from the Kohl Mansion activities are necessary to subsidize the costs of Mercy High School and the upkeep of the Kohl mansion. There are clearly other ways that Mercy could raise funds to support their school. They could raise their fees, solicit from alumni and expand their endowment. The neighbors should not be negatively impacted by Mercy's fund raising strategy. Mercy's commercial non-school events are not part of what Mercy was about during the initial annexation. As neighbors, we are in complete support of Mercy High School related activities, but we do draw a line when those activities are related solely on a financial basis with the burden being carried by the neighbors. The planning commission discussed some of the points and approved the CUP. A few of the resident's questions were answered. No clarifications were provided about the ambiguity of the City Planner's recommendations. We addressed the lack of clarity to the City Attorney, Larry Anderson. Mr. Anderson agreed that the language of these sections was not clear and indicated that the Planning Commission has refused to give any further clarification. During the school year our children need to get to be early bed and at a reasonable hour, to be prepared for school and not be tired. Being disturbed by loud music and traffic to 11 pm on weekday and Sunday nights is not the kind of activity typically associated with a high school. We want to work with Mercy so that everyone wins with this baseline and CUP. We are trying to be advocates for our children and for our city. Please help us succeed as parents, and help us help our children succeed. 2621 Adeline Drive. Burlineame 650-347-0157 5 JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW Recommendations to amend the Conditional Use Permit in a way that will add balance to the Burlingame neighborhood residents and address the needs of those neighbors directly affected by Mercy activities. Based on neighborhood discussions that take into account a span of over 40 years, combined with the information Mercy has brought forward, we have formulated a number of recommendations we would like the City to consider adopting as part of the Mercy CUP. We believe these amendments would strike a balance between Mercy's For-Profit activities and the neighborhood that are negatively impacted by Mercy's continued, and now expanding For-Profit Kohl Mansion activities. 1. Limit activities at Kohl mansion to include one non -school event a week. School activities between the hours of 7AM and 413101 would not be limited. 2. All Kohl Mansion events shall end by 9pm except Friday and Saturday events that shall end by 10pm. All event traffic to exit Mercy property one hour after the event concludes. (This includes attendees, event staff, and trucks.) 3. Amplified sound equipment shall only be allowed in the Kohl mansion (no amplified sound systems in any tents or outside on the lawn.) The noise from these events shall adhere to the noise regulations set in residential areas in Burlingame. 4. Mercy high school should relocate the 17 parking spaces added at the entrance of the service road in 2002. This parking is unnecessary, and creates additional dangerous traffic on Adeline Drive. 5. Establish and maintain a one-way traffic pattern in and out of the Mercy campus. Sincerely. kw Justin and Alexandra Kromelow 2621 Adeline Drive. Burlineame 650-347-0157 6 IIEB, 12. 2007 2 : 38PM Na. 3363 P. 2/10 JORGENSON, SIEGEL, MCCLURE S FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN 0. JQRGEN$ON 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE NO NICOLAS A FLEOEL MARVIN S. SIEGEL MENLO PARK CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 LEIGH F PRINCE WILLIAM L MCCLURE (650) 324-9300 KEVIN M. RODRIGUEZ JOHN 4 FLEOEL FAC51MILE (650) 32+4-0227 MARGARET A. $LOAN WWW,jsmf,com JOHN R, COSGROVE (RETIRED) DAN K. SIEGEL DIANE S, GREENBERG JENNIFER K FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY February 12, 2007 Sent via Facsimile: 650.696-3790 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is written on behalf of our clients, the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School (collectively "Applicants"), who applied for a Conditional Use Permit to establish -- a baseline of existing uses on the property located at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, Burlingame (Property"). In the late afternoon before the Planning Commission hearing on January 22, 2007, Shute, Mihaley & Weinberger submitted a letter to the Planning Commission on behalf of Linda Abbey ("Opponents") outlining a number of legal arguments against the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Because this letter was submitted at the eleventh hour, Applicants did not have an opportunity to respond to the arguments presented therein and would like to do so now. Permitted Use Although Opponents argue otherwise, the uses on the Property are permitted. Applicants first obtained a use permit from the County of San Mateo ("County") in 1961 to allow a "high school, college, convent and all related activities" on the Property. (See Exhibit C to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1 , 2006) In 1973, the Applicants obtained a second use permit from the County to allow an additional convent, including a nursing care facility, on the Property. (See Exhibit D to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1 , 2006.) Finally, in 1979, the Property was annexed from the County's R-1 single family zone into the City of Burlingame's R-1 single family zone, (See Exhibit.E to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1 , 2006.) A case actually involving the City of Burlingame ("City") established the law that use permits run with the land. (See Anza Parking Corp. v. City of Burlingame (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 855, 858 ("it is widely held that a conditional use permit creates a right which runs with the land."); emphasis added.) No additional permit was needed and the LAFCo application acknowledged NADATA\CIients\S'Sistera of Morcy\CLIP Applicauomcoundl M Legal Args 2.12.07.doc EE8. 12.2007 2:38PM N0.3363—P. 3/10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame February 12,2007—Page 2 that no permits were needed upon annexation. (See Exhibit E to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1,2006.) No Illegal Exoansion of Use Opponents incorrectly argue that there has been an illegal expansion of use on the Property since annexation. The Opponents argue that commercial uses on the Property did not exist at the time of annexation. The LAFCO annexation application indicates commercial uses existed on the property at the time of annexation: 'The community benefits derived by the City and the citizens of Burlingame are commercial as well as cultural." (See Exhibit E to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1,2006;emphasis added.) Furthermore,information from the City itself evidences the fact that all of the current uses on the Property existed prior to annexation. • In a memo dated November 5, 2001, the City's Chief of Police, Fred Palmer, states: "All of the current activities on site were in place at the time of annexation." (See Exhibit H to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1,2006;emphasis added.) _ • In a letter to Opponents dated November 9,2001,the City Attorney states:"Kohl Mansion was available for public use,on a rental basis,in the early 1970's, prior to annexation." (See Exhibit I to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1,2006.) • In a memo dated April 4, 2005, City Planning staff state: "All of the current activities were in place at the time of annexation. (See Exhibit K to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1,2006;emphasis added,) There has been no impermissible expansion, All of the uses on the Property existed at the time of annexation and were permitted on the Property under use permits previously received from the County. Consistent with the R-1 Zoning The Opponents also argue that the use of Kohl Mansion cannot be legalized with a Conditional Use Permit(even though it already has been)because it is inconsistent Even if the uses on the Property were legal nonconforming, as argued by the Opponents,Hansen Brothers Enterprise,Inc.v.Board of Supervisors of Nevada County (1996) 12 CalAth 533, holds that a gradual and natural increase in the lawful nonconforming use of a property is legal. If there has been a gradual expansion of the commercial use of the Property, that is expected and allowed. N:OATACiantslStSistat6 of Mer XUP Ap*nfiamcouncil m legal Args.da EB, 12. 2007 2 : 39PM N0. 3363—P. 4/10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame February 12, 2007 — Page 3 with the R-1 zoning. R-1 zoning allows churches, convents, parish houses and schools. These are the uses on the Property. Just as churches hold weddings and provide a place for the community to gather for religious, cultural and civic events, Kohl Mansion also provides a venue for these activities. The evidence shows that the City considered these uses consistent upon annexation and afterwards. In a letter to Opponents dated January 2, 2002, the City Manager, states: "When the school/convent were annexed in 1979, the city accepted the existing uses on site and found them consistent with the City's General Plan and pre-zoned the site R-1 ." (See Exhibit J to the materials submitted to the Planning Commission on November 1 , 2006; emphasis added.) Therefore, the uses are consistent and Opponents' argument is unpersuasive. The Opponents' arguments are all designed to confuse and distract the City. There is no legal impediment to approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The uses are permitted, existed prior to annexation and are consistent with the zoning. In fact, continuation of the existing uses is encouraged by the City's General Plan. (See General Plan, Open Space Element, pg. OS-16) It is legal for and the City Council is urged to approve this Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Marga t A. Sloan cc: Sister Ellene Egan Jean Hastie Laura Held NADATA1Cfian1s1$\S1ster5 of Mercy=P App!icefionSCound1 re Legal Args.doc rEB. 12, 2007 2 : 39PM N0. 3363 P. 6/ 10 JORGENSON, SIEGEL, MCCLURE S FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN D. JORGENSON 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE ZIO NICOLA3 A. fL£GEL MARVIN & SIEOEI MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA "OZE-3392 LEIGH F. PRINCE (660) 32Q-4840 WILLIAM L MCCLURE KEVIN M. RODRIGUEZ JOHN L FLEGEL FACSIMILE (660) 324-0227 MARGARET A SLOAN www-jsmf.com JQHN R. COSUROVE DAN K SIEGEL (RETIRED) DIANE S. GREENBERG JENNIFER K FRIEW"N MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY February 12, 2007 Sent via Facsimile: 650-696-3790 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use permit Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is written on behalf of our clients, the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School (collectively "Applicants"), who applied for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a baseline of existing uses on the property located at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive in Burlingame ("Property"). On January 22, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously (6-0-1 , with Commissioner Brownrigg not voting due to a conflict of interest) to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council and the Applicants would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few of the conditions contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission hearing. Although each condition which the Applicants wish to clarify is discussed individually, for your convenience attached as Exhibit A is a revised set of conditions that the Applicants believe clarify and more accurately reflect what was discussed and voted on at the Planning Commission hearing. The Applicants are requesting that Condition No. 7 be revised so that it is acceptable for Mercy High School to designate a location on campus where students can be dropped off, rather than limiting it to directly in front of the school. The Applicants are requesting that Condition No. 9 be eliminated. During the hearing, Commissioner Terrones spoke in favor of this type of condition. However, when the Planning Commission made the motion and discussed which items to add as conditions, this was not included. With respect to Condition Nos. 10 and 1111 at the hearing the discussion centered around the 'These conditions appear as 9 and 10, respectively in Exhibit A. N_ DATA1CIIenf&1S\SIsters of MercylCorres\Coundl.doc FE6. 12, 2007 2, 39PM N0, 3363 P. 7/10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame February 12, 2007— Page 2 fact that noise concerns were specifically about Kohl Mansion. There have never been any noise issues related to the Sisters of Mercy or the Mercy Center. Therefore,the Applicants are requesting that these conditions be clarified to indicate that they are specifically about Kohl Mansion, not the entire site. This is especially important with regard to the noise meters discussed in Condition No. 11 since it would be an enormous burden to walk around the entire Property, which is almost forty (40) acres large, as opposed to walking around the approximately three (3) acre portion of the Property where Kohl Mansion is located. With respect to Condition No. 15,the Applicants are requesting that the requirement of mailing the calendar of events be removed. At the Planning Commission hearing there was no discussion regarding mailing, only publishing of the information on-line, Mailing a calendar would be overly burdensome and costly, Placing the calendar on-line will make it adequately available for any interested resident to obtain the information at any time. Therefore, the requirement that a calendar be mailed should be removed. Other than the items specifically discussed above, there were only a few minor typographical and organizational issues that the Applicants have corrected between the conditions of approval in the Planning Commission minutes and Exhibit A. Overall,the Applicant wishes to recognize the thoughtful work that City staff and the Planning Commission have done in creating these conditions which will establish a baseline and adequately address the concerns that a few neighbors have raised throughout this process. If the minor modifications discussed in this letter are made, the conditions will accurately reflect the Planning Commissions decision. The Applicants look forward to discussing this matter with you at the hearing on February 21,2007, answering any questions you may have, and obtaining approval of their Conditional Use Permit. Sincerely, Margare A. Sloan cc: Sister Ellene Egan Jean Hastis Laura Held N:\DATAIGIentMSZisters of Mercy\CorrWCouncll.doc fEB. 12.2007 2:40PM N0.3363 P. 8/10 Exhibit A MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday,from August to mid-June,with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Mandaythrough Friday; 3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas;no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; 4. that all buses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site;parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5, that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may only occur during the hours of 8:15 a.m.to 3.15 p.m.,Monday through Friday; 6. that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday,with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that all vehicles dropping off or picking up students for Mercy High School or the Montessori Preschool shall enter the campus though the gates and drop off or pick up students on campus in designated areas; 8. that any intensification of use,including the maximum number of students enrolled in school,the number of support educators and staff,or the number of individuals enrolled in summer school and sports programs,which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; KOHL MANSION 9. that the base line for defining noise problems related to Kohl Mansion shall be the established City standard which includes:any noise which is five(5)decibels over the ambient noise level at property line at the time of the event; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; 10. that the agency on site responsible for leasing Kohl Mansion for non-school events shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s), designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors;that the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meter(s);that Kohl Mansion staff shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24-hour period along the property line; and that during each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year,the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log; the log shall document which events used FEB. 12. 2007 2:40PM N0. 3363 P. 9/10 mechanical amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside, including those events with music; this data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; 11. that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall only be used for events, including, but not limited to; receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays; weekday evenings after school; and, in addition, up to a maximum of six (6) events may be held on weekdays during the school year, provided most guests arrive by bus. Such uses of the Kohl Mansion shall be considered along with the other events on the campus and the collective events shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus a total of 50 event support staff on the campus, for a maximum of 350 persons; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums as stated in this and other conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 12. that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; 13. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "takedown" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; MERCY CENTER 14. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats, which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of(10) days, with an average of 33 retreat participants; 15. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to activities such as the Sunday speaker series;Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation; chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to,the Friday evening Taize service;Sunday mass;organizational meetings; and the Mercy Center bookstore, Day Programs shall only be scheduled during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY 16. that the Labyrinth Garden shall only be open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset; 17. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for the Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; FEB. 12. 2007 2:40PM N0. 3363 P. 10/10 18. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for the Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 19. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 20. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m, daily, and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees.- ENTIRE mployees;ENTIRE SITE 21. thatthe combined total of participants for events scheduled atthe Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at anyone time; 22. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking forthe event participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site, there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets; 23. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24f7 phone number for emergencies and complaints;that this telephone'hot line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and that, in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion,a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; 24. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online a comprehensive calendar of events for the campus, the calendar of events shall include,ata minimum,the nature of the event,the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; and 25. that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year (January 2008) to evaluate the effectiveness of the conditions in reflecting a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties which compose this site, this review shall include a review of any complaints logged, including the responses and resolutions of the complaints, and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or from the administration of the conditions of approval. SHUTE, MIHAIY & WFIN13ERGER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAT E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR,- 396 HAYES STREET KEVIN P. RUNDr _ MARK I. WEINBE'RGER 1104E-20031 SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 ANDREA RUIZ-ESOUIDE FRAN M. LAYFON SHERIDAN J. PAUKEA RACHEL B. HOOPER TELEPHONE: (41 5) 552-7272 ELENA K. SAKONHOUSE ELLEN J. GABBERFACSIMILE: (41 5) 55Z-5515 MICHELLE WILDE ANDERSON TAMARA S. GALANTER DOUG A. OSEOI ANDREW W. SCHWARTZ WWW.SMWLAW.COM ELLISON FOLK LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP RICHARD S. TAYLOR CARMEN J. BORG, AICP WILLIAM J. WHITE VRBAN v1A.NER3 ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER OSA L. WOLFF DAVID NAWI MATTHEW U. ZINN OF COUNSEL ' CATHERINE O. ENGBERG AMY J. BRICKER GABRIEL M.B. ROSS DEBORAH L. KEETH WINTER KING 'SENIOR COUNSEL February 12, 2007 Via Facsimile and E-mail Honorable Mayor Terry Nagel and Honorable Members of the City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission approval of a conditional use permit for 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive Dear Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council: I write on behalf of my clients, Linda Abbey, who lives at 2415 Adeline Drive, and Jok Legallet, who lives at 1474 Alvarado Ave. Both are neighbors of the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School properties ("Mercy properties'). I write in support of Ms. Abbey's administrative appeal from the Planning Commission's January 22, 2007 approval of a conditional use permit ("CUP") for the Mercy properties. My clients are concerned about the impacts of the uses of the Mercy properties on neighboring property.owners. At the outset, I want to state clearly that my clients are not opposed to the continued operation of the High School or the Sisters of Mercy convent. Rather, they are concerned that the effects of those and other land uses on adjacent residential uses in the . R-1 zone be properly controlled. As it stands, the Planning Commission's decision fails to adequately protect the neighbors' quiet enjoyment of their properties. Although we have serious concerns about the legality of the Commission's decision, those concerns could be substantially mitigated by appropriate conditions of approval designed to limit off-site impacts. The applicant has requested City approval of a CUP to set the parameters VE D "baseline" for the use of the properties. The Planning Commission approved a CUIf ' ,F FEB 1 3 2007 •'i :N= BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February 12, 2007 Page 2 subject to several conditions of approval. Nevertheless, there are numerous gaps in those conditions, as described here and in the other letters and testimony that will be presented by the neighbors. This letter focuses principally on my clients' legal concerns; .additional letters .and testimony will address the impacts of the proposed uses of the Mercy properties. I. HOSTING OF PRIVATE EVENTS AT KOHL MANSION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE R-1 ZONE AND THUS CANNOT BE CONTINUED EVEN WITH A .CUP. The applicant seeks approval for the use of Kohl Mansion .on the Mercy High School property for various,private events, such as weddings and parties. The application packet makes clear that this is a for-profit venture. See Letter from Margaret Sloan to Planning Commission (Jan. 10, 2007) ("Sloan Letter"), Ex. 1 at 7 ("Kohl Mansion's events are for profit."). The Mansion hosts an average of 90 such events per year. Id. The CUP as approved by the Planning Commission imposes no limit whatsoever on the number of events to be allowed at the Mansion. As an initial matter, the applicant has not shown that these uses of Kohl Mansion are legal nonconforming uses. There is no evidence (1) that Kohl Mansion was rented out for private parties before annexation, (2) that the County zoning authorized such use prior to annexation, or (3) if it had been so rented, that it was rented as frequently as 90 times per year or for up to 300 guests.' Indeed, the applicant's "Use Justification Matrix" supplied with the application provides no such evidence.; Under "Private Rentals,".the matrix lists only three City letters and memos that themselves provide no evidence, but only generic assertions about the supposed preexisting use. The LAFCO application and environmental review likewise make no mention of private events at the Mansion. Mercy High School is in the best position to demonstrate that its use of Kohl Mansion was legal at annexation, yet they have not done so. it is well-established that "the burden is always on the party seeking to establish the nonconforming use to show that the use did preexist." .City & County of San Francisco v. Bd. of Permit Appeals, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1099, 1107 (1989) (emphasis added). By contrast, there is evidence that the use of Kohl Mansion has changed and intensified since annexation. Indeed, one resident notes that "the activities and neighborhood impact of evening activities at Kohl Mansion have changed dramatically" ' Even assuming the Mansion had been rented out prior to annexation, an increase in the frequency or size of the events would constitute an extension of use prohibited 'by GENE® Municipal Code. Muni. Code § 25.50.020. FEB 13 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February 12,2007 Page 3 even since 1988. Letter of Virginia Wright and Richard Blarney(May 23,2005). My client has also personally observed that the frequency and intensity of use of the property for parties has increased over the years. Further,this use of Kohl Mansion cannot be legalized by issuance of a CUP,because the use is inconsistent with the Mercy High School property's R-1 zoning. The R-1 zone allows the following as conditional uses: "[s]chools,public and private, including religious or parochial schools." Muni.Code§25.28.030(b). This plainly authorizes,with a CUP,use of the property for Mercy High School. Use as a venue for weddings and other parties,however,is not among the uses authorized with a conditional use permit. Nor can.such uses reasonably be considered accessory uses of a school. See id.§25.08.020(defining accessory use as"a use customarily incidental to the princirl use of land and/or building located on the same lot with the main building or use"). Holding weddings and parties with hundreds of guests an average of 90 times per year until 11 p.m,is hardly"customarily incidental"to the operation of a school. Indeed, the applicant itself has clearly distinguished the Kohl Mansion events from school events: "Kohl Mansion's events are for profit. Mercy High School events are for the well-being and curriculum for Mercy High School." Sloan Letter,Ex.1,at 7. The conditions of approval imposed by the Commission make the same distinction: "outside of ordinary school events,Kohl Mansion shall only be used...." Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes(Jan.22,2007)("Minutes")at 8(Condition 12)(emphasis added); see also id.(Condition 11)("leasing the Kohl Mansion for non-school events"). It is unsurprising that these uses are not authorized in a residential zoning district,given that they conflict with the neighboring residential land uses that the R-1 zoning district was designed to protect. Events at the Mansion produce noise and traffic that disturbs neighboring residents late into the night,both from the eventsthemselves and the clean up activities that follow the events. As in Burlingame,in nearby Hillsborough,private schools are authorized in the residential zoning district with a use permit. See Hillsborough Muni.Code§ 17.16.010(B)(2). However,unlike Burlingame,the Hillsborough zoning code explicitly authorizes,under limited conditions,"nonschool events"at private schools,including the sort of private events held at Kohl Mansion. See id. §17.16.030(1). Moreover,the 2 Note that even if parties and weddings were"customarily incidental"to a convent, which they plainly are not,that would not be adequate to support their occurrence on the high school property: an accessory use is"a use customarily incidental to the principal use of land and/or building located on the same lot with the main building or use." M CEIVED Code§25.08.020(emphasis added). FEB 1 3 2007 C-1 Ff OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February. 12, 2007 Page 4 Town requires that schools obtain a special permit before holding such events for fundraising purposes.3 See id. ch. 5.16. The purpose of this permitting requirement is to regulate the holding of fundraising events so as to avoid or minimize (1) traffic, parking and public safety problems relating to the events; (2) disturbance or inconvenience to the neighbors and the neighborhoods where the fundraising .events will take place; and (3) any other adverse consequences to the public health, safety or welfare .resulting from holding the events. Id. § 5.16.010. These special regulatory requirements imposed by a neighboring jurisdiction-demonstrate that non-school events such as those private parties held at Kohl Mansion are not "customarily incidental" to, and thus not allowed as of right at, private schools. Rather, they are exceptional activities with a well-recognized potential for adverse impacts on adjoining land uses. The Commission erred in approving a CUP to authorize uses that are.not --� identified as conditionally permitted uses in the relevant zoning district or uses that are properly accessory to those conditionally permitted uses. Indeed, what these uses require is a zoning amendment, not a CUP. H. CONTRARY TO ITS CONTENTION, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT ALREADY HAVE A CUP FOR PURPOSES OF THE CITY'S ZONING CODE. The applicant argued before the Planning Commission that it already has a CUP for the properties, and thus that it was not applying for a CUP from the City.4 See Minutes at 6. The applicant points to a CUP issued by San Mateo County prior to annexation and cites a case, Anza v. City of Burlingame, 195 Cal. App. 3d 855 (1.987), as indicating that a CUP "runs with the land." This is incorrect; the applicant must obtain a 3 Hillsborough distinguishes between the kind of private parties and weddings held at Kohl Mansion—for which a permit is required—from events to which only the school community (e.g., students and their families) is invited—for which a permit is not required. See Hillsborough Muni. Code § 5.16.0.20(B), (D). 4 The applicant insists that it is only seeking to establish a "baseline" for the property, not that it is seeking a CUP. No provision of the Municipal Code or state planning and zoning law provides that a property owner can apply for a "baseline." Issuance of a CUP however, establishes the universe of allowable uses for the subject property. r"t 1V ED FEB 13 2007 i,:I OF BURLINGAME Lei aNIMIMr, nF=PT Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February 12, 2007 Page 5 CUP from the City if it-seeks to become a legal conforming use under the Municipal Code. The applicant's use of the properties is currently a nonconforming use, because they do not have a CUP from the City to authorize the use of the properties as a school and convent the Code authorizes such uses in the R-1 zone only with a CUP. Muni. Code § 25.2$,030. However, because those uses were in existence at the time of annexation, they are legal nonconforming uses to the extent that(1)they were existing and legal under the County Code prior to annexation,:and (2) they have not been .expanded or intensified in the intervening year&5 Muni. Code §§ 25.50.010, .020. Accordingly, before it can make any further modification of the properties to expand or change structures or uses, the applicant must obtain a CUP from the City to legalize its existing uses. The applicant's CUP from the County does not qualify as a.CUP for purposes of the City's zoning code. While a CUP does "run with the land,"this means only that a CUP continues to apply to a property when ownership of the property changes;the subsequent owner retains the benefit of the CUP. By contrast, the case cited by the applicant does not even hint that a CUP retains legal effect when the jurisdiction applicable to the property changes. In fact, one case has expressly held that a county's land use controls cease to have any application to a property once it is annexed into a city. See City of South San Francisco v..Berry, 120 Cal. App. 2d.252 (1953). Moreover, the court explicitly rejected the notion that"the county zoning ordinance `runs with the land' when the land leaves the county upon being annexed to a city."' Id at 254. While some uses of the properties here may be "grandfathered" as legal nonconforming uses under Chapter 25.50 of the City's Municipal Code, the County's CUP has no other legal effect now that the properties are within the City's jurisdiction. The applicant must obtain a CUP from the City if.the uses of the properties are to be converted to conforming uses so that they may be expanded or changed. 5 In fact, as noted in this letter and other comments of the neighbors, several uses of the property have been expanded or intensified in the intervening years and therefore are not legal nonconforming uses, but rather illegal nonconforming uses. 6 Indeed, if the applicant is correct,the legal nonconforming use provisions of the Municipal Code would be pointless. The land use approvals issued by the County would "run with the land" as it is annexed into the City, and thus the uses would have to be considered conforming uses under City zoning. This would also deprive the City of i `— authority to impose its own conditions on a use that may have adverse effects onIVE® .surrounding properties.. FEB 13 2007 Y OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February 12,2007 Page 6 III. THE APPLICANT HAS IMPROPERLY EXPANDED PARKING ON THE MERCY PROPERTIES. In its annexation application to LAFCo in 1979,the applicant stated that there were 55 marked parking spaces on the Sisters of Mercy property and 59 on the.High School property,for a total of 114 parking spaces. LAFCo Application,App.A,at 1. The traffic study submitted with the CUP application,by contrast,reveals at total of 382 parking spaces on the properties,an increase of over 268 spaces since annexation. See Fehr and Peers Memorandum,at 5 tbl.1. The nonconforming use chapter of the Municipal Code states that"No nonconforming use shall be extended within the structure where it exists,beyond the confines of the structure which it occupies or the location upon which it is situated. Parking shall be considered a use. Muni.Code§25.50.020(emphasis added). This provision could not be clearer: parking for a legal nonconforming use may not be expanded. The applicant has more than tripled the parking spaces on the Mercy properties since annexation,in violation of section 25.50.020 of the Municipal Code. Moreover,Ms.Abbey,who lives directly across from the service driveway on Adeline Drive,has personalty witnessed the construction of new parking on the property since the 1979 annexation. In 2002,the applicant added approximately 17 new parking spaces to a parking lot on the service driveway.7 That parking lot has created a concomitant increase in traffic on Adeline and the use of the service driveway. (The applicant's traffic analysis shows 21 morning peak hour trips using this driveway.) Ms. Abbey has witnessed students and others who are not providing services to the property using the service driveway to park in the expanded parking lot. That increased traffic in tura has resulted in several instances in which cars using the service driveway have struck vehicles owned by Ms.Abbey and her family. Further,delivery trucks without room to turn around on the driveway are forced to back down the driveway and out into traffic, blocking traffic on Adeline and occasionally striking vehicles on the street. My clients do not seek to require the applicant to remove the hundreds of additional parking spaces added since annexation. However,as a condition of approval of the CUP,the Council should direct the applicant to remove the 17 spaces added near the service entrance,which contribute to traffic on Adeline Drive and visual and noise impacts to adjacent residents. Removal of those spaces would allow that area to be used by service vehicles to turn around,reducing impacts to Adeline Drive. Alternatively,to 7 Ms.Abbey complained to the City about the construction,but was told—incorrectly— that the construction was appropriate and that no permit was required. In fact,a permit was required: because expansion of parking for a nonconforming use is disallowed,the . applicant should have obtained a CUP to conform its uses of the properties prior to f��D expanding the parking. FEB 13 2007 (A f",OF BURLINGAME Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February 12, 2007 Page 7 mitigate the impacts of the new parking, the Council could impose a condition prohibiting the use of the new parking spaces for students and any other persons who are not providing deliveries or other short-term services to the property! IV. THE CITY MAY NOT RELY ON A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FROM CEQA TO APPROVE THE CUP. The,Commission staff report asserts that issuance of the CUP is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") under section 15301 of CEQA Guidelines. Commission Staff Rep. at L This exemption applies only to approval of existing uses or"negligible . . . expansion"of an existing use. That exemption is inapplicable here because the CUP would authorize expansion of the use of the High School property. The Commission Staff Report indicates that existing hours of operation of the High School are 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Commission Staff Rep. at 2, while the applicant's traffic report states that the High School's hours currently begin at 8:00 a.m., Fehr and Peers Memorandum at 1. The CUP, by contrast, authorizes the High School to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 4 p.m. Minutes at 7 (Condition 1). This is a plain expansion of use, and moreover, one with likely impacts to adjacent residents who will experience traffic and noise in the very early hours of the morning. The Commission imposed no limitations on the events that could occur at 6:00 a.m. Further, it appears that the applicant has applied for the CUP to allow it to expand and change uses of the properties in the future. Indeed, the applicant recently submitted an application to allow it to expand physical education facilities on the High School property.9 Commission Staff Rep., Ex. K. We are informed that the applicant rescinded that application to allow the CUP application to be considered separately from changes to the buildings. The CEQA Guidelines dictate that a categorical exemption is inapplicable when the cumulative impact of the allegedly exempt project with future projects may be significant. CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b). Likewise, the City cannot "piecemeal" approval of uses for the Mercy properties by approving a CUP to legalize uses, without CEQA review, and then separately approve physical alterations to the property that indisputably require CEQA compliance. See CEQA Guidelines § 15378(c) ("The term `project' refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be $ In addition, Condition 7 should be clarified to indicate that the service entrance shall not be used as a student entrance or for student drop-off. 9 During the applicant's "community outreach"process, the neighbors submitted questions about the applicant's plans for future development and expansion on the properties. See, i Questions submitted by the Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance°at a--,kwE� 3. The applicant failed to respond to those questions. FEB 1 3 2007 ..�i )F BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February 12, 2007 Page 8 subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term `project' does not mean each separate governmental approval." (emphasis added)). The Council should ask the applicant to describe any pians for future expansion or alteration of the uses or buildings on the properties to ensure that such expansion is not being improperly broken into multiple parts to avoid comprehensive CEQA review. If the applicant intends to return to seek approval of changes to the property after issuance of the CUP, the foreseeable impacts of those changes must be evaluated in an appropriate environmental document prior to issuance of the CUP. V. THE CITY CANNOT MAKE THE FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR ISSUANCE OF A CUP. The Municipal Code establishes findings that must be made to support issuance of a CUP. Muni. Code § 25.52.020. Among them is that "[t]he proposed use, at the proposed location, 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." Id. § 25.52.020(a). Such findings must be supported by substantial evidence. Topanga Assn for a Scenic Cmty. v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506 -� (1974). For the reasons described in this letter and in the letters, comments, and petition submitted by the neighbors of the Mercy properties, the uses of the properties sought to be allowed by the CUP are detrimental to the property and welfare of adjoining residents. In particular, noise and traffic generated by these uses interfere with the neighbors' quiet enjoyment of their property and have resulted and would continue to result in property damage.10 VI. THE COUNCIL SHOULD IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS TO ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE MERCY PROPERTIES. On appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council has "de novo" review of the Commission's decision. That is, it may "approve, disapprove, or modify the order of the commission." Muni. Code § 25.16.080. Because it may modify 10 The police dispatch log submitted by the applicant is woefully incomplete. It includes only three days in August 2006. As addressed in their individual comments, my clients have made multiple complaints to the police and to the applicant before and after August 2006 that are not included in the log. Indeed, it strains credulity to suggest that while three complaints are recorded occurring in just one month, there were no complaints in any other month over the several years that Kohl Mansion has been let out for p""RECEIVED events. FEB 13 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. MayorNagef and Members of the City Council February 12, 2007 Page 9 the Commission's decision, the Council may impose additional conditions of approval or change conditions imposed by the Commission. In the event that the Council does not deny the CUP as requested herein,we ask that the Council modify the Commission's decision by imposing the following conditions of approval, to mitigate the impacts of the properties' operations on their neighbors: 1. No more than one non-school event may be held each week at Kohl Mansion. 2. All events held Sunday through Thursday shall end by 9 p.m. Friday and Saturday night events shall end by 10 p.m. All event traffic must exit the Mercy properties no later than one hour after the end of the event,including guests, event staff, and all attendant vehicles. 3. With the exception of deliveries to the High School, the applicant shall establish a one-way traffic pattern on the properties,with traffic entering or exiting through the Main Entrance (at the intersection of Adeline and Alvarado) and Front Road (at the intersection of Adeline and Hoover). 4. Amplified sound shall only be allowed inside the Kohl Mansion. No amplified sound shall be allowed in tents or outside on the lawn. All events on the properties shall comply with the Burlingame noise ordinance. 5. Mercy High School shall remove the 17 parking spaces added since annexation at the entrance to the service road. 6. The service road shall be limited to the use of service vehicles and shall not be used by students, faculty, or staff. Again, my clients do not oppose the continued existence or operation of Mercy High School, nor are they absolutely opposed to the operation of Kohl Mansion for events, provided that they do not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of their properties. As it stands, and as proposed to be enshrined in a CUP, operations on the Mercy properties do interfere with the neighbors' peace and quiet. Accordingly, my clients must oppose the issuance of the CUP unless these impacts are mitigated through appropriate conditions of approval. RELIVED FEB 13 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Mayor Nagel and Members of the City Council February 12, '2007 Page 10 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, SHUTE Y & WE ER LLP MATTHEW D. ZINN cc: Larry Anderson Margaret A. Sloan Linda Abbey J.ok Legal-let [P.\ABBEY=ZW6 (appeal letter).doc] RECEIVED FEB 13 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. LFEB 1 2007 By Linda Abbey 2415 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA, 94010 February 12, 2007 Honorable Mayor Terry Nagel Honorable Members of the City Council City of Burlingame Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: Appeal of a Conditional Use Permit for Baseline approved by Burlingame Planning Commission for the Mercy Properties at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, Ca. 94010. Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: (Please turn to page one) r �- First, I would like to restate that the Conditional Use Permit for a Baseline pertaining to the Mercy Properties was never a topic of discussion with the Mercy applicants on 4/11/05, and 5/9/05. The request from Larry Anderson to establish a baseline grew out of, I believe, our letters in May 2005,with questions and concerns we had. The Mercy meetings all were with regard to the Physical Education Building/Fitness Center. The applicants controlled the meetings. The applicants allowed comments and questions at their discretion and those were set aside to answer at a later time,not at the meetings of 10/20,27/05. We were told there were to be six meetings total; however,the six meetings were for three basic topics they wanted to discuss (two meetings of the same topic, scheduled for two different dates and times, and there were to be three topics). Generally, the neighbors concerns were with: traffic,noise, safety and parking. The 11/15,17/05,meetings were cancelled. Our questions were written down and the applicants said they would respond to them at a later time. They followed up via mail with some of the answers on 12/05. It was very clear the applicants did not want to have a meeting about our concerns, although they allowed letting us voice some of them (that's not saying they weren't concerned). The second topic again,was about the renovation project and there was an invitation to see the project area. There was one duplicate meeting instead and the following meetings were all cancelled. Our concerns were NOT discussed, nor were there any intentions for a resolution at any of those meetings.Not all of our questions were --� returned to us, nor answered either. The Mercy applicants gave us only a few of the facts outlined in their original application(see CUP 4/05),which was for a Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit, that was later placed on hold 6/05 (it had two different applications). Very little communication was made by Mercy, to the community, until a recent letter was sent to us instructing how to get a hold of someone on campus if you have a problem. That notification was not distributed to everyone; I just received mine this week 2/07. Personally my husband and I met with Laura on 10/17/05, in front of our home to discuss our concerns about the traffic on the service road and how we felt it needed monitoring and more restrictift of use. My husband asked why does it not close earlier; it is a service road after all? It was just temporarily better. We showed Laura the damage to our vehicles. On 10/31/05, I called conflict resolution and had a conversation with Jennefer Bullock about some of the problems here and then we had another conversation on 11/14/05 in which she wanted me to contact Laura again. The point was I wanted to work through conflict resolution, but Jennifer said Laura is not going to participate; she is not interested in having mediation. I asked Jennifer if she would send me a letter regarding what she just had told me and she said no. Second,I would like Mercy to remove 17 parking spaces that were added to the service road in 2001.This parking is unnecessary and creates additional dangerous traffic on Adeline. Unnecessary because there are 31 parking spaces provided when only 18 are required (CUP application 5/9/05,attached);however,the total campus parking is 382 spaces and the typical peak weekday parking demand is 291 spaces for the entire campus, a more than adequate number(CUP application 1 /22/07,attached).So,when considering this is a dangerous area the17 parking spaces nearest the service road entrance should be eliminated(zoned no parking).This could also positively enable delivery trucks to back into the open space,the way it really should be,so they would not have to back down onto Adeline as they often do. When they do back down Adeline,the beeping safety mechanism goes off and I think my alarm clock upstairs is beeping.It happens quite often and it gets irritating.If you watch the trucks go in and out of the service gates,sometimes it takes your breath away because they are so close to your car.People have asked me why don't you move your car?I feel rather safe having a car in front of the house sometimes because I fear one of those trucks may loose their brakes.Often you can hear the squeaking of their brakes as they go down the driveway. The garbage truck goes rumping and when the heavy trucks go over the speed bump it's clunking Many times they have to gun the accelerator it get up the grade; these noises are disturbing. There is too much automobile traffic coming and going;it is noisy and on rainy days it gets especially noisy.There just doesn't seem like there is much calm with the number of students driving,the number of events going on and the number of people attending.One gets to the point when they just can't tolerate it anymore because their head is still buzzing even when everything has stopped—something like an echo perhaps.There was a time that I used to leave the side door open for our dog and for us to get fresh air,but it is just too noisy now,not only during the day,but also well into the night.Forget about having an open window. We have lived here for almost 30 years;when we first came it was peaceful except for the little traffic Mercy had and it didn't go on all day,or night.There were more birds and squirrels. One would hear woodpeckers often. I can't remember the last time I've heard a woodpecker here. Dangerous because Adeline is narrow,particularly where the service gate is and there happens to be a bend in the road there also as it winds down.The shoulder has been made a part of the road to widen the lane(picture 1). Please find attached a letter dated April 13,2006,addressed to the City of Burlingame, TSP Commission,a record of damage done to our vehicles.Our cars were hit three times in 2005.(See ABBEY AUTO DAMAGE attached.) rut^: 2750 Adeline Drive `. Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit r/9/409 F The public areas of the historic Kohl Mansion on the Sisters of Mercy school site is used weekly for a variety of events, including weddings, receptions and musical concerts. These events occur primarily on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, but can also occur on weekday evenings after school. The Kolil Mansion can accommodate a maximum of 250 guests. Since these events occur after the school day, the 147 parking spaces on the school site are available to the guests, performers and event organizers. Table 1 – 2750 Adeline Drive Lot Area: 3.74 acres Existing Proposed Allowed/Req'd Side Setback: 170'-0" to physical I 250' to addition I 7'-6" (along Adeline Dr) education building ; 220' to storage shed I — — 185' to bleachers Height: 22'-0" 10'-6" to addition 30'-0" 8'-0" to storage shed — Lot Coverage: 26,960 SF 27,446 SF i 65,165 SF 16.5% j 16.8% 40% ----- Parking: 31 spaces for physical 31 spaces for 18 spaces for education building physical education I physical education (147 total spaces for building I building Mercy High School) Staff Comments: See attached. Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on April 11, 2005, the Commission asked several questions regarding the proposed project (April 11, 2005, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a written response and revised plans, dated April 20, 2005, to address the Commission's questions. The following list contains the questions and how they were addressed by the applicant: 1. There is a path on this property that Sisters of Mercy allows the public to use, on sheet C2.1 annotated with location of wood path, will this path be disturbed? Please put note on the plans to ensure path will not be impacted. This path will not be disturbed during construction. The following note was added to the Overall Site Plan, sheet C2.1 , date stamped April 20, 2005: "Maintain wood path for public use during building renovation of P.E. Building". 3 e 21 swill Ai 2300&21150 Adeline Drive Conditional Use Permit Sisters of Mercy Uses ® f Mercy: The Motherh°Motherhouse.contains residential facilities for up Room and Board for Sisters o to 50 Sister residents. Currently, 32 Sisters reside at t 40 units. Marian Care Center and Infirmary: The centerisSloun e facilities, chapelare facility utility The center includes resident rooms, kitchen., dimnb room, g rooms. ge structure on the site which provides housing for up to our Cottage House: There is a lod Sisters; currently there are two Sister residents. ® Administrative Offices: The administrative offices for Sisters of Mercy are en from 7ous a.m. toRussell s l Hall, on Sisters of Mercy property. The administrative offices open p.m. daily; and there are 25 employees in the administrative offices. PARKING AND "TRAFFIC The applicant has submitted a traffic and parking study of Existing�n0 6Condit,attached).Conditions lied}e sitepreparedling Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, dated July 1 information is taken from this report. Existing Parking: There are nine parking lots spread throughout the site as described below. PARKING LOT Number of S aces 132 Mercy Hi h School Lot student & faculty parking) 20 Parking along Kohl Mansion service road 69 Lake Lot(adjacent to Marian Convent) 74 Forest Lot (off main road at east end of site) 5 Marian Care Center lot(adjacent to building) 6 Motherhouse Lot(front) 30 Motherhouse Lot(rear) 25 Eucaly tus Lot(unpaved lot near Columbus/Hoover) 20 Kohl Mansion Service Road 21 Creek Lot staff parkingbehind Motherhouse) 382, TOTAL CAMPUS PARKIN ut the site generally adjacent ich they serve. Parking facilities are spread throughoparking tfacil facilities des nesday, May 10, Fehr and Peers conducted a parking occupancy survey of all p g On that day, ular Mercy 2006, every hour from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 P.M. ato gCent r: CancerPrayer with 117 duled at Mercy School activities, there were two events sche participants from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and anall-day retreat nparticipants. dhe typical results this survey are shown on Table 1 on page 5 of the.—Traffic I - g weekday parking demand for the entire campus is ,� occupancy f cuaanc'0� considered toa.m. This pbesfull. The occupancy of the available parking spaces. Typically, 90% 1 P s more than adequate. traffic study determined that for the current campus parking supply In addition, traffic counts were taken at each of the and eur vening�penodsveway lon(referrtoughout Table 3 on Page 7 day on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, during the morning, afternoon of the Traffic and Parking Study}. During the count periods, Mercy High School was in session and To: City of Burlingame Date: April 13, 2006 Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission From: Linda Abbey Subject: Accidents on Adeline Drive 2005 Accidents on Adeline Drive involving our vehicles. g� / Saturn—driver's door hit while ajar and parked on Adeline, driver who hit my car was a young woman who knew she hit my car; she stopped momentarily then took off. A police report was filed. Saturn—driver's door and front panel was backed into while parked on Adeline across from Mercy Service Gate;my car was hit by a Mercy High School Teacher, she said she was making a U-turn. A police report was filed. >'h-- 'j"Ce Z;�.d Honda—driver's side rear panel was hit while parked across from Mercy Service Gate; driver of the other vehicle who hit ours was making a u-turn.No police!yport was filed. Other Accidents on Adeline Drive involving our vehicles. (The dates of the following require further research.) 2004? Honda-driver's side of underside of car while parked on Adeline near Mercy Service Gate was clipped to the driver of a van. The police came out(we were on vacation) and left a note, a police report I believe was made, charges were not pressed, and the driver was a teenager Ranger—driver's door and front panel was side swiped while parked on Adeline across from the Mercy Service Gate,hit and run.No police report. Ranger—driver's side of back panel over the tire area was dented while parked on Adeline across from the Mercy Service Gate, hit and run. Unsure if there was a police report. Ranger—driver's side mirror was knocked off and missing while parked on Adeline across from the Mercy Service Gate, hit and run.No police report. Porsche—driver's door, window, and front panel dented, severely damaged while parked on Adeline across from the Mercy Service Gate, hit and run, damage indicates other vehicle probably came from the Mercy Service Road. A police report was filed. Subaru—rear bumper was dented while car was parked in our driveway. Driver paid for damage.No police report was filed. 2415 Adeline- our red Porsche near the bottom of the list — our insurance never reimbursed us for the damage.This was a hit and run;with all probability it was hit from someone leaving the service road(picture 2). 2415 Adeline-my green Saturn was hit in 2005,by Nieves,a Mercy High School teacher, who I ran after she drove up and down the service road and backed into my car;I thought she was going to take off,so I ran after her and she ended up two houses down.She said she was lost(picture 3). Again,my green Saturn was hit in 2005,but I was parked at 2621 Adeline.My door was ajar and I was sitting inside my car writing a note. The driver was a young girl that couldn't tell how close she was to my car;two cars were passing in the other lane and it was too narrow for her to judge. She scrapped the inside rim of my door(my car was already damaged)her car had to have a scrape or something.She hit and ran(picture 3,V 2415 Adeline—See Abbey Auto Damage-all the other damages done to our vehicle were done in picture 3, across from the service gate,with exception to the Honda that was clipped(undercarriage)two houses up the street, at 2505 Adeline(picture 4). I don't have pictures of all the other damage;I wish I did. At the service gate—in 2005 an anonymous neighbor,who lives on Adeline,had her pet dog hit by a woman that was parked in the service road lot,she drove out from the gate, didn't know she hit the dog;the owner had to chase and tell her and she would not admit guilt,or help pay the vet bill(picture 5).Also,less than 10 years ago the Mead family at 2419 Adeline,had their pet dog hit outside the service gate and the drive kept on going. My husband chased them down.And more recently the same family's'cat was run over and killed in the service gate area(picture 5). The deceiving curve in the road at the service gate is shown in (picture 6). The service road is in very much need of repair(picture 7),cars don't like to drive on the broken up drive. This is an additional picture of the service road on a Sunday that's unusually nice & quiet.The speed bump and stop sign don't always slow drivers down or stop them from running the sign(picture 8). 2205 Adeline—the Harvey family has had 3 vehicles hit in front of their home(picture 9). 2215 Adeline—former home of the Levy family had a vehicle hit in front of their home (picture 10). 2325 Adeline—the Diekman family has had the side mirror of their vehicle knocked off twice.Once was very recent.Both occasions were hit and run;Diekman ran after them (picture 11). Across from 2307-2309 — this is a replacement pole; a delivery truck that was going to Mercy hit the pole that was here before; this was done a few years ago(picture 12). 2309 Adeline—the Pijas family has had a vehicle hit in front of their home (picture 13). 2339 Adeline—the former home of Fibich had two vehicles hit at the same time; this was some time ago (picture 14). 2405 Adeline—previous owner Alexander, had his car hit a number years age in front of his home (picture 15). 2419 Adeline—the Mead family had their Honda hit a number of years ago (picture 16). 2501 Adeline — this is a replacement tree. It was hit many years ago. It was hit a second time by a Mercy girl less than 10 years ago; she was driving uphill and surved into the oncoming lane and hit that same tree. She was bleeding and an ambulance came. Within the last couple of years a woman that was drunk totaled the Beresford's vehicle (picture 17). 2509 Adeline — two trees were hit and damaged by a Mercy girl years ago; these are replacement trees. Last week a Roadway truck was making a delivery to Mercy and knocked off some branches of the new trees (picture 18). 2621 Adeline- the Kromelows' driver's side door was smashed in; it was hit and run in March 2001 (picture 19). 2723 Adeline (at Alvarado)- new owners named Balanos have newborn baby twin girls. Their car got sideswiped and the mirror knocked off about 6 to 8 months ago. Then in January 2007, someone dented his or her car. Both accidents were hit and run (picture 20). Donna Bottarini of 1535 Columbus was hit on Alvarado by a high school girl (no picture). Please read my letter of October 12, 2001, to Larry Anderson, etc. regarding Neighbors of the Mercy Campus letter. Please read my letter dated November 10, 2005, to Mr. Augustine Chou, etc. regarding on going traffic problem. Please read memo dated June 19, 1981, regarding Mercy High School. School hours at Mercy High School should be 7:15 a.m. to 4 p.m.; school opening hours should not be 6 a.m. When there are sudden noises in the morning, or evening I am awakened and I check to see if our vehicles are hit; additionally, traffic is noisy and the street sweeper, etc. are not allowed on public residential street that early. Mercy should emphasize public transportation to students and parents. Mercy should plant shrubs and trees to buffer sound and take in pollution. I am opposed to the operation of Kohl Mansion as it is. There shall be no tents. There shall be no events when school is in session. There shall be only one non-school event per week provided there are no regular school events. There shall be no more than 200 people at Kohl Mansion. School and non-school events should be over by 9 p.m. including clean up, 10 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays including clean-up, and 6 p.m. on Sundays including clean-up. No school or non-school event should start before 10:30 `— a.m. There should be a one-way traffic pattern through any gate; this is to minimize traffic on Adeline and Alvarado. Gates to Mercy High School and the Service Entrance should close no later than one hour after school; or a school, or non-school event. Music played at Kohl Mansion should always be indoors and comply with City Code. BPD should enforce that code. Mercy Center should not be used as a conference center, or rooming house for non- religious, or laity. Mercy should not rent land, or buildings to a summer camp. There should not be simultaneous use of Kohl Mansion Mercy High School, nor Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center. Thank you for all your attention in this matter. Sincerely, rJ �p ;ter✓�_ �ti r ry c June 19, 1981- MEMO R G E IVIED TO: Ralph E . Kirkup, Dir. Public Works JUN 2 2 1981 FROM: Engr. Div . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Re : Question of increased facility usage on Mercy High School site I called Mercy High School regarding article in newspapers stating that the mansion on that site was to become a historical landmark and would be used for public gatherings as some concern had been voiced by Adeline Drive residents about in- creases in traffic . Mrs . Casanova informed me ( later confirmed by a phone call from Sister Jean Marie , Principal ) that the work on the site involves restoration only and no enlargement of existing facilities . The existing school -day activities involve 575 students , plus 50 teachers . The weekend use of the mansion for wedding reception% etc . will be limited by the Fire Department occupancy limit of 200 people . Parking on-site is adequate for that demand . Existing uses on weekends , that is special school functions and special Mass at the Chapel , generate this much or more attendance . To the School ' s knowledge there have been no objections from their neighbors from these existing uses . Private uses of the mansion will not coincide with school or church functions . This information indicates there will be little or no increase of peak daily traffic volumes on weekends , but that these peak volumes will occur more frequently . r Thomas ore Traffic/Civil Engineer TEM:mg cc: (- ' y Planner City Manager • �. nnRn Linda Abbey FEB 1 2 2007 2415 Adeline Drive 0� Burlingame, Ca. 94010 By November 10, 2005 Mr.Augustine Chou Traffic Engineer, Public Works Traffic, Planning and Safety Commission City of Burlingame 401 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Mr. Chou: Traffic has been an ongoing problem in and around the vicinity of Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy properties. Some of the types of traffic problems we have been experiencing in this area already have a documented history of complaint with the City of Burlingame.Neighbors have complained about speeding, volume of traffic,and running stop signs. These traffic issues occur all day and throughout the night. This has truly increased stress,the feeling of being unsafe for our children,pets and ourselves, loss of sleep, and the disruption of peace and quiet in our lives. We have sustained real and personal property damage as well. Trees have been hit, and our vehicles have been damaged; some incidents, not all have been reported to Burlingame Police. Lincoln and Our Lady of Angels Schools have asked parent to drop-off/pick-up students in a one-way driving pattem. We would like to review past study reports of traffic counts and speed checks- as far back as the City has record for the Adeline, Alvarado, Columbus, and Hoover areas. Currently, we would like to request traffic counts at the: Sisters of Mercy- Adeline Drive main gate, Marian Convent- Hoover Avenue gate, Mercy High School- Adeline Drive service gate, Mercy High School- Alvarado Avenue gate, and the above mentioned streets,including where counts were taken before, as the traffic numbers is out of control. Trak counts should be dated, and time stamped. A speed check indicator that records the miles per hour one is driving should be placed in at least two strategic locations. Real thought needs to be given to resolve this adverse problem that has undauntedly worsened. Maybe there can be a one-way entrance and a one exit at this site. We request the City of Burlingame to please repaint the centerline areas, and replace the bolt dots, on Adeline Drive, that have been obliterated due to heavy volumes of �` traffic. We would like to meet and discuss: 15 mph signs,No U Turn signs,weight/height limit signs, a bus loading zone,preventive safety measures , crosswalks, and any additional needs to be voiced. Would you please get back to us as soon as possible? Please find attached testaments, or requests that are mutually exclusive of this letter, BUT SUPPORT the request for survey. Thank you, Linda Abbey October 12, 2001 FEB 12007 By Larry Anderson, City Attorney Fred Cullum, Building Department George Bagdon, Public Works and Engineering Department Maureen Brooks, Planning and Zoning Department Phil Scott, Street and Sewer Department Homayoun Barekat, Traffic and Safety Department Shirley Lauddy, Business Licenses Burlingame Beautification Committee 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010-3997 Re: Letter dated august 9, 2001, addressed to Mr. Frank Erbacher and letter dated August 19, 2001; addressed to Neighbors of the Mercy Campus (copy enclosed). Dear Sir/Madam: We have just become aware that the Sisters of Mercy are having additional parking spaces built on their grounds adjacent to the service road on Adeline Drive. On October 6, we received copies of letters from the campus director which were sent out in August to other'residents. We had never received these letters; other neighbors still have not received these letters. We only realized that there was construction when we saw a crew grading and removing trees from the grounds across the street from our home. There are many concerns and questions we would like addressed: Does Mercy need a pern it for this work?Isn't a public hearing required before work like this can begin? Doesn't this constitute-a change of use?Do they have licenses and permits to operate ail--- the bitsin_esses and services they provide at Mercy? Is the City of Burlingame aware of all their business and services? What licenses and permits do they have? When were they issued? Mercy is on a heavily wooded estate in the center of a residential neighborhood. We are vehemently opposed to having any added parking, building, or traffic across from our home. It would materially damage our property values, safety, privacy, and quality of life, and our neighbors' as well. The service road cannot handle two-way traffic. Vehicles waiting on Adeline for the service road to clear run the risk of being rear-ended by approaching traffic. The rise in the hill creates further hazards by impeding sight lines. The service road is heavily congested with service vehicles and parked cars. Adding more paving will only increase the congestion and danger. Large commercial trucks back up �. and.down that service road all the time. RECEIVED OCT 1 5 2.00.1 CITY OF BURLINGAMF The service road intersects Adeline Drive where it forms an"S"curve in the road,in addition to being on a hill.The topography does not allow drivers coming up or down Adeline a clear view at the service road because of the rise of the hill.The bend in the road does not allow vehicles exiting the service road to see the traffic coming at them on Adeline. I cannot emphasize enough how dangerous this intersection is.Neighborhood pets have been hit and killed here,and our cars and those of my neighbors on both sides have been struck.My neighbor's tree has been rammed twice by Mercy students. I often run to our front window after hearing loud sounds to see if someone is hurt.It is not uncommon that we get out of bed,even during the night,to see if everything is safe.If you were to watch this area,I would guarantee you that you would feel under siege,as we do. In addition,there is a water drainage problem on the Adeline Drive.Water percolates up through the asphalt road,in the service entrance area,on even a dry day(up to two or three days),after it has rained.Underground water may be collecting in this area from Mercy.Water consistently flows down the service road into Adeline because no gutter. exists to divert it to street drains.These issues must be addressed before proceeding with any kind of construction.It is unbelievable that,with near forty acres of land,such a terrible choice of area was made.I know there are much better alternatives. I also have questions,concerns and comments regarding the August 9,2001 letter —� addressed to Frank Erbacher.I want you to understand that although the Sisters of Mercy are concerned with safety on Adeline Drive,only once in twenty four years have I seen a teacher monitoring the traffic at the service gate.My son and I have come within inches of being run over by a teacher who was trying to get to school on time.Do the Sisters know that in the last two weeks three bus loads of Mercy girls were walking up the middle of Adeline headed back to the campus? Regarding the red zone concerns,I have not seen any cars parked at the service road entrance for years(although Mercy had the girls parking there at one time).No parking - -- signs are already posted along that fenced side of the property and arer doing-the job-! —_. want to be very clear about where red zones would be placed,if at all.We absolutely do not want any red zones on the south side of Adeline Drive,which would deprive residents of legal on-street parking in order to fix a problem we never created.The visual hazard at Mercy is compounded by the placement of the gates,its topography and most of all its own traffic.As a matter of fact,they encourage people to commute here.The number of commuters from Mercy is the greatest threat to our public safety. Finally,I have called Burlingame Police Department within the last two to three weeks to report buses parked above Mercy's main entrance gates.The buses were blocking the road and obstructing the view of drivers on Adeline Drive and Mercy's main entrance road.They were buses for Mercy students.Traffic driving up Adeline was forced to drive into the downhill lane.This has happened twice.I did not see the police respond to my call.Why can't these buses drive onto the campus and safely pick up and drop off 0111 students? We request to be kept informed of all matters that Mercy addressed to you and all the departments in the City of Burlingame. I also have questions, concerns and comments pertaining to the Neighborhood letter from Mercy, dated August 13, 2001. We too are sensitive to the ecology. I would like an environmental impact report done for all projects in relation to this service road, the surrounding area and all other Mercy projects. This letter does not specify where and how many spaces will be added in each location. One neighbor was definitely confused about the location (maybe others were also) of this project; she thought from reading this letter that behind the school was toward the northern area of the campus. This letter also states that the lots are on the interior of the campus; the work in fact is actually on the periphery of the property. The letter states that they will not be visible to the surrounding neighborhood. From what we can see,this is absolutely not true. The verbal information I received about the parking area from Jeffery Snyder and Sr. Diane Grassilli was not only vague about its location, but placed the construction in a different area. Sr. Diane said four or five spaces would be added; she later said that it may be six Mr. Snyder said it would be seven. A worker from Bruggato said they were going to put in as many parking spaces as they could. Isn't a permit required for grafting, construction, drainage or removing trees? Mercy High School charges a fee for parking. Is this in accordance with their license or permit?Is the rental of Kohl mansion in accordance with their license or permit? I noticed signs on the Alvarado entrance fence this summer indicating that there are other (private types) of businesses there. I was once told the complete area belonging to the Sisters of Mercy was zoned residential and that they have a grandfathered clause written in to allow them to have a school there. Is that true? When was this and what does it say, exactly?Does it indicate that it is for a girl's school? Are there restrictions in it?May I please have a copy?Does their permit allow them to rent out the facility, to be in the rental business, or to have another business other than an educational one?Do the Sisters have a license or permit to have a facility for nursing, or a care home for the elderly? Are a certain number of families allowed to live in a residence and what is it? Is there anode that requires so much covered parking per residence and what is it? Is the residential zoning at Mercy in conflict with any of my questions, comments, or concerns in this letter? I have a number of suggestions regarding the August 13, 2001 letter. The most important one is that Mercy's interior two,roads should be opened up to through traffic. That is, the traffic that is going to Mercy. Has this idea been discussed with the City? Why don't they increase parking in front of their own residence?I recall someone telling me that the residents on Hoover were upset about the parking lot facing their homes. I believe this to still be true today; given enough time I could research this. Parked cars are visible from their property and this has damaged the value and desirability of their residences. I would also like to know for which high school road and gate have they applied for a permit. I do not want to assume it is the Alvarado road. What codes do they have to meet with their new fence? Mould it be the same as other residences, five feet in front? Would- the gates have to be five_ feet? Where does Mr. Erbacher wish to restrict parking, since there are no parking signs along the property, and is he aware of that? Never once have I seen a change of use notice, a variance notice, or a public hearing notice from the City of Burlingame in regard to the ongoing changes at Mercy. Are you aware of these changes? What is the role of the City of Burlingame regarding regulating the use and non-use of licenses, permits, and zoning? I believe all my questions to be significant. I prefer my questions, concerns and comments be addressed to us in writing. Our address is: Mr. and Mrs. M. Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Thank you, Linda Abbey cc: Mercy High School Board of Directors My neighbors, (a certain number) Not disclosed, (a certain number) Jeffery Snyder Sr. Diane Grassilli Sr. Judy Carle Y v s F F T� S2 r� �F r �R; a'k. x a E 3 S J Laib s � � I � �, ��� � �� '� 4x '� �; �� R � fir,, E', �. � ,. , � � a a � � � �� � ,��, S t fig; r,f �kp(�3.. �Y �� " :> ^� dP �� � § � � W � �� U<d�" .... �. S she �b �� g 3 e. � �+• -, kk �i �:, z �Q � �o rz � _,: v �,: sz � .,�'. :aa s' �a ' �6 .,. r � a* t 4 3 a r µ Y & � a ex 4 4 x„ nly oil MV .e w. - .�mot s. s � f fill.. 41 . .. F E! � h t f mz 7 A y � P c"a � • t a k gg a c lt &f i4 r E,f ( I ,, y 3. �S V Y#- x � . 4 44, 9 ? �3 � w 4 A' 9 "b M1 z. kb��3� as h � y AL x t f i r- £`x Q { F i Y y) g ? S 3 r � � 3 � " P. S. 4 3 k t T e +t " f�*a i i ¢ �q � :� • .� . � � .. ,, : �c "!'`� � ,� �,� �: �� w s �; ,� 9 . , �.. �'R s �.,, �" 4 fi. �° �� � � m. ��. . �� .��� �°- �; �- � % �'� �a�e � � t _ r i e `•=e i � � t � �`°' " , ,� .� a 9 zr �I AN 1"wNO momsae fi a44 T Aim Perm>2 Olso- I AIN FIT i WMA c s . �� TI A Wagk z c r sv a I .5h1.Mc,.R4� mfaYl' 1 r f all y � f 1ll, x �� re c l t�r ` �. - :`!� ,�. M,a I� y V� /' # � �� . � 2���a � � � 4 � 8. Y � „ ,�, �� a ; � gyp, 4�: ��� ia:'� ��- ,. �$$$'.., # . t .::.. ' ..,., '�r ^� r .. too WR i" 1r � t. q w» s « ' �~ P � � - _. 4�l► � .tial ac � m� �P y„ �d�. •�� � to:�,;. � ',� .. ��` ,� s } d%sr ' "^^�t��eIPASARSTx^�n!MMMM!¢e�w�.aa.,.v t E a�S \� l ,� ='£�: I r �' ���; -� �`� �: $.��, �� ��_: n� � . ��, �� �, �,; ��z. `= ��` � � ���. .j�.� `� e�. k�'. ��. !�� z- ��,d �' � ^l �;;.. 2 � �r i 3 L V ..4 �q3 `xU::: STM n� �� x�::' -c "�° i '- '0' � 4. k �naaMw>:` w-. �� 4 x p .. a«+ k« d a . �� ♦� ` ;�, any �� ��. . � w Will yY B � r i � A q gg f ;x iy" 8. h PV LY I_ � d i'q �^ 7t � ������ MR •�( r� 4 M^ 4 p s' t i 1,4 ell! , C.' .•,� 'i_ � . I i 1 Vw s� r tpa MAI s � I ' � t ° + =: t -IN Linda Abbey 2415 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA. 94010 February 13, 2007 Honorable Mayor Terry Nagel Honorable Members of the City Council City of Burlingame Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: Addendum to my letter of February 12, 2007, for the Appeal of a Conditional Use Permit for Baseline approved by Burlingame Planning Commission for the Mercy Properties at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, Ca. 94010. Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members: Please make the following additions, changes, or corrections to page 8 of my letter: Paragraph 4 — School hours at Nueva School are 8:25 to 3:25 M-F and at Crystal Springs Uplands are 8:05 to 3 :00 M-Th, 8:05 to 2:20 F. Paragraph b — Also, dense shrubbery should be planted along the service road and along the Hoover Street fence to protect the neighbors from the intrusion and disturbance of headlights and privacy. Sentence 8 — Should read: There should be a one-way traffic pattern through the Mercy Property except for the Service Gate; this is to reduce traffic on Adeline and Alvarado. The use of the service driveway should be fiuther restricted. These efforts are to reduce: accidents, noise, nuisance, congestion and impeding of traffic and are to protect: property, public safety and right-of-way. Sentence 13 — Should read: There should not be simultaneous use of Kohl Mansion and Mercy High School, nor of Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center. Mercy High School, Mercy Center and Kohl Mansion, or any other facility on the Mercy Properties should obtain a Permit to Operate annually. Sincerely, RECEIVED Linda Abbey - FEB 1 3 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ATTACHMENT E RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2007 Linda Abbey CITY OF BU 2415 Adeline Drive PLANNINGG DEPT. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 January 24,2007 Ms.Margaret Monroe Burlingame City Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA. 94010 Dear Mrs.Monroe: I was astounded that we had only three minutes at the Planning Commission meeting on January 22,2007,to talk about the Mercy properties that are two large properties with many activities and that there was only one planning commission meeting scheduled for it. I've been to planning commission meetings whereby more than three minutes were allowed for speakers and the number of speakers/requests were greater. It was apparent the planning commissioners had more questions,were unresolved with some of conditions and were thus rushed into making a premature decision. After my comments at Monday's meeting,I mistakenly gave you a copy of my handwritten notes(which contained errors and omissions).I then retrieved my notes and gave you a copy of a draft(previous notes)that were not revised and contained many errors and omissions that I want returned to me as soon as possible. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Kcebbey �/C�- JOHND. JORGENSON JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP MARVIN S. SIEGEL ATTORNEYS AT LAW NICOLAS A. FLEGEL �-- WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 LEIGH F. PRINCE MARGARET A. SLOAN MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 KEVIN M. RODRIGUEZ DAN K. SIEGEL (650) 324-9300 JOHN R. COSGROVE DIANES. GREENBERG FACSIMILE (650)324-0227 (RETIRED) JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN WWW.jsml.com MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY January 22, 2007 Hand Delivered Honorable Members of the Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: After reading the City of Burlingame ("City") Staff Report and Proposed Conditions for the Planning Commission hearing scheduled for January 22, 2007, the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School (collectively, "Applicant'), wish to clarify the Proposed Conditions as follows: • Above Condition No. 14, the heading "SISTERS OF MERCY" should be inserted to clarify that Condition Nos. 14 through 18 more appropriately apply to the Sisters of Mercy rather than the Mercy Center. • Condition No. 18 should read: `Russell Hall shall include...a maximum of 35 employees." Although there are twenty-five (25) administrative personnel for the Sisters of Mercy in Russell Hall, there are also additional administrative personnel for Mercy High School located in Russell Hall. Therefore, a maximum of 35 employees is more appropriate. Additionally, after speaking with City Staff, the Applicant understands that a neighbor has requested a condition regarding where Mercy High School students are dropped off. If the Planning Commission wishes to add such a condition, the following, which represents information that is regularly provided to the students and their parents, is acceptable to the Applicant: • Vehicles shall enter the school campus area through the gates and drive onto the campus to drop students off in front of the school. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Margaret A. Sloan, Esq. N:\DATA\Clients\S\Sisiers o Mercy\CUP Applica ion\Final Condition Changes Hand Oeiivered.W d COMMUNICATION RECEIVED SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP AFTER PREPARATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW OFSTAFFREPORT ot. zz. 014 pc. M CLEMENT SHUTE, JR.- 396 HAYES STREET KEVIN P. BUNDY MARK i, WEINBERGER Ila-48.2005) ANDREA RUIZLE59UIDE FRAN M. LAYTON SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 SHERIDAN J. PAUKER RACHEL B. HOOPER TELEPHONE: (415) 5527272 ELENA K. SAXONHOUSE ELLEN J. GABBER FACSIMILE: (41 5) 552.58 1 5 MICHELLE WILDE ANDERSON TAMARA S. OALANTER DOUG A. OBEGI ANDREW W. SCHWARTZ WWW.SMWLAW.COM LAUREL L. IM.i'ETT, AIpP ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR CARMEN J. BORG. AICP WILLIAM J. WHITE URRAN.PLANNERS ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER - AWI OSA L. WOLFF DAVID NOF COUNSEL E MATTHEW D. ZINN CATHERINE C, ENGRERG ANY J. BRICKER GABRIEL M-B. ROSS DEBORAH L. KEETH WINTER KING - RECEIVED 'SENIOR COUNJEL January 221 2007 JAN 2 2 2007 CITY OF G Via Facsimile and Email PLANNING rNG D DEPT.. Chairman Tim Auran and Members of the Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive—Conditional Use Permit Dear Chairman Auran and Members of the Commission: I write on behalf of my client, Linda Abbey, who lives at 2415 Adeline Drive, across the street from the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School properties. As you know, a conditional use permit ("CUP') application has been submitted for those properties and is Item No. 3 on your agenda this evening. My client is concerned about the impacts of the uses of the Mercy properties—particularly but not exclusively the use of Kohl Mansion—on neighboring property owners. The project proponents request approval for the use of Kohl Mansion on the Mercy High School property for various private events, such as weddings and parties. The application packet makes clear that this is a for-profit venture. See Letter from Margaret Sloan to Planning Commission (Jan. 10, 2007) ("Sloan Letter"), Ex. 1 at 7 ("Kohl Mansion's events are for profit."). The Mansion hosts an average of 90 such events per year. Id. The applicant has not shown that these uses of Kohl Mansion are legal nonconforming uses. There is no evidence (1) that Kohl Mansion was rented out for private parties before annexation, (2) that the County zoning authorized such use prior to annexation, or (3) if it had been so rented, that it was rented as frequently as 90 times per Chairman Tim Auran and Members of the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 2 year or for up to 300 guests.1 Indeed, the applicant's"Use Justification Matrix"supplied with the application provides no such evidence. Under "Private Rentals,"the matrix lists only three City letters and memos that themselves provide no evidence, but only generic assertions about the supposed preexisting use. The LAIC Co application and environmental review likewise snake no mention of private events at the Mansion. Mercy High.School is in the best position to demonstrate that its use of Kohl Mansion was legal at annexation,yet they have not done so. It is well-established that"the burden is always on the party seeking to establish the nonconforming use to show that the use did preexist." City& County of San Francisco v. Bd. of Permit Appeals, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1099, 1107 (1989)(emphasis added). By contrast, there is evidence in the record that the use of Kohl Mansion has changed and intensified since annexation, Indeed, one resident notes that"the activities and neighborhood impact of evening activities at Kohl Mansion have changed dramatically" even since 1988. Letter of Virginia Wright and Richard Blamey (May 23, 2005). My client has also personally observed that the frequency and intensity of use of the property for parties has increased over the years. Further, this use of Kohl Mansion cannot be legalized with a CUA, because the use is inconsistent with the Mercy High School property's R-1 zoning. The R-1 zone allows the following as conditional uses: "[s]chools, public and private, including religious or parochial schools." Muni. Code § 25.28.030(b). This plainly authorizes use of the property for Mercy Higb School. Use as a venue for weddings and other parties, however, is not among the uses authorized with a conditional use permit. Nor can such uses reasonably be considered accessory uses of a school. See id. § 25.08.020 (defining accessory use as "a use customarily incidental to the principal use of land and/or building located on the same lot with the main building or use"). Holding weddings and parties with hundreds of guests an average of 90 times per year until 11 p.m. is hardly "customarily incidental"to the operation of a school. Moreover, the'appiicant itself has .clearly distinguished the Kohl Mansion events from school events: "Kohl Mansion's events are for profit. Mercy High School events are for the well-being and curriculum for Mercy High School," Sloan Letter, Ex. 1,at 7. The proposed conditions of approval likewise make this distinction: "that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be used weekly for events, including, but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts . . , ." Staff Report at 10(condition 8) (emphasis in original). '1 Even assuming the Mansion had been rented out prior to annexation, an increase in the frequency or size of the events would constitute an intensification of use prohibited by the Municipal Code. Chairman Tim Auran and Members of the Planning Commission January 22, 2007 Page 3 It is unsurprising that -these uses are not authorized in the zoning district, given that they conflict with the neighboring residential land uses that the R-I zoning district was designed to protect. Events at the Mansion produce noise that disturbs neighboring residents late into the night, both from the events themselves and the clean up activities that follow the events. The events produce considerable traffic that also extends late into the night as guests leave the events. The Planning Commission cannot approve a CUP to authorize uses that are not identified as conditional uses in the relevant zoning district or uses that are properly accessory to those conditional uses. Indeed, what these uses require is a zoning amendment, not a CUP. My client does not oppose the continued existence or operation of Mercy High School, nor is she absolutely.opposed to the operation of Kohl Mansion for events, provided that they do not interfere with the quiet enjoyment of her property. As it stands, and as proposed to be enshrined in a CUP, the Mansion events -do interfere with the neighbors' peace and quiet. Accordingly, my client must oppose the issuance of the CUP. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP MATTHEW D. ZINN cc: Maureen Brooks Margaret A. Sloan Linda Abbey [P:\ABBEY\MDZOOS (PC letter).doc] .1 12/02/2006 16: 53 650-347-6492 BLAMEY WRIGHT PAGE 01 2811 Adeline Drive COMMUNICATIONRBCEIVED Burlingame, CA 94010 OF STAFFREPORTN January 22, 2007 RECENE City of Burlingame Planning Commission JAN 2 2 2007 c/o Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner 501 Primrose Ave. CRY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame, CA 94010 pLANNING DEPT. VIA FACSIMILE (650) 696-3790 Dear Burlingame Planning Commission, We are writing to raise questions about the conditional use permit application for the Mercy High School campus. In general, we are happy to live near this campus, and we feel that the open space provided by the campus has a positive impact on the neighborhood. The high school activities seem to us to be similar to the high school activities in place when we moved here in 1988. However, the activities and neighborhood impact of evening activities at the Kohl Mansion have changed dramatically in that time. The frequency of after-hours events and the use of amplified sound systems have had a significant impact on the neighborhood since this property was annexed to the City of Burlingame. As part of this use permit, we would like the hours and noise levels for the rental of Kohl Mansion clarified. Specific items that we'd like to see addressed include: I. We want to be certain that existing noise regulations continue to apply. 2. We would like to have a direct means to raise and resolve noise-related problems when they occur. We're assuming this would be a phone number to contact a Mercy/Kohl Mansion employee on site during events. 3. We believe that the restriction on outdoor sound amplification should include all amplification, not simply music. 4. We believe that events on weekdays should end by 9:00pm. 5. We want to make sure that the conditions are clear to the renters of the facility, and we suggest that the hours and noise conditions covered in the city regulations and the use permit should become part of the standard event contract. Thank you for your time and attention. We plan to attend this evening's meeting. Gil Wn Virginia Wright and Richard Blarney Homeowners 01/22/2007 07: 04 6506851665 THE KROMELOW 'S PAGE 01 Date: January 22, 2007 A rhe 1m � To: Planning Commission fax 6963790 COMMUNICA TION RECEIVED From: Alexandra Kromelow, 2621 Adeline Drive, Burlingame 650-347-0157 AFTER PREPARATION RE: Mercy High CUP Conditions—clarification needed OF STAFF REPORT OL 22..0'f PG M 1 have a few questions about the CUP and the 20 points in the Planning Commission action. KOHL MANSION With respect to item #g. What are "ordinary school events"? What are events that are not"limited to, receptions (private rentals) and musical concerts? Are there examples of such events that have occurred in the past 5 years? Are you allowing Kohl Mansion to he used for a maximum of 6 receptions and musical concerts during the school year? Does the school year include vacations? How do the 12 Music at Kohl concerts relate to this number? Does the school year include mid June to July as Mercy is in session with summer school? If this is not the case, what is the maximum number of events during the summer when Mercy has difficulty controlling noise based on a lack of HVAC(Air Conditioner) at Kohl Mansion, that causes them to open all of the doors and windows at their events? During the summer events, DJ's and bands have performed outside in tents. Is this practice still being followed? With respect to item #10. Did Mercy ever conduct noise decibel measurements for the events that use a sound system, microphones or speakers? How many weekday high school events, when they use a sound system, do they expect to have in any given year? How many "outside school events" will they use a sound system? Do they have to have a sound system for events? In 2006, I have called the police more than 3 times, i find it curious that they only have 3 noise complaints. Why do the neighbors have to be the ones to call the police to file noise complaints? Shouldn't Mercy be responsible to live by the laws of our city? With respect to item #I1. The trucks that carry the chairs and food are quite loud as they barrel down our street passed the I Ipm curfew. MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. Can Mercy publish or put on their website a monthly calendar of school events and outside school events for the neighbors to see? Who is the contact that the neighbors can call in the evening during an event? 2. What are the specific dates of Mercy High's school year? The documents state that the school year is August to mid June and the summer prognun is mid June to the end of July. Could it be assumed that Mercy's school calendar is a full year? 3. Regarding the question asked "could Mercy use one entrance for entering and one for exiting the property", why is this not possible? Could they make the road that goes through campus one way? 4. Mercy stated that the Kohl Mansion typically has an average of 90 events a year. What percent are"ordinary school events" and what percent are covered under receptions and musical concerts? 5. Why isn't Kohl Mansion regulated like a bar or nightclub or any other entertainment venue? Are social activities, including the serving of alcohol and live music the same? Who holds the liquor licenses for the liquor that is served? 1 researched this and found that very few caterers have liquor licenses. 6. How do the assumptions and conclusions in Mercy's long term plans (5 and 10 year)compare with the city of Burlingame's property value, growth and land use assumptions for that same period? LA a,-���-- Cc n n� • C r SSS Lon�rt�U �-leecr 1 . ZZ . C ✓, 4,4ot'v,.i 44i"4'- . s'd ` »x .r- / 4 �c3�'��/' �.N'!- �. .�,Y. _ �,,�1L.e1s+•n 1••✓�' t � j"�'�`.W.:�!�Y!rr ,y �.+i _w3:r"��,.��s�'^'7 im..+� .' ////V/1U/7if A"s( :f w /v s ,.. �. `N'"`f4d; :hk"����� U°��"'�-tel ��V i f�;+��,.• tkt�s�i' 01 LIZ. , t•f} T '^"rC. ff�V¢ 1' 4•&'-1 IU"C4 �. L :..6 • 1.r It, l e i 1 t i } : On/- 1411V IV, i" � I ; _ E GY W ' � I i i ; i 1 • a i r/-J� .rf �,�0o--�1� ./'. .^E y'���.�® �:;.,I`.:/'=�.'d''��-r^'r"°,t.J4'a.. _.....�,.�✓�,..+'`+ t7r 1 /A'/1 ��g}�v�' �j✓j�/ sJ ,• r 4.=�� p�/ t•:^:N,.6.i.?�!,� � �✓ -C',•�ee.ar. i j f 4 _r- J{ gl./��'d'c"„�+•:�' Y"'�"r+`ice.,_ .��"'�'/�._'`." '. `�'.!'�t` d'^�'�.-�.`.�° _ _. �'�,. _. _. .. ...-._. .._. za- OL r U`' Y G•�tr.�'•i�'7'�s / i�} �� .fly� � .—._---_.—_._— —. I f � - --+ f u f i / �y —... r- i / � �,�l��'rk/��-AL1 � .���!'F.�/u+ �!✓ •' :... l'/.,{l.r f. .yf#}: r„ Lf, _6.�a•j "" a �'R •1'.`'-"- J l „ � rr c.�.✓�i f,,.s.,'�';�"''�ar+"t �- ,...-�"� .'r-� v ?�,�''':«,�� i�Z��' " "�+ r ` f •=�' ��, ��. �l �,, E .F .,fir,. T���� ✓��k.. � ,�C.,�'s�;;,: ! i u uz op or I I ! ��i ` s�� 's'$•lid'"� �..-% ��' .�fi" ". -�(.�/�/`1�- j� . % Z ��-'�'-tit �' .� _ �.-• �+ f J 1 ' � ,� .�' '� .,•^tom r x I s I 1 I i I Al • yr Z�AF < r4 4A. L�q i r j i � �'�,�,s{.,4'' '-�4`?'.d•�-✓ %{,fir s`'��'°�•'� ;�,,�''�•k't,�,<'y f�•'• ��` r -� - r f r' r C .. Ge ------- •�' .;.� p-.s:., re n""I �.98� ,y A�n1y d`r 4,/. � �t`h.b�+'° i""�: PI __... ..__._..__ :..- �_=++�..:�� � __ash'J F '—i�_—___t'f_�.:_V L�_Yr.-_ _`-�' •t— ,'•_ ��4Sbd _ —.—_— .— .rte. :,-�� �� ui_ri' ��v,�."'� /��' :`�� � '`(D"L�.��'::-,Ssr✓�:�" —___---1-- `� ���V'�'"'dt�ir amu'' ',' .,+,+��-i'" o J�/ s r •.��"A.f-'F `s*p r.-�c.;^`��,rG'.'.' � C."rl'��°� '-., - —�-------._._.�—Ste_—_. z'''./''�i/t^'4..�°[r' �-^''�s!i..jd/ / ✓��"'.+,�." C'-�—� ---------- — --- i —_---_ l�e.���� �,-� rjzx- �'� f'�� t_�� :.:,.s::%'y`y i"� �l •���J'� . i _—_.—___._._.--__ �� r�N �r�*P 'LTJ W^ F� �.. ''" -�� �: .a .v'1 �.J!.>at �w:x��`V .,J a`..�•f"'��n-�7� i • EE r r t � ' ,r i _ i 1 i • //[,-� i.✓! �' �� r`,�,! .. fr.+f'. .1';��y�+ �s1',�r s�%�••6„•:yVr���,�,�,�� i �`�,}�// tee• �,r•J ..• r / 1 ''�j�,.� ° � .t�''"tmy'•' yr '...'' r:•"�"o.w� ._`:.�.n.-tfr"C,:� _s .�.. ir•.''� -- r ,!B '!�+r`-"�''!`_,.L�r•' -=`«IES'-"# �-�'"+'� -- ------ -- P dl Aa , / ?/�y lrL.'� �eF,'�,. ,:r'C, f' 4•...,{'' _ ir'4'.�wp°`�„r^"e z;;1 f fi l . f � i s � F A 1 y t y' • l FEB. 5. 2007 3;34PM ATTACHMENT F JORGENSON, SIEGEL, MCCLURE 6 FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET,SVITE 210 NICOLAS A.FLEGEL JOHN D.JORDEN50N MENLO PARK,CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 LEIGH R. PRINCE MARVIN S.SIEOEL (650) 324-9300 KEVIN M RODRIGUE2 WILLIAM L MCCLURE FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 JOHN L FLEGEL www.jsmf,com JOHN R,C09GROVL MARGARET A.SLOAN (RETIRED) DAN K.SIEGEL DIANE S.GR£ENBERG JENNIFER K FRIEDMAN MINDIE S.ROMANOWSKY February 5, 2007 Sent via Facsimile: 650-696-3790 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council: This letter is written on behalf of our clients, the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School (collectively"Applicants"), who applied for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a baseline of existing uses on the property located at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive in Burlingame. On January 22, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously (6-0-1, with Commissioner Brownrigg not voting due to a conflict of interest)to approve the Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council and, tonight, the City Council will set a date on which to hear that appeal, The Applicants respectfully request that the City Council hear the appeal as soon as possible. The Applicants understand that the appellant is concerned about the hearing falling on February 21,2007,during ski week. However,if there is a quorum of City Council Members present who can vote on the appeal, the Applicants request that the appeal be heard on February 21,2007. If a delay is necessary,the Applicants request that this appeal be heard at the March 19, 2007, City Council meeting (Applicant is unavailable for the March 5, 2007, meeting) and not unnecessarily delayed until April. I look forward to the appeal hearing being scheduled as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sinc ely, ® vim- L F. rince `E C E I V E N:\DATA\C-EenL31.S\S15T9m M MetgACUP Ap;J10tienWppaal Heonng Dele.1n.wN FEB - 5 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. FEB 5 2007 � �� ✓��� 02007 � By �a- y�� 2002 Linda Abbey By- 2415 y 2415 Adeline Drive Burlingame, Ca. 94010 February 1 , 2007 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL : Please schedule an appeal hearing for 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive on February 21 , 2007 . Doris Mortensen , City Clerk Margaret Monroe Burlingame City Planner Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 -� Dear Ms. Monroe and Burlingame Planning Commission: I appeal the decision of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission's issuance of a Conditional Use Permit on January 22, 2007, regarding the Sisters of Mercy properties located at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Linda Abbey ATTACHMENT G RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for conditional use permit to establish a use baseline for existing activities at Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy facilities at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, zoned R- 1 , Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, property owners; APNs: 027-370-010 & -020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 22, 2007, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1 . On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301 — existing facilities; operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination, is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22°a day of January, 2007 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive `— Effective February 1, 2007 MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas, no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; 4. that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; 6. that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the site and drop students off or pick them up on-site in front of their school; KOHL MANSION 8. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school, number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 9. that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise and other requirements for operation included in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall be required to comply with each of these requirements or cease their event on the Kohl Mansion site; 10. that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Sisters of Mercy site and the sisters of Mercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five (5) decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. -2- EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive Effective February 1, 2007 11. that the agency on site responsible for leasing the Kohl Mansion for non-school events shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s) as appropriate designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors; that the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters; that the Center and/or school staff shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Sisters of Mercy campus site; and that during each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year, the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log, the log shall document which events used mechanical amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside, including those events with music; and that this data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and that noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; 12. that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be only used: for events, including, but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays; weekday evenings after school; and, in addition, up to a maximum of six (6) events may be held on weekdays during the school year, provided most guests arrive by bus. Such uses of the Kohl Mansion shall be considered along with the other events on -� the Sisters of Mercy campus and the collective events shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus a total of fifty (50) event support staff on the campus, for a maximum of 350 persons; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums as stated in this and the other conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 13. that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; 14. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; 15. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints, that this telephone `ho line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and that, in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion, a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; 16. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and -� providing online to the public and directly by mail to the neighbors a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of -3- EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive Effective February 1, 2007 Mercy, the calendar of events shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the event, the duration of the event, the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this calendar shall be compiled, maintained and distributed regularly through out the year; MERCY CENTER 17. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of ten(10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; 18. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service; Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings, Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY 19. The Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset. 20. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; 21. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 22. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 23. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE 24. that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time; and 25. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all -4- EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive Effective February 1, 2007 parking shall occur on site, there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets. 26. that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year(January 2008) to evaluate the effectiveness of the conditions in establishing a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy which compose this site, this review shall include a review of any complaints logged, including the responses and resolutions of the complaints, and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or from the administration of the conditions of approval. -5- ATTACHMENT H RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a conditional use permit to establish a base line for operations of Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School facilities located at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1_, APN: 027-370-010 and 027-370-020; Jean Hastie, Sisters of Mercy and Laura Held, Mercy High School, property owners. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on January 22, 2007, at which time said application was approved; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on February 21, 2007, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1 . On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Class 1- operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing , licensing or minor alteration of existing Public or private structures facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no --� expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agencies determination, is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit is subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit are as set forth in the Planning Commission and City Council staff reports, meeting minutes and recordings of said meetings. 3. 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, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21s' day of February, 2007, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK --. Exhibit A 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas, no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; 4. that all busses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on- site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; 6. that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that all vehicles delivering students to the Mercy High School and Montessori school sites or picking students up from the schools on the site shall enter the school campus area though the gates to the site and drop students off or pick them up on-site in front of their school; 8. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school, number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; KOHL MANSION 9. that each contract for rental or use of Kohl Mansion shall include a copy of the noise and other requirements for operation included in these conditions of approval along with the requirement that the contractor shall be required to comply with each of these requirements or cease their event on the Kohl Mansion site; 10. that the base line for defining noise problems used on the Sisters of Mercy site and the sisters of Mercy High School site shall be the established City standard which includes: any noise which is five (5) decibels over the ambient noise level at the time of the event at property line; and the requirements of Chapter 10.40 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. �-- 2 Exhibit A 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive 11. that the agency on site responsible for leasing the Kohl Mansion for non-school events shall purchase one or more decibel meter(s)as appropriate designed for the purpose of measuring sound out-of-doors;that the security and other appropriate staff shall be trained in the proper use and maintenance of the noise meters;that the Center and/or school staff shall work with a qualified noise specialist to establish a baseline ambient noise level at various noise sensitive locations and at various times during a 24 hour period along the property line of the Sisters of Mercy campus site; and that during each event scheduled at Kohl Mansion for the next year,the noise levels at these established locations shall be measured and recorded in a log,the log shall document which events used mechanical amplification and whether the amplification was inside or outside,including those events with music;and that this data shall be tabulated monthly into a log and shall be submitted to the City as a part of the annual review of the baseline conditions of approval; and that noise measurements shall not be required during the occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events; 12. that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be only used: for events,including,but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays; weekday evenings after school;and,in addition,up to a maximum of six(6)events may be held on weekdays during the school year,provided most guests arrive by bus. Such uses of the Kohl Mansion shall be considered along with the other events on the Sisters of Mercy campus and the collective events shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus a total of fifty (50)event support staff on the campus,for a maximum of 350 persons;that any changes in the area leased, operation,maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums as stated in this and the other conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 13. that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; 14. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m.and 8:00 a.m.,the"take-down"for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district,in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; 15. that Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall provide the neighbors and public with a 24/7 phone number for emergencies and complaints,that this telephone`ho line' shall be answered by an individual trained to respond to neighborhood complaints at the time the complaint is received, and that,in the case of after-hours events at Kohl Mansion,a process shall be instituted that would convey information about a complaint immediately to the staff member supervising the event who has the authority to address the issue immediately with the customers and site security; 16. that the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School shall be responsible for producing and providing online to the public and directly by mail to the neighbors a comprehensive calendar of events planned for the facilities on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy,the calendar of events shall include,at a minimum,the nature of the event,the duration of the event,the date of the event and the contact number for someone wishing to inquire about the calendar and events; that this 3 Exhibit A 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive calendar shall be compiled, maintained and distributed regularly through out the year; MERCY CENTER 17. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m. ; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of ten (10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; 18. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service; Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings, Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. , and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; SISTERS OF MERCY 19. The Labyrinth Garden shall be only open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset. 20. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; .. 21 . that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 22. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 23. that Russell Hall may include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 35 employees; ENTIRE SITE 24. that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time; and 25. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site, there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets. 26. that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in one year (January 2008) to evaluate the `-- 4 Exhibit A 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive effectiveness of the conditions in establishing a base line for operations of the collective uses on the properties owned by the Sisters of Mercy which compose this site,this review shall include a review of any complaints logged,including the responses and resolutions of the complaints,and any changes to operations initiated as a result of any complaints received or from the administration of the conditions of approval. 5 r( 7 CITY BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD .. .. rr. 016H16504325 ' - BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 • (650) 696-3790J :1- i $ 00 .9AO www.burlingame.org Mailed From 94010 __— • . US POSTAGE Site: 2300 & 2750 ADELINE DRIVE The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following PUBLIC HEARING public hearing on Wednesday, February 21 , 2007 at NOTICE 7:00 P.M. 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 conditional use permit to establish a baseline for an existing high school and religious facility use at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive zoned R-1 . (APN 027-370-010 & 027-370-020) Mailed: February 9, 2007 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME -� A copy of the application and plans for this "project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. if you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible~ for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) ATTACHMENT 2 PART 1 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit to Establish a Use Baseline for Existing Item No. J Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy Facilities Action Calendar Address: 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive Meeting Date: 1/22/07 Request: Application for conditional use permit to establish a use baseline for existing activities at Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy Facilities. Applicants and Property Owners: Jean Hastie, Sisters of Mercy APN: 027-370-010 Laura Held, Mercy High School APN: 027-370-020 Lot Area (Sisters of Mercy): 32.77 Acres Lot Area (Mercy High School): 3.74 acres General Plan: Low Density Residential, Private School Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301, existing facilities, Class 1, operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. History: On May 9, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application from Mercy High School for a remodel and addition to the fitness center at 2750 Adeline Drive (refer to attached 5/9/05 PC Minutes). The Commission voted to continue the hearing on the item to allow the applicant time to respond in writing to questions submitted by the neighbors. The Commission also requested that the applicant provide more information regarding the current operation and activities on the site in order to establish a baseline for the existing uses. On June 28, 2005, the applicant withdrew the application for the addition to the fitness center, and applied for a building permit to do maintenance repairs and minor remodel to the existing fitness center. The applicant held a series of neighborhood meetings to address questions raised by neighbors regarding the maintenance/remodel of the fitness center and the existing operation of the site (see attachment entitled "Community Outreach" date stamped November 1, 2006). At the neighborhood meetings, the applicant discussed the proposed maintenance/remodel project and provided responses to the questions raised by neighboring residents regarding both the proposed improvements and existing operations. The written questions submitted by the neighbors as well as responses provided by the applicant are attached. Current Application: The applicant is now requesting a conditional use permit for the existing school and religious facility use to establish a baseline of existing operations at both the Sisters of Mercy facility(32.77 acres) and the Mercy High School site (3.74 acres). In summary, the following activities now occur on the site (refer to attached summary of existing uses date stamped l l/1/06, provided by the applicant): MERCY HIGH SCHOOL The Mercy High School activities primarily are confined to the 3.74 acre parcel owned by Mercy High School. The areas used for the school activities include portions of Kohl Mansion and the grounds and greens, a fitness center, swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts and a cafeteria. In addition, some of the offices for Mercy High School are housed in Russell Hall on the Sisters of Mercy site. Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive Mercy High School operates from Monday through Friday and includes the following components: -� • Grades 9-12: Operates from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. from August to mid-June. Up to 500 students may be enrolled in the high school. There are currently 43 instructors and 30 staff members for the High School. • Montessori Preschool (ages 2 %2 to 5): Operates from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. year round with up to 30 students. • After School Programs: Held from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. from August to mid-June. These activities include athletic programs such as water polo, tennis, swimming and cross country running. • Summer School/Camp: These activities operate during the summer months from mid-June to July from 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Enrollment for their 2004 summer school and sports camp program was 266, but total attendance depends on actual enrollment. Sumner programs include Tools for Schools (Grades 6-8), High School Prep Courses (Grades 6-9), High School Courses (Grades 9-12) and Summer Sports Program (Grades 6-9). Other Activities on the Mercy High School Site In addition to the school activities, the following activities occur at Kohl Mansion and on the grounds: • Music at Kohl Mansion: Twelve Events are scheduled annually that occur from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday, Saturday or Sunday nights. Four events are scheduled annually that occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on a weekday. Attendance is limited to no more than 300 guests. • Private Rentals: Kohl Mansion and the surrounding grounds are rented for private events on -� Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays at times when school is not in session. Evening events end no later than 11:00 p.m., and all events are limited to no more than 300 guests. SISTERS OF MERCY SITE Uses on the Sisters of Mercy site are divided into two categories, Mercy Center uses and non-Center uses. These are summarized below: Mercy Center Uses • Overnight Programs: Meeting and sessions for the overnight programs are held in the Mercy Center meeting rooms and participants stay overnight in the Mercy Center guest rooms. Meetings and sessions conclude by 9:00 p.m. The number of participants would not exceed the 97 available guest rooms. Internship programs are held in July with up to 60 participants. Retreats are held for an average of three days, and have an average attendance of 33 residents. • Day Programs: Day Programs are held at the Mercy Center and Chapel and consist of the following: o Speaker Series: Held on six Sundays a year from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. There are an average of 65 attendees for this program. o Spiritual Direction Program: This program is held on Saturdays and concludes by 9:00 p.m. There are an average of 75 participants in this program. o Meditation, Chapel and Prayer Groups: These are conducted daily and conclude by 9:00 p.m. Generally, these are small groups, but on the first Friday of every month a -� Taiz6 evening service is conducted with up to 150 attendees. -2- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive Sisters of Mercy Uses • Room and Board for Sisters of Mercy: The Motherhouse contains residential facilities for up to 50 Sister residents. Currently, 32 Sisters reside at the Motherhouse. • Marian Care Center and Infirmary: The center is a residential care facility with 40 units. The center includes resident rooms, kitchen, dining room, lounge facilities, chapel and utility rooms. • Cottage House: There is a lodge structure on the site which provides housing for up to four Sisters; currently there are two Sister residents. • Administrative Offices: The administrative offices for Sisters of Mercy are housed in Russell Hall, on Sisters of Mercy property. The administrative offices are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily; and there are 25 employees in the administrative offices. PARKING AND TRAFFIC The applicant has submitted a traffic and parking study of Existing Conditions at the site prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, dated July 10, 2006 (see attached). The following information is taken from this report. Existing Parking: There are nine parking lots spread throughout the site as described below. PARKING LOT Number of Spaces -Mercy High School Lot(student & faculty parking) 132 Parking along Kohl Mansion service road 20 Lake Lot(adjacent to Marian Convent) 69 Forest Lot off main road at east end of site) 74 Marian Care Center lot adjacent to building) 5 Motherhouse Lot front 6 Motherhouse Lot rear 30 Eucalyptus Lot(unpaved lot near Columbus/Hoover) 25 Kohl Mansion Service Road 20 Creek Lot staff parking behind Motherhouse) 21 TOTAL CAMPUS PARKING 382 Parking facilities are spread throughout the site generally adjacent to the facilities which they serve. Fehr and Peers conducted a parking occupancy survey of all parking facilities on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, every hour from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. On that day, in addition to the regular Mercy High School activities, there were two events scheduled at Mercy Center: Cancer Prayer with 17 participants from 10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m., and an all-day retreat with 12 participants. The results of this survey are shown on Table 1 on page 5 of the Traffic and Parking Study. The typical peak weekday parking demand for the entire campus is 291 vehicles at 11:00 a.m. This represents 76% occupancy of the available parking spaces. Typically, 90% occupancy is considered to be full. The traffic study determined that for the current campus parking supply is more than adequate. In addition, traffic counts were taken at each of the four driveway location throughout the day on Tuesday, May 16, 2006, during the morning, afternoon and evening periods (refer to Table 3 on Page 7 of the Traffic and Parking Study). During the count periods, Mercy High School was in session and -3- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive there were no events at Kohl Mansion. There were two events at Mercy Center, a group of 15 between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., and another group of 15 all day. The counts confirmed that the 15-minute time periods with the greatest amount of traffic coincide with the beginning and ending of the school day. Based on these counts, the morning peak hour occurs between 7:30 and 8:30 a.m., the afternoon peak hour occurs between 2:45 p.m. and 3:45 p.m., and the evening peak hour occurs between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. Kohl Mansion Events: The traffic study also provided traffic estimates for three types of events which typically occur at Kohl Mansion. The study notes that the Campus has a policy that Kohl Mansion events shall be limited to no more than 300 participants, and that there shall be no Kohl Mansion events when Mercy High School is in session. Table 5 on Page 9 of the Traffic and Parking Study provides a break down of traffic estimates for a wedding, a corporate function and a concert. The highest traffic count and parking occupancy is expected to occur for a wedding, where it is expected that a total of 147 vehicles would access the site for the event. Given that Kohl Mansion events typically happen on a weekend or weekday evenings, it is assumed that the Kohl Mansion events would not affect traffic to and from the campus during the morning and afternoon peak hours. However, an event at the Kohl Mansion that would occur on a weekday evening could influence traffic during the evening peak hour. If all of the event traffic were to arrive during the campus evening peak hour (5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.), the combined traffic would increase from 100 vehicles to between 212 (for a corporate event) and 247 vehicles (for a wedding). Even with a weekday evening wedding, the number of vehicles in the evening peak hour of the campus would be fewer than the number of vehicles in the morning and afternoon peak hour. Study Meeting: At the December 11, 2006 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission had several questions regarding the project (refer to attached 12/11/06 P.C. Minutes). The Commission gave direction to place this item on the regular action calendar once the information had been provided by the applicant. The applicant submitted a response letter to the Planning Commission dated January 10, 2007. The following is a list of the Commission's comments (in italics) followed by the applicant's response. 1. At previous meetings, neighbors noted concerns with parking off-campus,please clarify. • The applicant notes that there is adequate parking on the property, and Mercy High School requires students to keep their cars on campus (refer to attached letter date stamped January 10, 2007). The applicant notes that the submitted traffic report indicates that the campus parking supply is only 79% occupied during peak demand times. In addition, the applicant notes that although neighbors have occasionally complained about students parking off-campus, if it is reported to Mercy High School, the student who parked off-campus is required to move her car on campus and is disciplined(also refer to proposed Condition No. 3 below). 2. Proposed Condition No. 19 specifies that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants on site at any one time, does this number include guests, caterer, band etc.; how is the number policed and enforced? -4- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive • The applicant notes that this number reflects 300 guests plus an additional number for support staff. This number may also include a small number of Mercy Center retreat participants or other guests on site at the time of the event. The maximum number of guests on site is policed through a number of methods, primarily through the Campus Scheduling Policy, which provides that no event or combination of events at Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall exceed 300 total guests. The event schedule is recorded on a campus master calendar that is monitored by the Campus Executive Director. Events submitted for approval and calendaring must indicate the date, time, number of participants and number of parking spaces required. Applicants who desire to rent Kohl Mansion are informed that 300 guests is the maximum and are required to sign a rental contract that indicates the same. Kohl Mansion staff work with the renters and their caterers to develop seating plans and use plans that do not exceed the maximum number of guests. Kohl Mansion keeps a file for every client that includes the number of people, seating assignments and caterer confirmation form, indicating the final guest count. The maximum guest limitation is also noted in a number of places on the Kohl Mansion and Mercy High School websites. Through these mechanisms, the applicant ensures that no single event or multiple events will exceed the maximum number of guests on the property. 3. The parking study identifies demand for Kohl Mansion, did not see information on a combined parking demand for Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School and Mercy Center, need to be sure that demand does not exceed the available 382 parking spaces; the parking study notes there is a policy that there shall be no Kohl Mansion events when high school is in session, that policy should be incorporated into the conditions of approval. • The applicant notes that although the traffic report does not directly address the combined demand, this is a situation that will not occur based on the Campus Scheduling Policy. In addition, Condition Nos. 8 and 19 do not provide for a situation in which the full capacity for all three uses would occur simultaneously. The Campus Scheduling Policy allows a maximum of 300 total guests for Kohl Mansion and the Mercy Center at any one time when Mercy High School is not in session. The analysis in the Traffic Report is based on this scheduling policy, and indicates that the combined demand does not exceed the available parking supply on site. The applicant has provided information on a worst case scenario for combined parking demand on site. This would occur when there is some overlap among Mercy High School, Kohl Mansion and the Mercy Center. Any overlap between these three uses is most likely to occur during the 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. hour on a Friday when there is an after school activity and an evening event. At this time of day there are 100 vehicles associated with Mercy High School on the property. A wedding at Kohl Mansion, with up to 300 guests, would potentially generate an additional 147 vehicles. The combined demand would be for 247 of the total parking spaces available on site. Of the remaining parking spaces, approximately 30 spaces would be occupied by Mercy Center staff and Sister residents. This would leave a buffer of 105 unoccupied spaces that could be used if there were another evening event scheduled at the Mercy Center (refer to Combined Parking Demand Table below). -5- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive Combined Parking Demand .� (Friday 5:00 p.m. —6:00 p.m.) Total Available Parking 382 Mercy High School 100 Kohl Mansion 147 Mercy Center 30 Combined Parking Demand 277 Unoccupied Spaces 105 Condition No. 8 reflects the Campus Scheduling Policy and requires that, with the exception of a number of weekday events, no Kohl Mansion event should be held during regular school hours (refer to Item 4 below for wording of Condition No. 8). Condition No. 19 also has been revised to state (revision in italics): "that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time". 4. The staff report indicates that there are four events per year scheduled between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekdays, and Condition No. 8 says that there may be occasional weekday music concerts, provided that participants arrive by bus, does "occasional" mean four events per year, clarify and tie together in condition, should be made more clear. • The applicant notes that the reference in the staff report to four events per year is based on the information provided by the applicant for events scheduled in the past year. During other years, up to six events, outside of ordinary school events, have been scheduled. In order to clarify this, and to address the applicants concerns that not all guests arrive by bus, Condition No. 8 has been amended to read as follows: "that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be used weekly for events, including, but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, weekday evenings after school, and up to a maximum of six (6) events during the school year provided most guests arrive by bus during weekdays. Such uses shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus appropriate support staff per event; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit" 5. One of the questions from the neighbors asked if Mercy High School can require that buses stay parked on Mercy property during scheduled events, this should be made a condition of approval. • The applicant notes that Mercy High school currently provides parking directions and requires that buses and vans used by visiting schools or teams be parked on campus. Additionally, if Mercy High School is notified of a visiting school or team parking in the neighborhood, the person responsible is found and required to move their vehicle on campus. Condition No. 4 -� states "that all buses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools." -6- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive 6. Provide a breakdown of the Mercy High School parking lot between student and faculty parking, parking study combines information on what appears to be two separate lots on the site plan. • The applicant notes that there are a total of 160 parking spaces designated for high school use. Of those, 78 are designated for faculty and 82 for students. Those spaces are located in the School Lot, Lake Lot, Forest Lot and Service Road Lot (refer to Plot Plan date stamped November 1, 2006 and traffic report). Because Mercy High School requires flexibility in its parking arrangements, there is no fixed location within the lots that can be identified for student parking only or for faculty parking only. The Campus Executive Director and the Mercy High School Principal meet regularly to discuss, analyze and make changes, as necessary, to the parking lot assignments in order to ensure the best arrangement of adequate parking for all who work, study, live and visit the campus. 7. A number of concerns have been raised about noise, have there been any studies done, seems to be related to activities at Kohl Mansion, should provide accurate noise measurements to quantify impact of amplified music measured at property line compared to ambient noise levels. • The applicant notes that two noise concerns were raised during community outreach that directly related to Kohl Mansion. The first concern raised was in regard to amplified sound. With a few minor exceptions, all amplified music is conducted inside Kohl Mansion, and there is an 11:00 p.m. curfew for indoor amplified music. There are up to ten outdoor weddings per year that use a sound system, microphones or speakers to amplify only the spoken wedding ceremony. Additionally, outdoor Mercy High School student body events at Kohl Mansion using amplified sound and music, usually short "pep rallies" preceding school events, are limited in number and duration. These self-imposed limitations ensure that Kohl Mansion is operated in accordance with Burlingame noise regulations and that peace and good order of the neighborhood is not disturbed(refer to Condition No. 10). The applicant notes that in the past, Kohl Mansion has received a few noise complaints when on warm days the doors were opened and music drifted out into the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a copy of the Burlingame Police Department Call History Log for 2006. It indicates that in 2006, three noise-related calls were received regarding Kohl Mansion, and those calls were during August, one of the warmest months of the year. On these three occasions, after individuals at Kohl Mansion were advised of the complaint, the music was turned down and the doors were closed. In the last few years, Kohl Mansion staff and security have begun to monitor events to ensure that doors are not opened when the music would be heard outside the facility in a manner that would violate the City's noise regulations. The applicant notes that the second noise-related issue at Kohl Mansion was the take down of tents after an event. In order to comply with the City's noise ordinance, individuals at Kohl Mansion are required not to take down tents between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays or weekends. However, there are some "take down" activities after outdoor events that do not cause a noise disturbance, such as bringing food inside and folding chairs that may occur after 10:00 p.m. (refer to Condition No. 11). -7- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive The applicant notes that during the community outreach, questions were asked about noise from --� the batting cage. The batting cage has not been used for five years and is currently not operable. The applicant also notes that up to six times per year a microphone system is used intermittently at the swimming pool for up to three hours during a swim meet or other event. These events at the swimming pool take place between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. 8. Is there a complaint center or person that the community can contact to express concerns? • The applicant notes that contact information has been provided and will continue to be available for (1) Laura Held, Principal of Mercy High School; and (2) Jean Hastie, Campus Executive Director for the Sisters of Mercy. Both of these individuals are available to receive complaints. Each individual keeps a complaint log to record and respond to any issues raised. The applicant desires to be a good neighbor and, therefore, has already reached out to the community and made themselves available in this manner. In the submitted application materials, the applicant had indicated that on average, a retreat is held for three days, typically Friday to Sunday. However, the maximum number of days for a retreat was not provided. In order to clarify the maximum number of days a retreat is held, the applicant notes that while the average retreat is held for three days, some retreats are held for a maximum of ten days (refer to Condition No. 12). Site History: The Sisters of Mercy purchased the property in 1924. At that time, and up until 1979, the property was in the jurisdiction of San Mateo County. Mercy High School has been in operation on -� the site since 1931. The Sisters of Mercy Motherhouse room and board facility has been in existence on this site since 1932. The caretaker's cottage was added sometime between 1945 and 1955. In 1961, the San Mateo County Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow a high school, college, convent and all related facilities on the site, as well as the addition of Library and Administration building extensions and a building then under construction (refer to attached information regarding 1961 use permit date stamped 11/1/06). In 1973, the County Planning Commission granted an application for use permit to allow additional facilities at the existing convent, consisting of a new single story structure to include a Nursing Care wing. The structure approved consisted of a 27,000 SF building to include 40 bedrooms, kitchen, dining and lounge facilities, a chapel and utility rooms (refer to attached information regarding 1973 use permit date stamped 11/1/06). The two properties were annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1979 (refer to attached LAFCO annexation application and Certificate of Completion date stamped 11/1/06). At that time, facilities included the Sisters of Mercy (convent, chapel, retirement home, retreat facilities, school classrooms, library, ancillary facilities and convalescent and retirement home) and Mercy High School (classrooms, cafeteria, libraries, auditoriums, athletic facilities, ancillary facilities and Kohl Mansion). The high school and convent facilities are on separate properties, although the administrative offices for Mercy High School are on the Sisters of Mercy site. All of the current activities were in place at the time of the annexation. The entire site is zoned R-1. Churches, convents, parish houses and schools are allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 District. Since these activities on these properties predated annexation in 1979 and compliance with the city zoning, they have been considered to be permitted as an existing nonconforming use. -8- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive The County issued conditional use permits to the school and convent before the City annexed the site. Because a conditional use permit creates a right that runs with the land, the County's permit has standing with the City. All the uses now on this site are identified as conditional uses in the R-1 zone. The applicant is voluntarily seeking an update to the conditional use permit granted by the County to establish a baseline for the existing uses on the site. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a- c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for the conditional use permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered. Note that the changes in italics reflect changes made from the draft conditions contained in the Planning Commission study staff report dated December 11, 2006. MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2. that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas, no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; 4. that all buses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; -9- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive 6. that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school, number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; KOHL MANSION 8. that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be used weekly for events, including, but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, weekday evenings after school, and up to a maximum of six (6) events during the school year, provided most guests arrive by bus during weekdays. Such uses shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus appropriate support staff per event; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 9. that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; 10. that amplified music, with the exception of occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events, shall only occur inside the Kohl mansion and the music shall conclude by 11:00 p.m.; 11. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; MERCY CENTER 12. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of ten (10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; 13. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to, the Friday evening Taiz6 service; Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings, Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; 14. The Labyrinth Garden shall be open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset. -10- Conditional Use Permit 2300&2750 Adeline Drive 15. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; 16. that the Marian Care Convent and Infirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 17. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 18. that Russell Hall shall include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 25 employees; ENTIRE SITE 19. that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time; and 20. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site, information shall be provided regarding available parking for the event; participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site, there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner c: Sandy Sloan, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure &Flegel Jean Hastie/Laura Held, Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School -11- JORGENSON, SIEGEL, MCCLURE S FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN D.JORGENSON 1100 ALMA STREET,SUITE 210 CAMAS J.STEINMETZ ARVIN S SIEGEL MENLO PARK,CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 NICOLAS A FLEGEL WILLIAM L MCCLURE (650)324-9300 KATHERINE P.HAAS JOHN L.FLEGEL FACSIMILE(650)324-022) MARGARET A SLOAN www.jsmf.com JOHN R.COSGROVE DAN K.SIEGEL (RETIRED) DIANE 5.GREENBERG JENNIFER N FRIEDMAN MINDIE S.ROMANOWSKY January 10,2007 RECEIVED JAN 10 2007 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPr. 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Re: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit Study Session Follow-Up Dear Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: On December 11,2006,the City of Burlingame("City")Planning Commission held a study session regarding the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School (collectively "Applicant")Conditional Use Permit("CUP")application to establish a baseline for existing uses on the property located at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive,Burlingame("Property'). At the study session, the Planning Commissioners requested additional information or clarification regarding several items. This letter,submitted on behalf of the Applicant,will address each of those items. Parking Commissioner Osterling requested clarification regarding student parking off- campus. There is adequate parking on the Property and Mercy High School requires students to keep their cars on campus. (Community Outreach,pg.3,question 5)' The Traffic Report,included as Exhibit A,with the materials date stamped November 1,2006, concludes that the campus parking supply is only 79% occupied during peak demand times,and therefore,there is more than adequate parking available for students to park on campus. (Traffic Report, pg. 9) Although occasionally neighbors have complained about student parking off-campus,if they report the information to Mercy High School,the student who has failed to abide by the rule is required to move her car on campus and is disciplined. (Community Outreach,pg.4,question 10) As drafted, Proposed Condition No. 3 not only addresses this parking concern, but also reflects what is already taking place at Mercy High School:"that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked 'The Community Outreach materials submitted with the CUP application and date stamped November 1,2006,are attached hereto as Exhibit 1,for your convenience. NiDATA\Clients�Mistem of MemXUP AppkationWdi6onal CUP Information For PC.Irt.2.wpd Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: January 10, 2007 - Page 3 Although the combined parking demand does not exceed the available supply, City Staff requested that the Applicant provide a worst case scenario for combined parking demand on site. The worst case parking scenario would occur when there is some overlap among Mercy High School, Kohl Mansion, and the Mercy Center. Any overlap between these three (3) uses is most likely to occur during the 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. hour on a Friday when there is an after school activity and an evening event. At this time of day there are 100 vehicles associated with Mercy High School on the Property. (Traffic Report, pg. 7) A wedding at Kohl Mansion, with up to 300 guests, would potentially generate an additional 147 vehicles. (Traffic Report, pg. 9) Combined,there would be demand for 247 of the total parking spaces available on site. Of the remaining parking spaces, approximately 30 spaces would be occupied by Mercy Center staff and Sister Residents. This leaves a buffer of 105 unoccupied spaces on the Property that could be used were there another evening event scheduled at the Mercy Center. For your reference, the combined parking demand numbers are summarized in the table below. These numbers indicate that even in the worst case scenario when there are overlapping events, the combined demand for parking from Mercy High School, Kohl Mansion, and the Mercy Center does not exceed the available parking supply on the Property. Combined Parking Demand (Friday 5:00 p.m. -6:00 p.m.) Total Available Parking 382 Mercy High School 100 Kohl Mansion 147 Mercy Center 30 Combined Parking Demand 277 Unoccupied Spaces 105 Followingfrom the concern regarding adequatetotal parking supplyon the Property, Commissioner Vistica indicated that perhaps the policy that there shall be no Kohl Mansion events when Mercy High School is in session should be incorporated into the conditions of approval. The requested condition is found at Proposed Condition No.8 which indicates that, with the exception of a number of weekday events, no Kohl Mansion event should be held during regular school hours. Commissioner Vistica, also requested that Proposed Condition No. 8 be clarified to reflect that 'occasional weekday events" at Kohl Mansion equaled the four (4) events per year referenced in the Staff Report. Although four (4) events are scheduled this year, NADATA\ClientsZ Sisters of Mer*CUP AAWWationWdditional CUP Infonnatim For PC.Irt.2.wpd Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: January 10, 2007 - Page 2 on site in designated parking areas, no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets." Commissioner Vistica also raised a parking question, querying whether Mercy High School, as a condition of approval, should require that buses remain parked on the Applicants' Property during scheduled events. Mercy High School currently provides parking directions and requires that buses and vans used by visiting schools or teams be parked on campus. Additionally, if Mercy High School is notified of a visiting school or team parking in the neighborhood, the person responsible is found and required to move their vehicle on campus. (Community Outreach, pg. 3, question 6 and pg. 5, question 15; Mercy High School Existing Uses chart submitted with CUP application and date stamped November 1, 2006) Proposed Condition No. 4 addresses this parking concern and requires Mercy High School to do what it already does: "that all buses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site; parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools." Commissioner Terrones asked for a breakdown of the Mercy High School student and faculty parking. There is no specific breakdown within the Traffic Report, however, in the Mercy High School Existing Uses chart, submitted with the CUP application, the Applicant explained that there are a total of 160 parking spaces designated for high school use. Of those, 78 are designated for faculty and 82 for students. Those spaces are located in the School Lot, Lake Lot, Forest Lot and Service Road Lot or Lots A - C and I as depicted in the Traffic Report. (Mercy High School Existing Uses; Traffic Report, pg. 3) There are adequate parking spaces reserved within those lots to accommodate the faculty and students who drive regularly and any additional students or faculty who may occasionally drive to the campus. Because Mercy High School requires flexibility in its parking arrangements, there is no fixed location within the lots that can be identified as for student parking only or for faculty parking only. The Campus Executive Director and the Mercy High School Principal meet regularly to discuss, analyze and make changes, as necessary, to the parking lot assignments in order to ensure the best arrangement of adequate parking for all who work, study, live and visit the campus. Commissioner Vistica expressed a desire to receive confirmation that the combined parking demand for Mercy High School, Kohl Mansion, and the Mercy Center does not exceed the available 382 parking spaces. Although the Traffic Report does not directly address the combined demand, this is a situation that will not arise because the Campus Scheduling Policy and Proposed Condition Nos. 8 and 19 do not provide for a situation in which the full capacity of all three (3) uses would occur simultaneously. (Campus Scheduling Policy,included as Exhibit B, in the materials date stamped November 1,2006, allows a maximum of 300 total guests for Kohl Mansion and the Mercy Center at any one time when Mercy High School is not in session; Traffic Report, pg. 8) Combined demand, therefore, does not and will not exceed the available parking supply on site. NADATA\ClientMSZiaters of Mercy\CUP AppllcatioMAdditional CUP Inbnnation For PC.Irt.2.wpd Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: January 10, 2007 - Page 4 during other years up to six (6) events, outside of ordinary school events, are scheduled.2 Proposed Condition No. 8 should be clarified accordingly. Additionally, Proposed Condition No. 8 should be clarified to indicate that not all participants, but most guests arrive by bus for weekday events. This is a reasonable modification because even when some of the guests for weekday events do not arrive by bus, the parking capacity of the Property is not exceeded and guests do not park in the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant, therefore, recommends that Proposed Condition No. 8 be clarified as follows: "that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be used weekly for events, including, but not limited to, receptions and musical concerts, on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, weekday evenings after school, and up to six (6) events during the school year provided most guests arrive by bus during weekdays."3 Kohl Mansion Commissioner Osterling raised an issue regarding Proposed Condition No. 19, which specifies that the combined total numberof participants for events scheduled at Kohl Mansion and the Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants on site at any one time. He requested clarification regarding whether this number included guests, caterers and others. Indeed, this number includes 300 guests plus an additional number for event support staff. (Proposed Condition No. 8) This figure may also include a small number of individual Mercy Center retreatants or other guests on site at the time of an event. This 350 participant maximum is policed through a number of methods. First, the Campus Scheduling Policy provides that no event or combination of events at Kohl Mansion and the Mercy Center shall exceed 300 total guests. The scheduling of events is recorded on a campus master calendar that is monitored by the Campus Executive Director. Events submitted for approval and calendaring must indicate the date, time, number of participants and number of parking spaces required. (Campus Scheduling Policy, pg. 2) Applicants who desire to rent Kohl Mansion are informed that 300 guests is the maximum and are required to sign a rental contract that indicates the same. Kohl Mansion staff work with the renters and their caterers to develop seating plans and use plans that do not exceed the maximum number of guests. Kohl Mansion keeps a file for every client that includes the number of people, seating assignments and caterer confirmation form, indicating the final guest count. The maximum guest limitation is also noted in a number of places on the Kohl Mansion website and Mercy High School website. Though these mechanisms, the Applicant ensures that no single event or multiple events will exceed the maximum number of guests on the Property. 2These weekday events are also scheduled on the campus master calendar to avoid exceeding the available parking supply on the Property. 3Italicized language indicates recommended changes fromthe Proposed Conditions presented by City Staff at the study session on December 11, 2006. NADATA\Clients1SZ1sters of MercyrCUP Applic fionVAddibonal CUP Information For PC.Irt.2.wpd Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: — January 10, 2007 - Page 5 Noise Commissioner Terrones indicated that he believed a number of concerns had been raised about noise that appeared related to the activities at Kohl Mansion. As part of the community outreach, only two (2) noise concerns were raised that directly related to Kohl Mansion. The first was in regard to amplified sound. With a few minor exceptions for Mercy High School itself, all amplified music is conducted inside Kohl Mansion. There is an 11:00 p.m. curfew for indoor amplified music. (Community Outreach, pg. 7, question 7) There are up to ten (10) outdoor weddings per year that use a sound system, microphones or speakers to amplify only the spoken wedding ceremony. (Community Outreach, pg. 7, question 7 and pg. 8) Additionally, outdoor Mercy High School student body events at Kohl Mansion utilizing amplified sound and music,usually short"pep-rallies" preceding school events, are limited in number and duration. These self-imposed limitations ensure that Kohl Mansion is operated in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code§10.40.020 and that the peace and good orderof the neighborhood is not disturbed.° Proposed Condition No. 10 reflects the current state of affairs on the Property and adequately addresses any noise concerns. Nevertheless, the Applicant recommends that the Proposed Condition be revised slightly to more clearly indicate the baseline: "that amplified music, with the exception of occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events, shall only occur inside the Kohl Mansion and the music shall conclude by 11 :00 p.m." In the past, Kohl Mansion has received a few noise complaints when on warm days the doors were opened and music drifted out into the neighborhood. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the Burlingame Police Department Call History Record showing that in 2006 only three (3)noise related calls were received by the City all year regarding Kohl Mansion and those calls were during August, one of the warmest months of the year.$ On those occasions after individuals at Kohl Mansion were advised of the complaint,the music was turned down and the doors were closed. In fact, on one (1) of those occasions the City returned to check on the noise levels and found that all was quiet. Since that time, and especially in the last few years, Kohl Mansion staff and security have begun to monitor °The uses on the Property include a high school for educating young women, a convent, convalescent and retirement home for the Sisters of Mercy. These uses, including the use of Kohl Mansion for religious, cultural and civic activities, have been present and have provided a great benefit to the community for many decades. SThe only othercall received during 2006 was not a noise complaint, but a complaint regarding a disturbance by group of individuals trying inappropriately enter the Property. _ Applicant desires to keep the Property open to the community; however, this complaint illustrates the type of safety concern that would cause the Applicant to consider becoming a gated area. NADATANCiientslSlSistem of Mer*CUP ApplicationUldditional CUP Information For PC.I1.2.wpd Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: January 10, 2007 - Page 6 events to ensure that doors are not opened when the music would be heard outside the facility in a manner that would violate the Burlingame Municipal Code. The second sound issue related to Kohl Mansion was the take down of tents after an event. In accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code §10.40.039, individuals at Kohl Mansion do not take down tents between 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays or weekends. (Community Outreach, pg. 7, question 9) Individuals at Kohl Mansion do, however, perform "take-down" activities after outdoor events that do not cause a noise disturbance, for example bringing food inside and folding chairs. Proposed Condition No. 11,therefore, reflects what is alreadytaking place and adequately addresses any concerns regarding the take-down of outdoor events by limiting it to those activities which do not cause a noise disturbance. Other sound issues, not related to Kohl Mansion, raised by the community and staff are minor. The community asked about noise from the batting cage. The batting cage has not been used for five (5) years and is non-operable. (Community Outreach, pg. 5 question 18) Therefore,the batting cage does not present a potential noise problem. City staff asked about amplified sound or bullhorns at the swimming pool. Up to six (6) times per year a microphone system is used intermittently at the swimming pool for up to three (3) hours during a swim meet or other event. These events at the swimming pool take place between 2:00 p.m, and 6:00 p.m The limited use of amplified sound or bullhorns does not disturb the peace and good order of the neighborhood or violate Burlingame Municipal Code §10.40.020. Other Items Commissioner Osterling wanted to know if there is a complaint center or person that the community can contact to express concerns. He thought that such a venue for complaints should be made readily available to the public. Contact information has been provided and will continue to be available to the community for: (1) Laura Held, Principal of Mercy High School; and (2) Jean Hastie, Campus Executive Director for the Sisters of Mercy. (Community Outreach, pg. 1) Both of these individuals are available to receive complaints. Each individual keeps a complaint log to record and respond to any issues raised. The Applicant desires to be a good neighbor and, therefore, has already reached out to the community and made themselves available in this manner. Lastly, staff requested clarification on the maximum number of days a retreat is held. While the average retreat is held for three (3) days, typically Friday to Sunday, retreats are held for a maximum of ten (10) days. Applicant recommends that Proposed Condition No. 12 be revised to reflect this maximum as follows: "...and retreats which last an average of three(3)days and a maximum of ten (10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants." NADATAtC5ents\S\SisteM of Merc)ACUP App1k B6on%Addibonal CUP Information For PC.Id.2.wpd Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: - January 10, 2007 - Page 7 Conclusion This application and the Proposed Conditions simply reflect those activities existing on the Property and create a baseline for the uses on the Property so that moving forward the City and the Applicant will have a clearer position from which to assess future proposed changes, if any. As evidenced in all of the previous submissions related to the Applicants' CUP application, the Planning Commission can make the findings required to grant the CUP: 1 . The existing uses have all been present on the Property and have all provided a great benefit to the community for decades. The existing uses on the Property 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. 2. The existing uses on the Property will continue to be conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan, which states that existing uses should be permitted to continue on the Property, and with the purposes of the Zoning Code. (Open Space Element, pgs. OS-15-16; Burlingame Municipal Code, Title 25). 3. The Conditions of Approval are reasonable, adequately reflect the existing uses on the Property, secure the purposes of the Zoning Code and assure operation in a manner that is compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Because each of these findings can be made, the Applicant respectfully requests that you approve their CUP application. Sincerely, f Margar A. Sloan cc: Jean Hastie Laura Held Sr. Ellene Egan NADATA\CIients\SSSisters of Mercy,CUP Application\Additional CUP Information For PC.Irt2.wpd Exhibit 1 COMMUNITY OUTREACH Mercy High School conducted community outreach meetings during both day and evening hours. At these meetings, Laura Held, the Principal of Mercy High School, presented information regarding the school and in particular the remodel of the fitness center. She also took questions and addressed community concerns. Throughout the community outreach process, contact information for Laura Held and the Campus Executive Director for the Sisters of Mercy was provided. At the last meeting,Jean Hastie, the new Campus Executive Director for the Sisters of Mercy, was introduced to the community. Lastly,both Laura Held and Jean Hastie have kept a complaint log to field and respond to any issues raised. 1. Questions and Answers In May 2005,at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the permit to remodel the fitness center, Mercy High School and the Sisters of Mercy received a number of questions regarding the school and the Mercy Center. In response to these and other questions received directly from the community, a list of questions and answers were prepared. The list,which is included herewith,was provided to all those who attended community outreach meetings. 2. Invitation to Community Outreach Meetings On October 6,2005,Mercy High School sent invitations to neighborhood residents inviting them to attend an informational meeting regarding the fitness center and pool area. These invitations were sent to 191 neighborhood residents on a list provided by the City of Burlingame that included all households within a 300 square foot radius. The invitation included a summary of the fitness center project and some basic facts regarding the campus facilities and their uses. 3. Community Outreach Meetings On October 20,2005,the first community outreach meeting was held from 7:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. At the meeting,representatives from Mercy High School provided information about the fitness center renovation and fielded questions and comments from neighborhood residents regarding traffic,parking and events. There were 28 people in attendance at the meeting. All of the people in attendance received a complete set of the planning commission minutes and the list of questions and answers. On October 27, 2005, a morning meeting was held at 10:00 a.m. at Mercy High School to give neighbors with differing schedules an opportunity to hear the information and share their comments or questions. There were 17 people in attendance at the meeting. All of the people in attendance received a complete set of the planning commission minutes and the list of questions and answers. Community Outmach.wpd 4. Follow-Up — On November 10, 2005, a community newsletter was sent out to neighborhood residents providing contact information for Mercy High School and the Sisters of Mercy and encouraging the dialogue that had begun at the community outreach meetings to continue. This notice was sent to 220 neighborhood residents, including not only the 191 residents on the list provided by the City of Burlingame, but also additional individuals who attended a meeting, called or otherwise indicated that they wished to receive notices. Then again, in December 2005, an updated list of questions and answers, which is included herewith, was sent to those 220 households. 5. Additional Community Outreach Meeting and Follow-Up In May 2006, invitations were sent to the 220 households inviting them to a June community outreach meeting. On June 15, 2006, an evening meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. Thirteen (13) neighbors attended the meeting and took a tour of the facilities. The meeting discussed the remodel of the fitness center, but also touched on the Conditional Use Permit application. At the meeting issues including hours, traffic, parking, campus activities and schedules were discussed. Laura Held and Jean Hastie again provided their contact information and made themselves available for comments and questions at any time. On June 20, 2006, Laura Held sent a follow-up letter summarizing the June meeting to the 220 households. Community Outmachwpd n Questions and Answers for the Mercy High School P.E Building Renovation Project 1. What are the regular hours of Mercy High School including sporting events? • School hours are from 8am until 3 pm. ■ Our home sporting events (water polo, tennis, swimming, and cross country) start at 3:00 p.m. and end by 6:00 p in. 2. At what hours does Mercy High School allow the tennistbasketball courts and the swimming pool to he used on the weekends? Does Mercy High School rent the swimming pool? • We rarely have a practice on the tennis courts on the weekends. ■ We do not currently have swimming practice or water polo practice on weekends. ■ We do not have games or meets on campus on the weekends. • The Sisters of Mercy and guest9 td Mercy Center may use the pool or tennis Courts in the evenings or on Weekends for recreational use. 3. Docs Mercy High School run the summer camps that occur on campus? Do any of these camps include religious study? Mercy does offer an acadcmic summer school and a sports camp. We are not required to implement religious studies as part of our summer curriculum. 4. How many students drive to school on an average day in 2005? ■ We have issued about 100 parking permits approximately 85 girls drive each day. 5. Can Mercy accommodate all parking on campus or will they continually use the Sisters of Mercy grounds and the Mills Canyon Creek area? ■ Mercy High School will continue to keep all of our cars on the Ili gh School and Sisters of Mercy grounds. 6. Can Mercy High School require the buses to stay parked on school property during the events during the day and at night? ■ We currently park buses used by students or visiting teams on our campus. They then either enter or exit at Hoover or Alvarado. 7. Currently Mercy has four entrances: Alvarado,Adeline below Poppy(service), Adeline at Hoover and Hoover. Can Mercy use one entrance for entering and one for exiting the property? • No,we can not use one entrance for entering and one entrance for exiling. We do not have an open road that goes through the campus that is wide enough or safe enough for this. We improved our road at Alvarado and the gate entrance to accommodate the flow of traffic as they enter or exit. _ B. Will the service site ever be used for a drop off or pick up site from the families? ■ We recluire our families to only drop off and pickup in front of the school. 9. Who parka in the parking spots at the service entrance? Parking is provided for faculty, staff and for 5 students. 10. For the past several years,Mercy asked students to park on different streets on different days. We have called to complain to the school about the students parking on the streets on the wrong days and the students continued to park wherever they pleased. We understand now, that the students are required to park on campus or Sisters of Mercy grounds. Does the school discipline the students who continually park on the neighboring streets? • Students who park on any street in the neighborhood are required to move their cars on campus. Disciplinary action will follow as appropriate. 11. Will Mercy add lights to the new pool area and other grounds? Will Mercy study the effect of the lights on the neighborhood? What hours will the lights be on? Where will the lights be aimed? • We are replacing the light on the exterior of the building and adding lights to the pool area. They will be approximately 9 foot poles inside the pool arca with the lights pointing down to the pool and pool deck. Their will also be lights on the deck on the side of the building all pointed downward towards the pool and deck. ■ The hours of use will be from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. 12. Currently what time do the students arrive for swim practice and will that change with the new construction?Will more students, schools or spectators be participating in, or attending events around the PE area? Will there be more events in the PE area? ■ Students currently arrive to practice at 3:00 p.m. and practice until 6:00 p.m. ■ The number of participants and spectators will remain the same. • We currently host 10 home water polo matches, 6 swim meets in the spring, and 10 home tennis matches. We also have one home cross country meet each year. 13. How many more students does Mercy believe will use this facility? • Mercy students will have access to this facility during the school dray hours. This renovation project does not cause uny increase in the number of students using the facility u 14.From the years 2000-2005 on average how many track meets,tennis matches, lacrosse games, swim meets,water polo games were held each year? How many students participated? How many different schools came to the meets? How many cars parked at the school for these events? ■ We do not have any track meets on campus. • We have about 10 home tennis matches a year. Each school has about 15 student/athletes on their team. They usually arrive in a school van or parent cars.They are asked to park in the high school lot in front of the mansion. Parents(usually 5-10) are asked to park in the high school lot. ■ We usually have 8-10 home water polo matches a year. It is a dual meet with Varsity playing first and JV following. The athletes arrive early and park in the high school lot. We get a good crowd for water polo, close to a hundred people. Each team has about 15 members, so with four teams (N and Varsity) there would be about 60 student/athletes. Schools arrive in buses, vans, and parent cars and park in the high school lot. • We usually have about 5-7 swim meets at home a year. Swim team is a Varsity and JV and we usually have about 30-40 members on the entire team. Our meets are dual meets and the other team usually arrives by bus or vans, ■ In regards to lacrosse, we do not have any home games on our campus. We will hold lacrosse practice on our campus. 15.What actions will the school take on visiting teams who park on our streets? ■ When we are notified we will find the person responsible and require them to move their car. We will send parking directions to the visiting teams and schools. 16. Are you planning on charging visitor to attend these events? • NO, we do not charge for any of our athletic events. 17.Information about the bleachers. ■ Tlie bleachers are being replaced. We currently have spectators standing and sitting on the lawn to watch the games. The bleachers currently accommodate 132 people and the new bleachers will accommodate 200 people. • The cuTrent bleachers can not be seen from the road and the new bleachers should not he able to be seen either. 18. Batting cage noise. • The batting cage has not been used by Mercy High School for 5 years. We are planning on removing it. C7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission _ Dated 5-9-05 Attachment A. Hours of Use: Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion 1. When is alcohol served at the Kohl Mansion? • Alcohol is served at most private non-Mercy events such as weddings and corporate events. The proper liability insurance is covered by the client and/or caterer. 2. What security and police measures are taken to manage drunk driving and disorderly conduct that result from Kohl Mansion Parties? • Our operational personnel oversees the operations of the mansion before, during and after the event. Also, the Kohl Mansion has hired a security company called Corporate Security Services, Inc for all events at the mansion. There is also Campus Security for the entire campus. 3. What are the regular hours of Kohl Mansion Parties • Various—Eight hours of time. Music curfew is at 11 pm. 4. In a residential neighborhood, what is the justification for any weekend parties that extend beyond 9pm? • Weekday parties are done for various types of clients and their request. We have weddings, corporate parties,celebrations,photo shoots,non- profits and Mercy events on the weekdays. 5. .In a residential neighborhood, what is the justification for any weekend parties that extend beyond 10 pm. • Weekend parties are typically weddings, corporate parties, or various types of celebrations. 6. What are the policies about type of vehicles for parties? There are Class A buses in the neighborhood, on Adeline,making pickup and drop offs to Kohl mansion. • Hotel shuttles sometimes are used for transporting guests to and from local hotels using Alvarado Street and Hillside Blvd.. 7. What is the justification that allows Kohl Mansion parties to play loud disturbing music in a residential neighborhood? • All amplified music is conducted inside the mansion and there is an l 1 pm curfew. When a ceremony is outside,the wedding vows can he amplified for 1 hour of time. Acoustical music can be done outside for the ceremony and reception time which is never over 2 hours of time. 8. Why does Mercy High School have to break down parties after midnight? This includes large trucks on Adelinc acid power tools after midnight? Since(ktober 2003, Mansion events have not"broken down parties" after midnight. 9. Why does Mercy High School utilize the practice if taking down party lents between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am on the weekends? • The Kohl Mansion does not`take down"tents between 10 pm and 8 am on weekdays or weekends. Since October 2003,tents have not been disassembled between the hours of I Opm to 8 am. The Kohl Mansion follows the official noise ordinance guidelines from the Police Department and the City of Burlingame. 10. Are any events at Mercy High School or Kohl Mansion for profit, if so which ones? • Kohl Mansion's events are for profit. Mercy High School events are for the well- being and curriculum for Mercy High School. Mercy High School conducts one fundraiser for the year in March for the school's benefit which is an auction and dinner. 11. Why isn't there a limit to the number of evening events during the year? • The Kohl Mansion only has one event per day and typically an average of 90 event,;a year. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 Parking and Traffic Control: I. How have the social parties at Kohl Mansion changed, e.g., number of parties, and size of parties since the annexation? • The Kohl Mansion can accommodate up to 300 guests for an event. Noise- 1. How many events per year will Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion use a sound system, tnicropbones and speakers for events that are outdoors or in a tent? • Kohl Mansion-Under 10 events Public Safety: 1. Is alcohol served at events at the Kohl Mansion when other school event~on the property are taking place? 2. No alcohol is served while school or school activities are taking place. We either will have a Kohl Mansion event or a Mercy High School event but will never conduct both at the same time. R City of Burlingame Burlingame Planning Department Dated May 23, 2005 Attachment 0 1. Is Kohl Mansion operated with in the guidelines of the City, County, State,or Nation as public? 2. What are the"public visiting hours"? • Public Visiting flours are done on an appointment basis only. The Kohl Mansion is a registered national historical landmark The Kohl Mansion has been placed on the National Register of Historic places granted by the United States Department of the interior, (Laura, second part of this 92 question is something 1 cannot answer) q Neighborhood questions- 12/-7/05 RAT MANAGEMENT? Mercy is more than happy to work cooperatively with neighbors and an exterminator to attempt to control the rat issue COYOTES? Mercy has made many attempts to have animal control and Fish and Game do something about the coyotes. Both agencies refuse stating that "Coyotes arc native to the area and have a right to be here." The agencies will not trap and relocate coyotes and it is illegal for us to destroy them. Mercy has posted warning signs about coyote sightings and neighbors should contact Fish and Game regarding information on what to do when confronting a coyote. PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPF..MNET OF OPEN AREA BELOW LOWER PARKING LOT/ SERVICE ENTRANCE? Mercy has no plans to develop this area. CONTENGENCY PLANS TO MOVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 1'0 T13F AREA BELOW SERVICE ENTRANCE IF OTHI R AREAS DON'T WORK? Mercy has no such plans. EXPANSION OF"LOWER PARKING IATT' Mercy has no such plans. IS MERCY COMMTTIED TO MAINTAINING WOODED AREA SOUTH OF MILLS CANYON ALONG THE STREAM? Absolutely! Although this is private property,Mercy bas graciously allowed neighbors to use this trail and Mercy maintains and monitors the trail for safety. Mercy will continue to do so but people who use this trail do so at their own risk. IS KOHL MANSION OPERATED WITHIN CITY GUIDELINES? This is a question for the city and the CLIP use permit is to clarify all of this usage. PUBLIC VISTING HOURS? There are no official "public visiting hours." Mercy is private property and the home of the Sisters but they have always graciously allowed welcome the public to their grounds (their private yard)with the expectation that people respect the property by keeping dogs on leash, cleaning up after dogs, no motorized bikes or scooters, no littering, and no children unattended. In recent years public abuse of this privilege has required Mercy to expand security presence on the campus to enforce these very reasonable requirements. It is the expectation that the public will not use the grounds before dawn or after dusk. ACTIVITY FOR WHICH APPROVAL IS SOUGHT? Mercy hopes to establish a baseline for a CUP that will include current usage of the property. This will be at the decision of the city and Mercy will abide by that decision. OPF.N SAPCE OF 36.51? The Mercy property is currently just less than 38 acres. Recent additional paving has not significantly altered the open space usage of this private property. DRAINAGE ISSUES ON ADELINE/BENITO? Mercy is more than willing to work with the city on this issue. Drainage on Adeline and Benito has not kept up with neighborhood growth and usage. This is a city issue MAINTENACNE OF OAKS? Mercy contracts with a licensed arborist who checks all trees annually for health and life of the trees and recommends appropriate maintenance and trimming. Mercy DOES NOT neglect the health of the trees and the oaks are very precious to the Sisters. The oaks are, however,very old and trees have normal life spans. Every oak that is lost is a new grief experience for the sisters and two oaks are panted on the grounds to replace every one that is lost. REMOVAL OF TREES FOR THE NEW PROJECT? The pool building renovation does not require the removal of any trees and Mercy is bound by city regulations on any and all tree removal. MANAGF.MEN"I'OF THE RETREAT CENTER: The retreat center is under the general administration of the campus but there is a specific manager/director for the retreat center. The current director is Diarmuid Rooney. He is accountable to the Regional Leadership of the Sisters of Mercy. PLANS TO INCREASE PARKING? There are currently no plans to increase parking on campus. OPEN OTHER LOTS FOR ATHLETIC EVENTS? Mercy has an overall scheduling procedure for all campus activities and usage of the grounds is coordinated. Available lots are used whenever necessary. SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR OUTSIDF EVENTS? The overall scheduling process.monitors parking needs. Whenever an event will exceed parking capabilities on the campus the event is required to use shuttle services, Iarge events are required to use a parking service on the campus and the Taize Prayer services on the first Friday of each month always contracts with a parking service. WATER RUN OFF"? This is an ongoing concern for Mercy and is constantly monitored. Mercy continues to work with the city on this issue. SIGNAGE FOR KOHL? New signage has recently been installed and a new sign for the service entrance is ready to be installed. The city has required that all such signage be inside the Mercy property lines and therefore within the gates. L!. CONSiDERFD CHANGING TRAFFICE PATTERNS? Mercy has repeated looked at this. There is no road that runs directly through the campus that is capable of handling daily traffic flow. To accomplish this a major road construction project will be necessary: CLARIFICATION FOR CUP: This is a matter for the city to clarify. Mercy is attempting to reach clarity with the city on this issue. 'dl ib[/ten/ 15:59 650696: Exhibit PAGE 02/07 CALL HISTORY RECORD 5/0-6 '2�^.46 DISTURBANCE/N07SE 2750 ADELINE DR; MERCY 21:21 CALL 621906 REFUSED, T33 ADVISED OR ASSISTED REMARKS 08/25/06 20:46;33 dutto Special Need2 near thit location. 08/25/06 20:47:31 dutto AT THE KOHL MANSION - F,OUD MUSIC 08/25/06 21121:27 dutto PACIFIC ISLANDER WEDDING - WRAPPING IT VP - MADE 08/25/06 21:21:27 dutto CONTACT W/ REP FROM KOHL MANSION 08/25/06 21:22:03 duttO 3 UNARMED SEC ARE ONSCENE DATE TIME UNIT - STATUS OPR 08/25/06 21:00:59 T33 DISPCH dutto 08/25/06 21:01:18 T33 SUSPNA dutto 08/25/06 21:03 ::14 T33 DISPCH dutto 08/25/06 21:05:22 T33 ARRIVD dutto 08/25/06 21:21:49 T33 CLEARD dutto 46YJ 5✓TTS. 22:22 ' PARTY-DISTURBAkCE 2750 ADELINE DR; MERCY 22:34 CALL 620166 REFUSED, ADVISED OR ASSISTED 2811 ADELINE DR REMARK§ AAVS � 06/06/06 22:23:46 they `...SPO: SHUT DOWN/ PEOPLE LEAVING/ 08/06/06 22:34:25 lembke MUSIC STILL BLARING/ 08/06/06 22:48:29 lembke L4 ENR TO CK AGAIN/ TO ADV/ 08/06/06 22 :49:11 lembke DISPO: NO MERIT/ IT'S SUJET/ 08/06/06 22:57:46 lembkc DATE TIME UNIT STATUS - OPR 08/06/06 22 :23:21 L4 DISPCH riley 08/06/06 22 :30:14 L4. ARRIVD riley , 08/06/06 22 :34:29 L4 CLEARD lembke 08/06/06 22:48:56 L4 DISPCH lembke 08/06/06 22 :52:'99 L4 lembke 08/06/06 22 :56:30 L4 ARRIVD lembke 08/06/06 22 :57;'50 L4 CLEARD lembke 22-:32 DISTURBANCE LOUD MUSIC 2750 ADELINE DR; MERCY 22:45 CALL 619979 REFUSED, S7 ADVISED OR ASSISTED 2750 ADELINE DR; MERCY HIGH SCHOOL REMARI s DATE TIMES UNIT STATUS OPR 08/04/06 22 :37:18 S7 DISPCH bjwo=den 08/04/06 22:45 :13 S7 CLEARD winter RECEIVED DEC 2 8' 2006 CITY OF BUR1NGWE PLANNNG DEPT. V1, VL, GUU, 1u:07 b0t3b7bd/yY3 PAGE 03/07 0'8/0z/Os ' 23 :23 DISTURBANCE (JUVENILES) 2750 ADELINE DR; MERCY 00:04 CALL 619786 L7 -� ADVISED OR ASSISTED L14 REMARK? GROUP OF J'S TRYING TO ENTRANCE GATE 06/02/06 23 :24:18 riley OF MP,RCY HIGH SCHOOL. APRX 18 YRS of AGE 08/02/06 23 :24:36 Tiley ONE OF THEM CARRYING A BASEBALL BAT- POSS 08/02/06 23:24:45 riley TRYING TO GET INTO FIELD TO PLAY BASEBALL 08/02/06 23 :24:53 riley PARKED A BLK TRUCK IFO RP'S HOME ASC TO J'S 08/02/06 23:25:46 riley TO ADVISE DB/02/06 23 :26:10 bjworden LIC/4CSE396 08/02/06 23 :32:44 bjworden BLK DODGE 1500 QUAD CAIS WAS GOING DOWN ADELINE 08/02/06. 23:34:35 bjworden WHEN OPC WAS ON ECR. VbH GONE AT THIS TIME 08/02/06 23:34 :44 bjworden TRUCK HAS A SOLID SET 6F LED LIGHTS ON THE REAR 06/02/06 23 :35:05 bjworden OF THE VEH. 08/02/06 23:35 :07 bjworden OUT WITH THREE J'S SEEP JUMPING THE FENCE 08/02/06 23:39:26 bjworden POSS MORE J'S ON SCENE 08/02/06 23:38:13 bjworden NAM/KIRSCHNF•R, HARRIS DOB/032088 SEX/M 08/02/06 23:38:17 bjworden L14 ENROUTE 08/02/06 23 :39:32 bjworden OTHER J'S INVOLVED MAY BE DRIVING AROUND IN A 08/02/06 23 :42:19 bjworden SLK BMW, 08/02/06 23 :42:21 bjworden L14 DRIVING THROUGH THE AREA, CHECKING THE LOWER 08/02/06 23:42:45 bjworden PARKING/HIGH SCHOOL ARkA. 08/02/06 23 :42:51 bjworden LOWER GATE OFF COLUMBUS IS OPEN/L14 DRIVING 08/02/06 23 :43:19 bjworden THROUGH NOW OB/02/06 23 :43 :22 bjworden ROVING SECURITY GUARD hN SCENEN 08/02/06 23 :48:14 bjworden -� REO, 10-21 650-348-8530 BRUCE OR BETH, HAVE THEM 08/02/06 23 :52:02 bjworden COME TO BPD TO PICK UP HARRIS AND TWO JX'S 08/02/06 23:52:12 bjworden BETH MOTHER ENR DRIVINd TIME PROM SAN MATEO 08/02/06 23 :53:56 riley L7 0006269.2 ;enroute bpd - 08/02/06 23 :54:14 bjworden LIC/4F.ZX696 FOSS ASSO!IATED VEH 06/02/06 23:55:28 bjworden L7 0006270.5 1111 TROUtDALE DR; BURLINGAME PD 08/02/06 23 :59:03 bjworden NAM/FISCHER, ALICE DOB'/101288 SEX/F 08/03/06 00:06:14 bjworden NAM/PROBST, KERSTEN D0b/041589 SEX/F 06/03/06 00:06:26 bjworden PARENTS ARRIVED ON SCE�7E AT PD, J'S RELEASED 08/03/06 00:10:01 bjworden ' TO PARENT 08/03/06 00:10:03 bjworden AMBER'S PROBATION IS TERMINATED AS OF 01092006/ 08/03/06 00:12:04 riley DATE TIME UNIT STATUS OPR 08/02/06 23:25:7.4 L7 DISPCH bjworden 08/02/06 23:32:10 L7 ARRIVD bjworden 08/02/06 23 :32 :•51 L7 bjworden 08/02/06 23 :38:15 L14 DISPCH bjworden 08/02/06 23 :38:38 L7 bjworden 08/02/06 23:50:11 L14 ARRIVD bjworden 08/02/06 23 :50 ;22 L14 CLEARD bjworden 08/02/06 23:54150 L7 TRANS . bjworden 08/02/06 23:54 :'56 L7 bjworden 08/02/06 23 :59:16 L7 TRANS bjworden 08/03/06 00:04:33 L7 CLEARD bjworden 08/03/06 00 :06:13 L7 DISPCH bjworden RECEIVED 08/03/06 00 :06:25 L7 bjworden 08/03/06 00:07:27 L7 bjworden 08/03/06 00 :07:31 L7 CLEARD bjworden DEC 2 8 2006 OYTY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes December 11, 2006 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1 . 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ESTABLISH A BASELINE FOR AN EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL AND RELIGIOUS FACILITY USE (JEAN HASTIE, SISTERS OF MERCY AND LAURA HELD, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked about the letter from the applicant dated December 11, 2006, it notes that the County conditional use permit remains valid, if this is S05 why process this application? CA Anderson noted that the City is generally bound by the conditions imposed by the County through the conditional use permits in effect at the time of annexation, this action is meant to confirm what is there now, so can properly assess any future changes proposed. Commissioners asked: • At previous meetings, neighbors noted concerns with parking off-campus, please clarify; • Is there a complaint center or person who neighbors can call to express concerns, should be made readily available; • Proposed Condition No. 19 specifies that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants on site at any one time, does this number include guests, caterer, band etc.; how is the number policed and enforced; • The parking study identifies demand for Kohl Mansion, did not see information on a combined parking demand for Kohl Mansion, Mercy High School and Mercy Center, need to be sure that demand does not exceed the available 382 parking spaces; • The parking study notes that there is a policy that there shall be no Kohl Mansion events when high school is in session, that policy should be incorporated into the conditions of approval; • The staff report indicates that there are four events per year scheduled between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on weekdays, and Condition No. 8 says that there may be occasional weekday music concerts, provided that participants arrive by bus, does "occasional" mean four events per year, clarify and tie together in condition, should be made more clear; • One of the questions from the neighbors asked if Mercy High School can require that buses stay parked on Mercy property during scheduled events, this should be made a condition of approval; • Provide a breakdown of the Mercy High School parking lot between student and faculty parking, parking study combines information on what appears to be two separate lots on the site plan; • A number of concerns have been raised about noise, have there been studies done, seems to be related to activities at Kohl Mansion, should provide accurate noise measurements that quantify impact of amplified music measured at property line compared to ambient noise levels. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The item will be noticed to the neighborhood when it comes back for action. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS (Sionsent Calendar Items on the co ent calendar are cons ered to be routin\TheyaremactledonXimultaneou sly nlesssep rate discussion and/o ction is reques by the applicant, a tuber of the pucossioner for to the tim he comp 'ssion votes on the mo ' n to adopt. 2 i City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 2. 1419 OLUMBUS AVEN E, ZONED R-1 -AP ICATION FOR SPECIAL P IT FOR A NEW S GLE-CAR DETAC D GARAGE LOC D WITHIN THE REAR 40 o OF THE LOT (TRG -� CHITECTS,APPPCANT AND ARC CT;KOBERT SMITH,PROP TY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEK HURIN CP Monroe p sented a summary o e staff report. Commissione asked: • Wh can be done to alley' to the overgrowth of the hedge into the driveway? • C a condition require mining or removal of this he e? • levations should be rovided that show how the ne garage looks with the ex' ing house. This item was set f the consent calendar when all e information has been s mitted and reviewed by the Planning Dep a ent. This item concluded at 7. 5 p.m. VIII. ACTION EMS Cons t Calendar-Items on the conse t calendar are considered to a routine. They are acted on simult eously unless Immcepate discussion and/or action is requ tedby the applicant,a mem er of the public or a commissioner p or to the time the ission votes on the motion to ad t. 3. 1216 DRAKE AVENUE ONED R-1 -APPL ATION FOR DESIGN REV W FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (FARHAD AS , STEWART ASSOCIA S, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFF JENNIFER LAB fd E, PROPERTY OWNE (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIC STROHMEIER Chair Auran oted that he had requ is to speak on item number , 2750 Adeline Drive, so would put that as the rst item on the action lendar for a public hearing. e then asked if anyone in die audience or on the mmission wished to 11 item 3, 1216 Drake Ave e, off the consent calend . There were no requ is to remove item 3. . Brownrigg moved a proval of the consent calend ased on the facts in the s ff report,commis loners comments and the dings in the staff report wi recommended conditioin the staff repo and by resolution. The tion was seconded by C. e Os r'ling. Chair called for a voice vote on the in tion and it passed 7-0-0 . ppeal procedures were advis IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 7. 2750 ADELINE DRIVE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING SCHOOL USE IN AN R-1 ZONE INCLUDING A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SCHOOL GYM AND A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT (LAURA HELD, PRINCIPAL, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANT; DES ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, ARCHITECT;MERCY HIGH SCHOOL,PROPERTY OWNER)(56 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 9,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: condition & requires an arborists report at the time of submitting for a building permit,why not with planning request? CP noted that no protected trees are affected by the expansion of the physical education building so the 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 arborists report can come later. Will the use of the physical education building be limited to the same hours as the school? CP noted that the applicant would respond to that. There were no other questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Land Weismehl,DES Architects&Engineers,and Cheryl Nash, 13 Chilton, San Carlos, Vice Principal, of Mercy High School represented the project. Noted that they were unaware of the problem with arborist, contacted one today, tree to be removed has a diameter of 4 to 6 inches. Expect the physical education building to be used until 6 p.m.,the area to be remodeled is basically the locker room and two sides of the swimming pool. Commissioner asked:will the swimmers start early in the morning? Have two teams of 40,may add a morning practice to reduce size of the group to 20,if so they would begin at 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. however,the use of the building is limited to physical education. Would there be week-end swim meets?No,the meets are always on week days.If hours for use of building were set between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. would that be sufficient for your program? It would never be earlier or later than that. Is the pool used all year round? Water polo is mid-August to November; swimming is February 1 to second week of May,pool is used for summer sports camp which is 5 weeks mid-June to mid- July, 8:30 to 3:00 p.m. Chair noted that the applicant could respond after the public hearing. Neighbors spoke: Jok Legallet, 1474 Alvarado Avenue;Linda Abbey,2415 Adeline Drive;concerned about the overflow parking into the neighborhood, not enough on site for the events and students, Alvarado is narrow and parking on both sides makes it hard to use for two way traffic and causes a safety problem, Mercy has room to add more parking to cover use of the school and rental of the facility for events at night and on the week-ends. Commissioner asked,when is the parking a problem? Sometimes at night,less of a problem on the week end. Live across the street from the service entrance to Mercy High School,noted in the staff report that this use permit is just for the high school and caused as the result of adding to the physical education building, why was a use permit not required for the convent when they did extensive remodeling several years ago? Remodeling which allowed them to create a retreat center which has become a big business. Since 1979 the use of Mercy High School has intensified each year,no limits are suggested for week end use and use during the week nights, neighbors hear music; neighbors have been sent letters from the high school admitting to more traffic and events at the school,the neighbors are concerned about pedestrian safety caused by the school generated traffic; traffic impacts could be addressed by limiting the use of Kohl Mansion for activities;this use permit will increase activity when the school hastalked about less traffic; where will their irrigation water run off to? Plans talk about a shade canopy at the physical education building but it is not shown on the plans. Would like to have the 13 parking spaces on the service entrance removed so they could not be seen from across the street. The City's General Plan says that open space should be protected,and that this is open space,should not be used to park cars visible from the street. If the physical education building is subject to design review should install story poles for addition. If the addition is 250 feet from the street it will be seen. Will the new bleachers have an impact on the adjacent property owners, greater than present? Will there be an increase in night time activity in the physical education building which will use the bleachers? Hours of use of this building should be 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. with no Saturday use. The school is open for religious education, is the summer school also for religious education? Does the conditional use permit for the school include the use of Kohl Mansion? Staff responded that it did. CA noted that the conditional use permit is to help define the use; to set a baseline for the uses on the school site. He noted that Ms.Abbey's questions were addressing concerns to help define the use of the site.Commissioner noted that some of the issued identified were more appropriate for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. Neighbor noted had spoken to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission in the past and nothing happened. Neighbor noted that the Planning Commission seemed unaware that this action included a conditional use permit for the school use including Kohl Mansion. What are the hours for the use of the mansion, how many events occur there, semi-trucks to serve events at the mansion block 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9,2005 Adeline because they have to back up the service road; there is also the issue of storm drainage. Commissioner noted that there were valid questions asked regarding the baseline use of the site and it would—, be better to continue this item so that the neighbors could write down their questions and the applicant coulc address them directly. Chair Auran closed the public hearing noting that additional information was needed to establish a baseline for the conditional use permit for the school,and this item should be continued. Commission comment: need to clarify this is not just to look at the physical education building;it includes the entire school site but not the convent site.Based on CA comments,this will take several hours ofpublic hearing,so should continue to better address issues;need background on the school use of the site versus the public function use on the site;for the physical education building want to know if there will be an increased number of students using it,and the other facilities on the campus. C.Deal moved to continue this item. The motion was seconded by C.Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: • Need specific parking usage information,what does the high school generate in terms of parking; • Would like the neighbors to put their questions in writing; • Would like to know about the overlap of parking for the school and use of Kohl Mansion,quantify the times of overlap and what the numbers might be;it is clear that the physical education building addition is not driving the parking demand for the Kohl Mansion; • The scope of the use permit needs to be clear about the operation of the school and the use of Kohl Mansion,then add the use of the physical education building;The value of establishing a baseline is sc'—'*� that change can be measured in the future and impacts assessed; • Baseline should address current parking occupancy,hours when parking is used,for the school and Kohl Mansion;and • Provide the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission minutes regarding Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion use. Continued comment on the motion:Suggest that the motion be amended to give neighbors two weeks from tonight to respond with all their questions in writing and then give the applicant another three weeks after that to put the responses together for the baseline,with the public hearing set as soon after that as possible. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to the amendment to the motion to continue. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to give the neighbors two weeks from tonight to submit their questions and comments in writing;and to give the applicant three weeks after that to submit their written responses to staff,and for staff to set this item for public hearing with renoticing to the neighbors as soon as possible after that. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The CA commented that it is a good idea to set a baseline which establishes the school's legal right to continue. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 4. 1329 DE SO AVENUE,ZONED -1—APPLICATION FOR IGN REVIEW ANDS CIAL X ORHEIGHT ANDD ININGHEIGHTENVELOP ORANEW,TWO-ST SINGLE WELLING ANDD ACHED GARAGE(CON B SNAN,APPLICANT PROPERTYMARK ROB SON, DESIGNER) (64 TICED) PROJECT ANNER: ERICA ER 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 11, 2005 2. 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SCHOOL GYM (LAURA HELD, PRINCIPAL, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANT; DES ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, ARCHITECT; MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report noting that because of the addition to the gym/pool area this use permit would include the entire Mercy School site; this information will be added when the item returns to the Planning Commission. Commissioners asked: • There is a path on this property that Sisters of Mercy allows the public to use, on sheet C2.1 annotated with location of wood path, will this path be disturbed? Please put note on the plans to ensure path will not be impacted; • Would like to see a tree protection plan during construction, should be limited to high school portion of the site; • Architecture and color scheme of the gym seems outdated, should consider making it more attractive and updated when doing this work. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:23 p.m. VII. ACTIO ITEMS Co ent Cale ar - Items on the csent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless s arate discus on and/or action is r queslapp ember of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission v tes on the motion to dopt. 3A. 140 COLUMBUS NUE, ZOICATION F R FLOOR AREA RATIO ARIANCE F R A FIRST F OR REMODEON AT E REAR OF THE HO E (SHEILA DUNG, APP ANT AND PRO ; J S CHU, CHU DESIGN ENGR., INC., DESIGNER 3 NOTICED PROJ R EN HURIN 3B. 1440 D AVE/AMES R-1 — APPLI ATION FOR DESIGN VIEW AND SPECIAL PERM FOR DECHT ENVEL E FOR A NEW, TWO- ORY SINGLE F Y D LING AND GARAGE DITH AND TONY G, APPLICANT AND P PERTY OWNEHU, C DESIGN & ENGR., IN ., DESIGNER) (69 TICED) OJECT PLANNEE B ER 3C. 1530 DRAKE NUE, ZONED -1 — APPLICATIO/FODESIGN REVIEW OR A SECOSTORYADD ION (MARTIN THERESA DILLONANTS AND P PERTY O7S;JD & ASSO IATES DESIGNS 49 NOTICED PROJNNER: R N HURIN Chair Osterling asked ifa one in the audience or/nthe Commission ished to callZyitem off the consent calendar. There ere no requests. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 CITY euru,NOAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit X Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: Project address: 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: Jean Hastie & Laura Held Name:'-Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Address: 2300 Adeline Drive Address: 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive City/State/Zip:Burlingame, CA 94010 City/State/Zip:Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone (w): (650) 340-7441 Phone (w): (650) 340-7441 (h): (h) (fl: (650) 347-2550 (fl; (650) 347-2550 ALAMTLUTIO&S ]k ATTORNEY Name: Sandy Sloan* Address: 1100 Alma St. , Ste. 210 Please indicate with an asterisk the contact person for this project. City/State/Zip:Menlo Park, CA 94025 R� : Phone (w): (650) 324-9300 (h): NOV - 1 2006 CIT`, 9F,&uRLINGAME (fl; (650) 324-0227 PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Application for updated conditional use permit to reflect existing uses AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: t � (p Date: 10/25/06 1 know about the pr application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Same cL5 a.boJe- Date: 10/25/06 PCAPP.FRM CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD p(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 PT 7 �- oUpLFIGAME CITY OF B JRLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. 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. The Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School uses are existing. Permitting the existing uses, an action encouraged by the General Plan Open Space Element, will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. In fact, permitting the existing uses benefits the community. The site provides a valuable source of open space that includes wooded and artfully landscaped gardens. The Sisters of Mercy continue to maintain and preserve the beauty of the historic Frederic C. Kohl Tudor mansion, which was built in 1913, with the utmost care. Mercy High School provides a quality college prepatory education for young women and has done so since it opened in 1931. The site serves as convent, convalescent and retirement home for the Sisters of Mercy. It also provides a valuable community venue for religious, cultural and civic activities. There is more than adequate parking on site for all of the existing uses. Based on all of the foregoing, there are no detrimental or injurious impacts to the surrounding community or public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? Permitting the existing uses on site to continue accords with the Burlingame General Plan. The General Plan's Open Space Element acknowledges that the Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School site includes substantial open space, a valuable resource that should be retained. To implement the preservation of this site, the General Plan Open Space Element states that the existing uses should be permitted to continue. Therefore, permitting the existing uses is appropriate under the Burlingame General Plan. Furthermore, the existing uses, including churches, convents, parish houses and schools are permitted with a County conditional use permit in the R-1 zoning district in which the site is located. Therefore, the City's granting an updated conditional use permit is not only encouraged by the General Plan, but also is in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? This is an existing use that history has shown is compatible with adjoining properties. No changes are proposed and this site with its beautiful and serene open space and its handsome historical �. structures is compatible with the aesthetic, bulk, mass and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. RECEi 1I F NOV - Z 2QQF CITY OF b PLANNIivu . JORGENSON, SIEGEL, MCCLURE 6 FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOHN D.JORGENSON 1100 ALMA STREET,SUITE 210 CAMAS J.STEINMETZ MARVIN S.SIEGEL MENLO PARK,CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 NICOLAS A.FLEGEL WILLIAM L MCCLURE (650)324-9300 KATHERINE P.HAAS JOHN L.FLEGEL FACSIMILE(650)324-0227 MARGARET A SLOAN wwW.jsm(com JOHN R.COSGROVE DAN K.SIEGEL (RETIRED) DIANE 5,GREENBERG JENNIFER H.FRIEDMAN MINDIE 5.ROMANOWSKY November 1,2006 RECEIVED Honorable Members of the Planning Commission NOV 0 12006 City of Burlingame Crr OF BUSUNGAME 501 Primrose Road KANNwG DEFT. Burlingame,CA 94010 Re: Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School. The Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School have been working cooperatively with the Planning Department to prepare a Conditional Use Permit("CUP")application that will establish a baseline for the existing uses on the property located at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive,Burlingame("Property"). The existing uses have been present since well before the Property was annexed into the City of Burlingame("City")in 1979. History has shown and the City's General Plan acknowledges that these uses are an asset to the community. Neither the Sisters of Mercy nor Mercy High School seeks by the CUP application to enlarge or expand the existing uses. Approval of the CUP will merely document the existing uses that are set forth in the CUP application and establish a baseline for the future. The Existing Uses Have Been Present for Many Years. The Sisters of Mercy acquired the Property in 1924. Since that time the Sisters of Mercy have maintained the Property and preserved with the utmost case the beauty of the historic Frederic C.Kohl Tudor mansion,which was constructed in 1913. Since 1931,the Sisters of Mercy have provided a quality education for up to 530 students at Mercy High School. The Sisters of Mercy have also made the Property, with its open space and serene and beautiful gardens,their home,using the Property as a convent,convalescent and retirement home. The gardens are also open to the public and the Property's facilities are available as a community venue for educational,religious,cultural and civic activities. Letler of Explanation.wpd The Required Findings Can Be Made. In order to grant the CUP, the Planning Commission must make three (3)findings: (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. (Burlingame Municipal Code §25.52.020) Because approving the CUP simply establishes a baseline based on existing uses and does not expand or create new uses on the Property, all of these finding can be made. First, granting the CUP will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The existing uses have been present for many years and there will be no additional impacts on the community. In fact, permitting the existing use benefits the community by establishing a legal baseline for activities on the Property. Furthermore, the Property provides valuable open space, quality education for students in the community and a local venue for religious, cultural and civic activities. These are all benefits, and there is no detriment or injury to the community that will result from approval of this CUP. Recently, Mercy High School conducted an outreach to the surrounding neighborhood regarding the renovation of the school's fitness facility. During that outreach, some members of the community raised a concern about whether there was adequate parking to accommodate all of the existing uses. As indicated in the Traffic Report provided with the CUP application, there is more than adequate parking on site for all of the existing uses. Additionally, to avoid any potential for exceeding the Property's parking capacity,the Sisters of Mercy have in place a scheduling policy that allows only 300 guests on campus in addition to the students,faculty, staff and Sister residents.' As a result,there are no detrimental traffic or parking impacts on the surrounding community from the existing uses. Second, permitting the existing uses is an action encouraged by the General Plan. The General Plan's Open Space Element acknowledges that the Sisters of Mercy/Mercy High School Property includes substantial open space, a valuable resource that should be 'The maximum possible numberof people on the Property at any one time including Sisters, students, faculty, staff and guests may be up to 1215 individuals. However, not all of these individuals arrive by car; many arrive by train or bus. Letter of Explanation.wpd preserved. (See Open Space Element, pg. OS-15) To implement the preservation of this - Property, the General Plan Open Space Element states that the existing uses should be permitted to continue. (See Open Space Element, pg. OS-16) Therefore, permitting the existing uses is appropriate and in accord with the City's General Plan. Although the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School already have a conditional use permit from the County of San Mateo that predates the 1979 annexation, a CUP from the City will update and affirm that the existing uses are permitted. Because churches, convents, parish houses and schools are permitted with a CUP in the R-1 zoning district in which the Property is located, granting an updated CUP is not only encouraged by the General Plan, but also is in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission, therefore, can make the second required finding that the existing uses on the Property are conducted in accordance with the City's General Plan. Lastly, the uses on the Property are existing and history has shown that they are compatible with adjoining properties. No changes are proposed and this Property with its beautiful and serene open space and its handsome historical structures is compatible with the aesthetic, bulk, mass and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. As discussed above, the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School reach out to their neighboring community and self-regulate in a manner that is compatible with those neighbors. The Planning Commission, therefore, can make the finding that the existing use operates in a manner compatible with other properties in the area. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School respectfully request that you approve the CUP application. Sincerely, Margaret A. an cc: Jean Hastie Laura Held Sr. Ellene Eagan Letter of Explanation wpd COMMUNITY OUTREACH Mercy High School conducted community outreach meetings during both day and evening hours. At these meetings, Laura Held, the Principal of Mercy High School, presented information regarding the school and in particular the remodel of the fitness center. She also took questions and addressed community concerns. Throughout the community outreach process, contact information for Laura Held and the Campus Executive Director for the Sisters of Mercy was provided. At the last meeting,Jean Hastie, the new Campus Executive Director for the Sisters of Mercy, was introduced to the community. Lastly,both Laura Held and Jean Hastie have kept a complaint log to field and respond to any issues raised. 1. Questions and Answers In May 2005,at the Planning Commission hearing regarding the permit to remodel the fitness center, Mercy High School and the Sisters of Mercy received a number of questions regarding the school and the Mercy Center. In response to these and other questions received directly from the community, a list of questions and answers were prepared. The list,which is included herewith,was provided to all those who attended community outreach meetings. 2. Invitation to Community Outreach Meetings On October 6,2005,Mercy High School sent invitations to neighborhood residents inviting them to attend an informational meeting regarding the fitness center and pool area. These invitations were sent to 191 neighborhood residents on a list provided by the City of Burlingame that included all households within a 300 square foot radius. The invitation included a summary of the fitness center project and some basic facts regarding the campus facilities and their uses. 3. Community Outreach Meetings On October 20,2005,the first community outreach meeting was held from 7:00 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. At the meeting,representatives from Mercy High School provided information about the fitness center renovation and fielded questions and comments from neighborhood residents regarding traffic,parking and events. There were 28 people in attendance at the meeting. All of the people in attendance received a complete set of the planning commission minutes and the list of questions and answers. On October 27, 2005, a morning meeting was held at 10:00 a.m. at Mercy High School to give neighbors with differing schedules an opportunity to hear the information and share their comments or questions. There were 17 people in attendance at the meeting. All of the people in attendance received a complete set of the planning commission minutes and the list of questions and answers. RECEIVED NOV 0 12006 CrY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Community Out—h.wpd 4. Follow-Up —� On November 10, 2005, a community newsletter was sent out to neighborhood residents providing contact information forMercy High School and the Sisters of Mercy and encouraging the dialogue that had begun at the community outreach meetings to continue. This notice was sent to 220 neighborhood residents, including not only the 191 residents on the list provided by the City of Burlingame, but also additional individuals who attended a meeting, called or otherwise indicated that they wished to receive notices. Then again, in December 2005, an updated list of questions and answers, which is included herewith, was sent to those 220 households. 5. Additional Community Outreach Meeting and Follow-Up In May 2006, invitations were sent to the 220 households inviting them to a June community outreach meeting. On June 15, 2006, an evening meeting was held at 7:00 p.m. Thirteen (13) neighbors attended the meeting and took a tour of the facilities. The meeting discussed the remodel of the fitness center, but also touched on the Conditional Use Permit application. At the meeting issues including hours, traffic, parking, campus activities and schedules were discussed. Laura Held and Jean Hastie again provided their contact information and made themselves available for comments and questions at any time. On June 20, 2006, Laura Held sent a follow-up letter summarizing the June meeting to the 220 households. Community Outreachmiud Questions and Answers for the Mercy High School PX Building Renovation Project What are the regular hours of Mercy High School including sporting events? • School hnurs are from Sam until 3 pm.. ■ Our home sporting events (water polo, tennis, swimming, and cross country) start at 3:00 p.m. and end by 6:00 p-m. courts and 2. what hours p .oes Mercyedigh School R110W the n the week en s? Does Me cy Hightennis/basketball th ool e swimming p to be uScho 1 rent the the swimming pool? • We rarely have a practice on the tennis courts on the weekends. ■ We do not currently have swimming practice or water polo practice on weekends. • We do not have games or meets on campus on the weekends. • The Sisters of Mercy and gucsta LitMercy Center may use the poo] or tennis courts in the evenings or on weekends for recreational use. 3. Docs Mercy High School run the summer camps that occur on campus? Do any of these camps include religious study? Mercy does offer an academic summer school and a sports camp. We are not required to implement religious studies as part of our summer curriculum. 4. How many students drive to school on an average day in 2005? We have issued about 100 parking permits approximatcly 85 girls drive each day. 5. Can Mercy accommodate all parking on campus or will they continually use the Sisters of Mercy grounds and the Mills Canyon Creels area? • Mercy High School will continue to keep all of our cars on the lli,gh School and Sisters of Mercy grounds. 6. Can Mercy High School require the buses to stay parked on school property during the events during the day and at night? • We currently park buses used by students or visiting teams on our campus. They then either enter or exit at Hoover or Alvarado. 7. Currently Mercy has four entrances: Alvarado, Adeline below Poppy (service), Adeline at Hoover and Hoover. Can Mercy use one entrance for entering and one for exiting the property? • No, we can not use one entrance for entering and one entrance for exiting. We do not have an open road that goes through the campus that is wide enough or safe enough for this. We improved our road at Alvarado and the gate entrance to accommodate the flow of traffic as they enter or exit. 8, Will the service site ever he used for a drop off or pick up site from the families? ■ We require our families to only drop ofd and pickup in front of the school. 9. Who parka in the parking spots at the service entrance? ■ Parking is provided for faculty, staff mid for 5 students. 10. For the past several years,Mercy asked students to park on different streets on different days. We have called to complain to the school about the students parking on the streets on the wrong days and the students continued to park wherever they pleased. We understand now,that the students are required to park on campus or Sisters of Mercy grounds.Does the school discipline the students who continually park on the neighboring streets? • Students who park on any street in the neighborhood are required to move their czars on campus. Disciplinary action will follow as appropriate. 11. Will Mercy add lights to the new pool area and other grounds'? Will Mercy study the effect of the lights on the neighborhood? What hours will the lights be on? Where will the lights be aimed? • We are replacing the light on the exterior of the building and adding lights to the pool area. They will be approximately 9 foot poles inside -� the pool area with the lights pointing down to the pool and pool deck. Their will also be lights on the deck on the side of the building all pointed downward towards the pool and deck. ■ The hours of use will be from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. 12. Currently what time do the students arrive for swim practice and will that change with the new construction?Will more students, schools or spectators be participating in, or attending events around the PE area? Will there be more events in the PE area? • Students currently arrive to practice at 3:00 p.m. and practice until 6:00 p.m. ■ 1'he number of participants and spectators will remain the scone. ■ We currently host 10 home water polo matches, 6 swim meets in the spring, and 10 home tennis matches. We also have one home cross country meet each year. 13. How many more students does Mercy believe will use this facility? ■ Mercy students will have access to this facility during the school day hours. This renovation project does not cause any increase in the number of students using the facility 14. From the years 2000-2005 on average how many track meets, tennis matches, lacrosse games, swim meets,water polo games were held each year? How many students participated? How many different schools came to the meets? How many cars parked at the school for these events? • We do not have any track meets on campus. • We have about 10 home tennis matches a year. Each school has about 15 student/athletes on their team. They usually arrive in a school van or parent cars.They are asked to park in the high school lot in front of the mansion. Parents(usually 5-IO) are asked to park in the high school lot. • We usually have 8-10 home water polo matches a year. It is a dual meet with Varsity playing first and JV following. The athletes arrive early and park in the high school lot. We Set a good crowd for water polo, close to a hundred people. Each team has about 15 members, so with four teams (JV and Varsity) there would he about 60 student/athlctes. Schools arrive in buses, vans, and parent cars and park in the high school lot. ■ We usually have about 5-7 swim meets at home a year. Swim team is a Varsity and JV and we usually have about 30-40 members on the entire team. Our meets are dual meets and the other Loam usually arrives by bus or vans. • In regards to lacrosse, we do not have any home games on our campus. We will hold lacrosse practice on our campus. 15.What actions will the school take on visiting teams who park on our streets? • When we are notified we will find the person responsible and require thetas to move their car. We will send parking directions to the visiting teams and schools. 16. Are you planning on charging visitors to attend these events? • NO,we do not charge for any of our athletic events. 17.Information about the bleachers. ■ The bleachers are being replaced. We currently have spectators standing and sitting on the lawn to watch the games. The bleachers currently accommodate 132 people and the new bleachers will accommodate 200 people. ■ The current bleachers can not be seen from the road and the new bleachers should not he able to he seen either. 18. Batting cage noise. ■ The batting cage has not been used by Mercy High School for 5 years. We are planning on removing it. City of Burlingame Planning Commission — Dated 5-9-05 Attachment A. Hours of Use: Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion 1. When is alcohol served at the Kohl Mansion? • Alcohol is served almost private non-Mercy events such as weddings and corporate events. The proper liability insurance is covered by the client and/or caterer. 2. What security and police measures are taken to manage drunk driving and disorderly conduct that result from Kohl Mansion Parties? • Our operational personnel oversees the operations of the mansion before, during and after the event, Also, the Kohl Mansion has hired a'security company called Corporate Security Services, Inc for all events at the mansion. There is also Campus Security for the entire campus. 3. What are the regular hours of Kohl Mansion Parties • Various—Eight hours of time. Music curfew is at 11 pm. 4. In a residential neighborhood, what is the justification for any weekend parties that extend beyond 9pm? • Weekday parties are done for various types of clients and their request. We have weddings, corporate parties, celebrations,photo shoots,non- profits and Mercy events on the weekdays. 5. .In a residential neighborhood, what is the justification for any weekend parties that extend beyond 10 pm. • Weekend parties arc typically weddings, corporate parties, or various types of celebrations. 6. What are the policies about type of vehicles for parties? There are Class A buses in the neighborhood, on Adeline,making pickup and drop offs to Kohl mansion. • Hotel shuttles sometimes are used for transporting guests to and from local hotels using Alvarado Street and Hillside Blvd.. 7. What is the justification that allows Kohl Mansion parties to play loud disturbing music in a residential neighborhood? • All amplified music is conducted inside the mansion and there is an 11 pm curfew. When a ceremony is outside,the wedding vows can he amplified for 1 hour of time. Acoustical music can be done outside for the ceremony and reception time which is never over') hours of time. 8. Why does Mercy high School have to break down parties after midnight? This includes large trucks on Adeline and power tools after midnight? • Since October 2003, Mansion events have not"broken down parties" after midnight. 9. Why does Mercy High School utilize the practice if taking down party tents between the hours of 10 pm and 8 am on the weekends? • The Kohl Mansion does not'take down"tents between 10 pm and 8 am on weekdays or weekends. Since October 2003, tents have not been disassembled between the hours of 1 Opm to 8 am. The Kohl Mansion follows the official noise ordinance guidelines from the Police Department and the City of Burlingame. 10. Are any events at Mercy High School or Kohl Mansion for profit, if so which ones? • Kohl Mansion's events are for profit. Mercy High School events are for the well- being and curriculum for Mercy High School, Mercy High School conducts one fundraiser for the year in March for the school's benefit which is an auction and dinner. 11. Why isn't there a limit to the number of evening events during the year? • The Kohl Mansion only has one event per day and typically an average of 90 events a year. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Page 2 Parking and Traffic Control: v How have the social parties at Kohl Mansion changed, e.g., number of parties, and size of parties since the annexation? 1'he Kohl Mansion can accommodate up to 300 guests for an event. Noise: 1. How many events per year will Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion use a sound system, microphones and speakers for events that are outdoors or in a tent? • Kohl Mansion-Under 10 events Public Safety: 1. Ts alcohol served at events at the Kohl Mansion when other school events on the property are taking place? — 2. No alcohol is served while school or school activities are taking place. We either will have a Kohl Mansion event or a Mercy High School event but will never conduct both at the same time. City of Burlingame Burlingame Planning Department Dated May 23,2005 Attachment It 1. Is Kohl Mansion operated within the guidelines of the City,County, State, or Nation as public? 2. What are the "public visiting how&"? Public Visiting flours are done on an appointment basis only. The Kohl Mansion is a registered national historical landmark. The Kohl Mansion has been placed on the National Register of Historic places granted by the United.States Department of the interior. (L.aura, second part of this 42 question is something I cannot answer) Neighborhood questions— 12/-7/05 RAT MANAGEMENT? Mercy is more than happy to work cooperatively with neighbors and an exterminator to attempt to control the rat issue COYOTES? Mercy has made many attempts to have animal control and Fish and Game do something about the coyotes. Both agencies refuse stating that "Coyotes are native to the area and have a right to be here." The agencies will not trap and relocate coyotes and it is illegal for us to destroy them. Mercy has posted warning signs about coyote sightings and neighbors should contact Fish and Game regarding information on what to do when confronting a coyote. PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPEMNET OF OPEN AREA BELOW LOWER PARKING LOT/ SERVICE ENTRANCE? Mercy has no plans to develop this area. CONTENGENCY PLANS TO MOVE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO THF.. AREA Bh;LOW SERVICE ENTRANCE IF OTHER AREAS DON'T WORK? Mercy has no such plans. EXPANSION OF "LOWER PARKING LOTT' Mercy has no such plans. IS MERCY COMMTTIED TO MAINTAINING WOODED AREA SOUTH OF MILLS CANYON ALONG THE STREAM? Absolutely! Although this is private property, Mercy has graciously allowed neighbors to use this trail and Mercy maintains and monitors the trail for safety. Mercy will continue to do so but people who use this trail do so at their own risk. IS KOHL MANSION OPERATED WITHIN CITY GUIDELINES? This is a question for the city and the CUP use permit is to clarify all of this usage. PUBLIC VISTING HOURS? There are no official "public visiting hours." Mercy is private property and the home of the Sisters but they have always graciously allowed welcome the public to their grounds (their private yard) with the expectation that people respect the property by keeping dogs on leash, cleaning up after dogs, no motorized bikes or scooters, no littering, and no children unattended. In recent year,,public abuse of this privilege has required Mercy to expand security presence on the campus to enforce these very reasonable requirements. It is the expectation that the public will not use the grounds before dawn or after dusk. ACTIVITY FOR WHICH APPROVAL IS SOUGHT? Mercy hopes to establish a baseline for a CUP that will include current usage of the property. This will be at the decision of the city and Mercy will abide by that decision. OPF,N SAPCE OF 36.51? The Mercy property is currently just less than 38 acres. Recent additional paving has not significantly altered the open space usage of this private property. DRAINAGE ISSUES ON ADELINEBENTTO? Mercy is more than willing to work with the city on this issue. Drainage on Adeline and Benito has not kept up with neighborhood growth and usage. This is a city issue MAINTFNACNE OF OAKS? Mercy contracts with a licensed arborist who checks all trees annually for health and life of the trees and recommends appropriate maintenance and trimming. Mercy DOES NOT neglect the health of the trees and the oaks are very precious to the Sisters. The oaks are, however, very old and trees have normal life spans. Every oak that is lost is a new grief experience for the sisters and two oaks are panted out the grounds to replace every one that is lost. REMOVAL OF TREES FOR TIIENEW PROJECT? The pool building renovation does not require the removal of any trees and Mercy is bound by city regulations on any and all tree removal. MANAGF,MEN'I' OF THE RETREAT CENTER: The retreat center is under the general administration of the campus hilt there is a specific manager/director for the retreat center. The current director is Diarmuid Rooney. He is accountable to the Regional Leadership of the Sisters of Mercy. PLANS TO INCREASE PARKING? There are currently no plans to increase parking on campus. OPEN OTHER LOTS FOR ATHLETIC EVENTS? Mercy has an overall scheduling procedure for all campus activities and usage of the grounds is coordinated. Available lots are used whenever necessary. SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR OUTSIDE EVENTS? The overall scheduling process monitors parking needs. Whenever an event will exceed parking capabilities on the campus the event is required to use shuttle services. Large events are required to use a parking service on the campus and the Taize Prayer services on the first Friday of each month always contracts with a parking service. WATER RUN OFF? This is an ongoing coneem for Mercy and is constantly monitored. Mercy continues to work with the city on this issue. SIGNAGE FOR KOHL? New signage has recently been installed and a new sign for the service entrance is ready to be installed. The city has required that all such signage be inside the Mercy property lines and therefore within the gates. CONSIDERED CHANGING TRAFFICE PATTERNS? -� Mercy has repeated looked at this. There is no road that runs directly through the campus that is capable of handling daily traffic flow. To accomplish this a major road construction project will be necessary: CLARIFICATION FOR CUP: This is a matter for the city to clarify. Mercy is attempting to reach clarity with the city on this issue. The Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance Page 1 of 5 The Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance Re: Ouestions to be submitted to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission about the Mercy Conditional Use Permit. dated 5-9-2005 Why doesn't Mercy High School produce an Environmental Impact Report for the conditional use of the Mercy Grounds? The county granted the original permit in the 19601s. Since the annexation by the City in the 1970's the use of the grounds has been greatly expanded. It is time to take a comprehensive look at the impact of the current and planned use of the entire Mercy grounds. RECEIVED HOURS OF USE: Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion MAY 2 3 2005 1. At what events does Mercy serve alcohol? CITY OF BURUNGAME 2. When is alcohol served at the Kohl Mansion? PLANNING DEPT. 3. What security and police measures are taken to manage drunk driving and disorderly conduct that result from Kohl mansion parties? 4. Why isn't Kohl Mansion regulated like a bar or nightclub or any other entertainment venue? Are social activities, including the serving of alcohol and live music the same? 5. What are the policies regarding sound decibel level of music from the Kohl mansion parties? 6. What are the regular hours of Mercy High School events including sporting events? 7. What are the regular hours of Kohl Mansion parties? 8. In a residential neighborhood, what is the justification for any weekday parties that extend beyond 9PM? 9. In a residential neighborhood, what is the justification for any weekend parties that extend beyond 10PM? 10. What are the policies about type of vehicles for parties?There are Class A buses in the neighborhood, on Adeline, making pickup and drop offs to Kohl Mansion. 11. What is the justification that allows Kohl Mansion parties to play loud disturbing music in a residential neighborhood? 12. Why does Mercy High School have to break down parties after midnight? This includes large trucks on Adeline and power tools after midnight? 13. Why does Mercy High School utilize the practice of taking down party tents between the hours of 10 pm and 8am on the weekends? 14. Are any events at Mercy High School or the Kohl mansion for profit, if so which ones? 15. Are any businesses on the campus for profit? If so, which ones? 16. At what hour does Mercy High School allow tennis/basketball courts and the swimming pool to be used on the weekends? Does Mercy High School rent the swimming pool? 17. Adult tennis players are frequently seen on tennis courts during the weekend. Does Mercy rent these courts to non-students? The Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance Page 2 of 5 18. Does Mercy High School run all the summer camps that occur on campus? Do any of these camps include religious study? 19. Why isn't there a limit to the number of evening events during the year? 20. Can Mercy High School send out quarterly event schedules (day and evening), including hours,to all neighbors affected by the noise and traffic to properties on Alvarado,Adeline, Benito, Poppy, Hoover, Hale, Hillside, Montero, Castillo, Valdivia, Hayward, Carlos and Columbus streets? Are the police and emergency services aware of these events? PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONTROL 1. How many students drive to school on an average day in 2005? 2. How has that number changed since the annexation? 3. How has the student population grown since the annexation? 4. How have the social parties at Kohl Mansion changed, e.g., number of parties, and size of parties since the annexation? 5. Can Mercy accommodate all parking on campus or will they continually use the Sisters of Mercy grounds and the Mills Canyon Creek area? 6. Will parking on non-paved lots pose a fire hazard? 7. Are there enough parking spaces for each driving student,faculty member and visiting student for these increased facilities? 8. Can Mercy High School require the buses to stay parked on school property during the events during the day and at night? Currently the buses park on the neighboring streets or run continuously releasing noxious diesel fumes into our 1 homes. 9. Currently Mercy has four entrances: Alvarado,Adeline below Poppy (service), Adeline at Hoover and Hoover. Can Mercy use one entrance for entering and one for exiting the property? 10. Will students ever enter via the service lot to get to the new swim and gym facilities or will they be required to enter at the Alvarado gates? 11. Will the service site ever be used for a drop off or pick up site from the families? 12. Who parks at new unsightly parking spots at the service entrance? Students or teachers? Can Mercy move that parking site so that it is not in the neighbors' sight line? 13. How does the school propose to fix the service entrance hazard with trucks blocking Adeline drive to reverse in to the service entrance? 14. For the past several years, Mercy asked students to park on different streets on different days. We have called to complain to the school about the students parking on the streets on the wrong days and the students continued to park wherever they pleased. We understand now, that the students are required to park on campus or Sisters of Mercy grounds. Does the school discipline the students who continually park on the neighboring streets? NEW CONSTRUCTION 1. Can Mercy High School construct story poles for the new shed and addition to the gym so the neighbors can see the impact of the addition and bleacher stands? The Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance Page 3 of 5 2. Will Mercy add lights to the new pool area and other grounds? Will Mercy study the effect of the lights on the neighborhood? What hours will the lights be on? Where will the lights be aimed? 3. Currently what time do the students arrive for swim practice and will that change with the new construction? Will more students, schools or spectators be participating in, or attending events around the Physical Education (PE)area? Will there be more events in the PE area? 4. What hours and days of the week will the construction occur? 5. How long will this phase take for completion? 6. How many more students does Mercy believe will use this facility? 7. From the years 2000-2005 on average how many track meets, tennis matches, lacrosse games, swim meets/water polo games were held each year? How many students participated? How many different schools came to the meets? How many cars parked at the school for these events? 8. Is Mercy High School planning on expanding any other programs in the future? Does Mercy maintain a 5 and 10-year master plan? 9. How do the assumptions and conclusions in Mercy's long term plans (5 and 10 year) compare with the city of Burlingame's property value, growth and land use assumptions for that same time period? 10. How many total sporting events will be scheduled after the facility is complete? What are the hours of such meets? Where will the students park? 11. What actions will the school take on visiting teams who park on our streets? 12. Will Mercy High School revisit their plans for a large gym on their campus as per the plans in 1981? Or are they going to pursue building a site off campus? 13. Are they planning to charge visitors to attend these events? 14. The County Government Center documents (LAFCO)in regards to the annexation of Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School territory to the city of Burlingame states in Item F "the most explicit reason for the proposed annexation is to retain this 36.51 acreage as an open space in the city of Burlingame. What is the current open space acreage in this said territory? Will this addition affect that open space? Has the additional paved parking spaces affected the open space acreage? IRRIGATION/LANDSCAPE 1. How does Mercy High School propose to fix the drainage and storm drainage problems on Adeline/Benito,Adeline at the service entrance? Can Mercy High School do a study on this issue? 2. Can Mercy High School address the inadequate sewer line at the Hoover street area? 3. Can Mercy High School better maintain the oaks other trees and the dry vegetation on their property? Neglecting the health of the trees is not the answer. 4. Will Mercy High School remove trees for this new project? If so, which ones? The Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance Page 4 of 5 NOISE '1 1. How many events per year will Mercy High School and Kohl Mansion use a sound system, microphones and speakers for events that are outdoors or in a tent? 2. Can the school conduct a study as to the noise decibels when they use said sound systems? 3. Can Mercy High School conduct a study as to noise decibels for outdoor bleachers that can accommodate 200 students? 4. Can Mercy High School conduct a study as to noise decibels for their student body and faculty and visiting parents and other schools for their spirit days, swim meets and other competitions during the school hours of 8 am-4pm? 5. Can Mercy High School conduct a study to the noise decibels for events at night held in the Kohl mansion? 6. What are the current standards allowable by law?And for what hours of the day or night? PUBLIC SAFETY: PARENT DRIVERS, STUDENT DRIVERS; YELLOWJACKETS/HORNETS; RATS,AND COYOTES: 1. How does the school propose to ensure the safety of their neighbors when the students and parents of students continually break California driving laws? Currently, some students and their parents run the stop signs on Alvarado, Adeline, and Columbus. They drive too fast for conditions. They make it very hard for the residents to safely pull out of their driveways. Alvarado and Adeline are reduced to single flows of traffic. We have alerted this public safety hazard to the Burlingame police dept who regretted that they do not have enough police to patrol. Will Burlingame put"speed bumps", or investigate traffic flow or other speed control methods on Alvarado,Adeline (Hillside to Columbus) and Poppy to deter speeding cars? 2. Can Mercy add crosswalks at the Alvarado and Hoover gates? 3. Is alcohol served at events at the Kohl Mansion when other school events on the property are taking place? For example a swim meet. 4. Is there enough water to the campus in case of a fire on the MHS or Sisters of Mercy grounds? 5. Do the buildings for MHS meet current earthquake safety standards? 6. Can Mercy High School become proactive in the bee management problem and have a bee extermination company conduct yearly maintenance? 3 years ago, a neighbor asked if Mercy High School would hire a bee company to exterminate the wasp nests along Adeline Drive. It posed a health hazard as the bees were stinging children and homeowners were unable to dine in their backyards because the bees would swarm. Mercy admitted that the students were being stung too. Mercy declined to take responsibility for the health hazard but allowed the -� extermination company to survey the land along with exterminate the nests at the The Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance Page 5 of 5 homeowner's expense. The bee company destroyed 10 yellow jacket nests each nest had up to 5000 wasps living in it. The neighbor submitted the bill to Mercy High School; they declined to reimburse the neighbor. 7. Can Mercy High School become proactive in rat management? The ivy along Adeline Drive is home to many rats, which in tum invade the houses in the neighborhood. 8. What measures can be taken to ensure safety of the neighbors from coyotes that inhabit this land? The Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance thank Mercy High School for taking the time to address our questions and concerns. Our aim is to preserve and enhance the quality, safety and economic value of our neighborhood. The property values in our neighborhood have gone up significantly in the past decade (most houses in our neighborhood sell between $1.5 and $2 Million.) It is incumbent on city of Burlingame, the Mercy neighbors, Mercy High School and the Sisters of Mercy to work together and pursue a reasonable plan that takes into account the changing times and property values. Plans should be based on examining past and current circumstances, the direction of change and if they adequately meet the needs of residents of the city of Burlingame. Sincerely yours, Friends of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance DECEIVED From: "Stan Kubiak" <skubiak@ pacbell.net> Subject: Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit MAY 2 5 2005 Gate: May 23, 2005 10:47:28 AM PDT To: "Alexandra Kromelow" <alexandra@kromelow.com> CIN OF BURLINGAME Cc: "Pat Sanford \(Pat Sanford\)" <mail@patsanford.com> PLANNING DEPT. Dear Ms. Kromelow: My name is Stan Kubiak; I reside with my wife, Patricia Sanford, at 6 Blackhawk Lane. I received (your?) materials concerning the Mercy High School Conditional Use Permit yesterday, attached to our door. Thank you for the information. We are highly interested in Mercy's plans, as our property backs onto the Mercy property (the area below the lower parking lot), but we had no idea that any of this was going on. I've read your memo, the Council minutes and the proposed set of questions. The questions appear to be fairly comprehensive and address many of our own concerns, but there are some additional ones that I would like to suggest. We are particularly concerned about any development or expansion plans in the currently-open area below the lower parking lot. That particular area "fronts" our own backyard, as well as that of many of the houses along the stretch of Adeline that runs uphill from Alvarado to Blackhawk Lane. Expansion of the lower parking, or development activity that would result in additional use of the open area would create noise conditions (especially considering the "bowl-like" topography of the area) that would *very* deleteriously impact the quality (and values!) of all of the neighboring properties. Here are the additional questions that I would like to suggest: 1 . What plans, if any, does Mercy have for additional development in the open area below the lower parking lot (the new parking lot that was added about a year or so ago)? 2. Should there be any problems in adding new facilities (as Mercy proposes now) along the Adeline area(s), would there be any contingency plan or intention to move any development projects to that lower open area below the lower parking lot? 3. Is there any plan or intention to expand the lower parking lot? 4. Is Mercy committed to maintaining the wooded area that runs more-or-less south(?) from the Mills Canyon stream along the back of the Mercy property line toward Adeline? (Many hikers use that area when exiting from Mills Canyon.) ********* Two questions for you, Ms. Kromelow: Is there currently available a site map for the Mercy High School property that I can access, and - if so - where can I find it? Is there a similar map showing their development plans? As I mentioned, my wife and I are very interested in what is going on. Please keep us informed; you can contact us by return email (skubiak(a pacbell.net or mailCcDpatsanford.com) or by phone at 401-6445. If there is a way that we can be of assistance, please let us know and we will see if we can help. Thanks very much for your consideration and time. Stan Kubiak PLG-Hurin, Ruben 'rom: Hannah Klein Connolly[hannah@hannahk.com] RECEIVED sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 2:31 PM To: alexandra@kromelow.com Cc: rhurin@burlingame.org MAY 2 5 2005 Subject: Neighbors of Mercy Quality and Safety Preservation Alliance CIN OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Hello, We are presently having work done on our home on Columbus Avenue, so we just recently received the information about Mercy High School's request for a conditional use permit. After reading the documentation, we would like to have the following concern addressed. My husband and I are interested in knowing whether the gym, tennis and swimming facilities can be used by the community. In this way, relations between the school and the neighborhood may vastly improve as would the quality of the neighborhood. This form of community outreach is done at USF in San Francisco (and could work as a model) . We hope our question may be addressed at the next meeting. Thank you, Hannah and Sean Connolly 1516 Columbus Avenue 1 TO BE KEPT IN PUBLIC REVIEW FILE May 23,2005 RECENED City of Burlingame MAY 2 3 2005 Burlingame Planning Department INGAME Burlingame Planning Commission CITY OF PLANNING NG DEPT.D Re:270 Adeline Drive,Burlingame,CA.94010 Conditional Use Permit—Remodel-Addition-Construction Permit Why hasn't Mercy High School or Sisters of Mercy applied for a use permit,or a conditional use permit prior to 2005,with the City of Burlingame;were they ever told they do not require one? Why has the City of Burlingame not required a use permit,or conditional use permit from Mercy High School from the time of annexation to their current request? How does the City of Burlingame find the rental of Kohl Mansion with many events, rental events in a tent,Music at Kohl Mansion,Montessori School,summer camps and a Tri School Program not an intensification of activity from 1979 to current? How does the City of Burlingame find the outside sports program not to constitute an intensification of use? Since when does the City of Burlingame define in findings that Kohl Mansion has Public use? Why is this public use not an intensification;define Kohl Mansion's use as public? Is Kohl Mansion operated within the guidelines of the City,County,State or Nation as public? What are the"public visiting hours"? How are Kohl Mansion and its grounds,being on the National Register of Historic Places,not considered as intensification for the Mercy High School? Why has the City of Burlingame not found an intensification of use,with the addition of use by Mercy Center,Manan Nursing Facility for laity and the use/increased use of Mercy High School,for Sisters of Mercy property? Why has the City of Burlingame found that the building of new parking stalls and expansion of parking areas not an intensification of use,not require a use permit,nor a permit for some of the addition,for Mercy High School,also for Sisters of Mercy? When Sisters of Mercy including Mercy High School was annexed into the City of Burlingame the property was found substantially developed,so why has the City of Burlingame allowed this continual development and intensification? When answering the above questions,please show me the use permit or conditional use permit, allowing each of the above facility/operation that you identify, as existing prior to annexation with the explanation for which its operation was intended for? If annexation in itself allows an existing use,how does it allow additional uses? Please show me by what means- law, code or permit, is it allowed and how can it become allowed to accept existing uses prior annexation to become an accepted use after annexation? Please show me by what means—law,code, or permit how Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School is allowed to increase use of a nonconforming property? Please show me the current use permit or conditional use permit(post annexation) for the schools, libraries, chapels/church, additional residences and every other operation including day care permits that should be subject to securing a use permit for all and any operation on the Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy property. Please show me the findings,prior to permit approval,that were made in accordance with State Law for all of the above mentioned, for-prior to, including and post annexation. How is it that the City of Burlingame has allowed additional parking lots or additions made to existing parking lots at Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy, when under the General Plan,that the scenic open space and vegetation are to remain and be preserved? What is the process whereby the City of Burlingame allows a degradation of its Open Space Plan and Element and a degradation of this residential neighborhood? Why isn't the City of Burlingame protecting our Open Space under the General Plan and the Open Preserve of Mills Canyon? Does the City of Burlingame receive money through subvention for its _ Why wasn't a baseline established at annexation? Was the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School baseline established or assumed to be what existed at or on the property at annexation? What happens to establishments that go beyond baseline? How have you monitored Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High Schools baseline since Annexation? What is the process for obtaining an amendment to a use permit? Would it require public notification and process? Describe with specificity the activity for which approval is sought? Describe with specificity the approvals sought? Identify,with appropiate legal citations , the provisions of law that require the applicant to obtain the approvals sought? Describe how the approvals sought are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Describe how the approvals sought are consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Describe with specificity how the City will comply with the California Environment Quality Act(CEQA). FOR PUBLIC FILE May 23, 2005 RECEIVED City of Burlingame MAY 2 3 2005 Burlingame Planning Commission ME Burlingame Planning Department CITY AN ING DEPT.PLANNING DEPT. Sisters of Mercy Mercy High School Re: 2750 Adleine Drive, Burlingame, Ca. 94010 In the project plan packet noted as Item#7 Consent Calendar. I would like to ask several questions and make several comments. The lot area as described is 3.74 acres; however, the school occupies area on the Sisters of Mercy grounds. The school is intensifying, currently,the use of Mercy High School and the Sisters of Mercy property and buildings. The high school and the convent facilities are not on separate properties.Not all current activities were on the properties at the time of annexation. It is imperative that site plan indicate land use, ownership,where what uses are taking place and on which properties. Please show these current sites and uses; if not, why not?Please show these sites and uses when the annexation occurred in 1979; if not,why not?The information is very convoluted. There has been an intensification of use at Kohl Mansion and Mercy High School. There has been an intensification of use on the Sisters of Mercy Property,Russell Hall, Mercy Center and Marian Care. The Conditional Use Permit should be denied. The Conditional Use Permit application should be resubmitted. The Conditional Use Permit should be denied due to intensification. I reserve my right to make further comments regarding these issues,permits and process'. I would like to request California Environmental Quality Act reports for all of the above mentioned areas of concern. tom`" Xinda Abbey 2415 Adeline Drive Burlingame, Ca. 94010 05/23/2005 16:33 650-347-6753 BLAMEY WRIGHT PAGE 01 2811 Adeline Drive Burlingame,CA 94010 May 23,2005 City of Burlingame Planning Commission RECEIVED 501 Primrose Ave. Burlingame,CA 94010 MAY 2 3 2005 VIA FACSIMILE(650)342-8386 CITY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT, Dear Burlingame Planning Commission, We are writing to raise questions about the conditional use permit for the Mercy High School campus. In general,we are happy to live near this campus,and we feel that the open space provided by the campus has a positive impact on the neighborhood. The high school activities seem to us to be similar to the high school activities in place when we moved here in 1988. However,the activities and neighborhood impact of evening activities at the Kohl �— Mansion have changed dramatically in that time. As part of this use permit,we would like the hours and noise levels for the use of Kohl Mansion clarified. Specific items that we'd like to see addressed include: 1. What are acceptable hours of operation for parties and events,on weekdays and weekends? 2. What are acceptable levels of amplified music and microphones? 3. What are the compliance monitors for noise? If noise from events and parties impacts the neighbors,what is the process to have the hours or noise levels brought into compliance in real time? Thank you for your time and attention. With best regards, Virginia Wright and Richard Blamey Homeowners i RECEIVED MAY 2 3 2005 _......_. ... . CITY OF BURLINGAME `74 l.— ...__ . PLANNING DEPT. ��— . ..__. . . c beAt_s.-e. .. .._ C�".r i w r � Q ,�(.�,� G ✓ _.. ..�. . ... . ani. . _ ' � j- �..n _ _ . ..9" cam '' ..---....... . Qj uzUe: - - :- - -- -------- - - c* floo- -- _ r- - Std'-s. __ _ , . n1v I : or nc_4 . ... �� .. .-----�rc�yQ _ � G - �-G� z.t(� � - �- � ✓e _ ,-�_f _. ..oma_ _... 1a � J . �SPp G.� u �)�.rz:._ . . n. __ �- �t ►ick ' L)�-S. ico V f .4e)c v j � s f --� �1- -- -J._ Ine -Cc�Lu s Q6. -e _�J e- t Lw��� U e- � l l c p , Q , or p i +'n a� �kCI- C, t�c�cl-ten V-J3 i ;0v C+ t r(Lwi-c- . C',c 4kc�ly could 609 prelvleA�,11-) Of t� C,� Ute ILI C-Df- k,)e cIcAr-cn.� , ���-- f-s Gtr- C)OwA ;4 ) lCor cl c-w _cam- // i L.4 _ l c �� C� �41ave 1)Pt, -e moves (r �oee Abe oe r �c l� (U i`-� CA v tc,�n�� n I.c �c,� J �► �l Den .�Sp- vvl#qL-4 Gary and Lisa Sayed --� 1480 Alvarado Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED May 13, 2005 MAY 18 2005 CITY OF 13URLING4ME LANNINC EpT. Ralph Osterling Chairman Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Ave. Burlingame, CA 9010 Re: Application for conditional use permits including remodel at 2750 Adeline Drive, Burlingame. APN: 027-370-020 Dear Chairman Osterling and committee members; We oppose granting any conditional use permit or remodel permit at 2750 Adeline Drive unless it has provisions for increasing the onsite parking to handle all vehicles for all events which include but are not limited to; school,religious and commercial which take place on the campus. All streets in the neighborhood are narrow and can only handle one-way traffic when cars are parked on both sides of the street,which is the case when Mercy has an event and when school is in session. When there is one-way traffic it creates an unsafe environment for the residents as well as those attending school events. Additionally,this could cause a catastrophe should emergency vehicles become impeded when they need access this particular section of Alvarado Ave. Mercy has more than enough land available to provide adequate parking for the demand they create. If adequate parking was provided on campus for all types of events at Mercy then we would sup ort their application. U, ary d Lisa Sayed 7T�--C m Kirsten and Jok LegalletIC�lT14N,1t,ECE ? 1474 Alvarado Ave AFM PREP I7�' OFSTAWN&OAT Burlingame, CA 94010 May 5, 2005 RECEIVED Ralph Osterling Chairman MAY - 9 2005 Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Ave. CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame, CA 94010 PLANNING DEPT. re: application for conditional use permit including remodel at 2750 Adeline Drive, Burlingame. APN:027-370-020 Dear Chairman Osterling and committee members: We oppose granting any conditional use permit or remodel permit at 2750 Adeline unless it has provisions for increasing the onsite parking to handle all vehicles for all events,school,commercial and religious, which take place on the campus. All streets in the neighborhood are narrow and can only handle one way traffic when cars are parked on both sides of the street,which is the case when Mercy has an event and when school is in session. When there is one way traffic it creates an unsafe environment for the residents as well as those attending school or an event. Mercy has the land available to provide adequate parking for the demand they create for parking. If adequate parking,on campus,is provided for all types of events at Mercy then we would support the application. Sincerely, Kirsten and Jok Legallet FOR PUBLIC FILE RECEIVED May 23,2005 MAY 2 3 2005 City of Burlingame Burlingame City Council CITYPLANNING LD PTMA City Clerk Burlingame Planning Commission I am not in agreement with the Planning Commisson meeting minutes of May 9, 2005. The minutes should be written to better state what was said. There are statements in the minutes that I did not make. The minutes should include all the planning commission's questions and comments and that of the staff. Omissions in the minutes need to be added to the record. r ��e FOR PUBLIC FILE RECEIVED May 23, 2005 MAY 2 3 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPT. Burlingame Planning Department Burlingame Planning Commission With regards to the Public Hearing Notice for the Planning Commission Meeting on May 9,2005,notification should have been sent to the area around the Sisters of Mercy property at 2300 Adeline Drive,not just 2750 Adeline Drive. Mercy High School Campus occupies buildings and parking space at 2300 Adeline Drive. ( Parking on the Sisters of Mercy grounds has increased during the last few weeks.) I believe it is unjust that these additional neighborhoods did not receive proper notification. Blackhawk, Valdivia and Hayward did not receive April 29, 2005,notification. Why didn't the even numbers of 1508 through 1584 Colombus receive notification? If legal notice constitutes a 300 ft. distance from the property at Mercy High School it should have included a 300 ft. distance from the property at Sisters of Mercy. The impact of the operations taking place at Mercy High School and the areas they occupy,at Sisters of Mercy and Mills Canyon Creek, in fact, go well beyond the 300ft. distance around the property. There are issues with noise from neighbors living on Montero,Hale and other streets .Traffic and safety issues are very far reaching- from Adeline and El Camino Real to Adeline and Hillside, from El Camino and Hillside and all the way up Hillside to Skyline, and on El Camino Real. These issues I have put forth are only common knowledge; other residents in these areas, and in areas we haven't heard from should be allowed to voice their questions and concerns. When I mentioned this concern to Maureen in Planning she stated that you do not want to slow down the project. I feel that you are rather"speeding up"the project or its process without proper regard to the residents that live here. This letter is NOT intended to slow down the process of the Use Permit, but to allow just time for the community to respond. How much time has been allowed for other projects of similar size and scope; have they had only two weeks to put there questions and concerns in writing and if so,which ones? SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW E. CLEMENT SHUTE, JR. 396 HAYES STREET CATHERINE C. ENGBERG MARK I. WEINBERGER SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94 1 02 AMY J. BRICKER FRAN M. LAYTON - JENNY K. HARSINE RACHEL B. HOOPER TELEPHONE: (4 1 5) 552-7272 MADELINE O. STONE ELLEN J. GARBER FACSIMILE: (4 1 5) 552-58 1 6 GABRIEL M.B. ROSS CHRISTY H. TAYLOR DEBORAH L. KEETH TAMARA S. GALANTER WWW.SMWLAW.COM WINTER KING" ELLISON FOLK RICHARD S. TAYLOR LAUREL L. IMPETT, AICP WILLIAM J. WHITE ROBERT S. PERLMUTTER CARMEN J. OSA L. ARMI URBAN PLANNERS BRIAN J. JOHNSON JANETTE E. SCHUE DAVID NAWI MATTHEW D. ZINN ANDREW W. SCHWARTZ OF COUNSEL "SENIOR COUNSEL June 6, 2005 'KNOT LICENSED IN CALIFORNIA, RECEIVED City of Burlingame Planning Commission JUN - S 2005 501 Primrose Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY of BURLNGAME RuwNING ter. Re: Application for land use approvals for Mercy High School, 2750 Adeline Drive Dear Commissioners: I write on behalf of my client Linda Abbey, who resides in Burlingame at 2415 Adeline Drive, regarding an application submitted for a conditional use permit ("CUP") and hillside area construction permit for the operation and expansion of Mercy High School ("project"). As you are aware, the project has raised a variety of legitimate concerns for the neighbors of Mercy High School. Pursuant to the Commission's decision of May 9, 2005, the neighbors have submitted a host of detailed questions about the proposed use of the property. Given the extent and significance of the questions raised, we request that the neighbors be given sufficient time to thoroughly review the applicant's answers and provide written comments for the Planning Commission after the project applicant completes its responses. Accordingly, we request that the continued Planning Commission hearing on the project be held no earlier than the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for July 11. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY INBERGER LLP MATTHEW D. ZINN City of Burlingame Planning Commission June 6, 2005 Page 2 cc: Ruben Hurin Land A. Weismehl Laura M. Held Linda Abbey [P:\ABBEY\MDZ003(PC letter).wpd] Existing Uses Mercy High School Mercy Center Sisters of Mercy n rn Z�� n C a] 1m z r� m ATTACHMENT 2 PART 2 Item No. 3 Action Calendar Meeting Date: 1/22/07 4 o � 0 4 o W � RECEIVED Nov - 12006 C►TY OF SURLINGAME pLANNING DEPT. MERCY HIGH SCHOOL EXISTING USES PROGRAM FACILITIES USED 110U S NuMBE JF Psi z rr / i rc �EOPL.E Mercy High Kohl Mansion, Monday—Friday Not to exceed There are two (2) public entrances for the high school: (1) School wing, grounds and 530 students Alvarado and (2) Adeline below Poppy. Buses enter at Hoover or green; classroom Alvarado gates. Year Round annex; fitness center; swimming pool; tennis and School Grades 9-12: Up to 500 A total of 160 parking spaces are designated for high school use -- basketball courts; 7:00 a.m. -3:00 p.m. students 78 for faculty and 82 for students. Those spaces are located in the cafeteria; portion of August to mid-June School Lot, Lake Lot, Forest Lot and Service Road Lot. [Lots A- Russell College on C and I on the Traffic Report which is included herewith as Sisters of Mercy Exhibit A.] A total of.100 student parking permits are issued each facilities year; however, not all students drive every day or all year and the number of spaces designated for student parking is sufficient. Montessori Preschool Up to 30 Students are dropped off in front of Kohl Mansion and picked up (ages 2 %z-5): students in front of the Motherhouse. Four(4) spaces are assigned for staff, 9:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m. which are not included in the 160 spaces for the high school. Year Round Those spaces, although temporarily located in the Forest Lot, are typically located on the high school service road. [Lots C and I on the Traffic report.] After School Programs: Varies Participants arrive by bus or van and park in the high school 3:00 p.m. -6:00 p.m. parking lot. August to mid-June Summer School/Camp: Varies Students are dropped off in front of Kohl Mansion. Faculty, staff RECEIVED 8:15 a.m. -3:15 p.m. and coaches normally park in the 30 spaces located adjacent to the mid-June-July fitness center building. NOV 12006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Prepared October 2006 - 1 M '-,Scho\/ol Use Matrix fnl ` MERCY HIGH SCH,L.,jL EXISTING USES PROD F CTLI[i`1[ Vs >a >�I( ullt �1G S 3 "g S Music at Kohl Mansion Friday - Sunday: Not to exceed Guests use the 160 spaces designated for high school use. Kohl 7:00 p.m.—10:00 p.m. 300 guests* Mansion 12 Events Annually Periodic Monday-Thursday: Participants arrive by bus or van and park in the high school 8:00 a.m. -3:00 p.m. parking lot. 4 Events Annually Private Kohl Mansion and Friday-Sunday: Not to exceed Guests use the 160 spaces designated for high school use and other Rentals grounds Evening events end no later 300 guests* campus parking areas as needed. than 11:00 p.m. . Periodic RECEIVE NOV - 12006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING,OEPT. * Campus policies established in 1999 allow a total of only 300 guests in any combination of school and other events at any one time. Campus Scheduling Policy included herewith as Exhibit B. Prepared October 2006 2 M High School Use Matrix Cnl MERCY CENTER EXISTING USES 1ZERCY'CENRIS IOUSE 'WIIH-XN THE MOU�Il[t5E CbNV1�NT A1vD UIII.TZES SPrC k C1RMEIZLX,USED B UUIt.I A Y aF CX COL SU$SEQU NTLX R[�SSEI.C(I LEItE PItOG12AM FACI )tTIES ITSED - HC;<>lJaTUMER�F Ft1RfING/T1tAFFIC ,1pE0I't.�'k Overnight Mercy Center Meetings and sessions Not to exceed Overnight participants park in the Forest Lot. [Lot C on the Programs meeting rooms and usually conclude by 97 available Traffic Report.] The number of overnight participants counts guest rooms 9:00 P.M. guest rooms toward the total of 300 individuals allowed on campus at any one Various time pursuant to the campus policy established in 1999. Up to 60 Internship: participants July Retreats: Average of 33 3 days (average) retreatants Day Mercy Center and Speaker Series: Average of 65 Day program participants park in the Forest Lot. [Lot C on the Programs Chapel 10:00 a.m.—4:00 p.m. attendees Traffic Report.] The number of day program participants counts 6 Sundays Annually toward the total of 300 individuals allowed on campus at any one Various time pursuant to the campus policy established in 1999. daytimes and Spiritual Direction Average of 75 early evening Program: participants Saturdays concluding by -9:00 P.M. Meditation, Chapel Mostly small For the larger Taiz6 service,participants park in the Forest, Creek, and Prayer Groups: groups,but the Lake and Eucalyptus Lots as needed and as guided by parking 'Daily concluding by 9:00 first Friday of attendants. [Lots C,H,B and J on the Traffic Report.]. c p.m. the month I is—C �® Taiz6 evening 2006 service has up NOV ® to 150 1NGAME attendees CITY OF BU DEPT. PlANN1N Prepared October 2006 t M•cy Center Use Matrix fnl 1 MERCY CENTEk EXISTING USES MERCY CENTER IS H0"tJSED.VUtTH1N THEM6UTHE tHdUSE,CONVENT 1riD UTILIZES"SPACE FORME",X.'tJSA BY OUR LADX OF MRCX COLLEGE SLISE( UENTLTi{RUSSEL"COLI EGI" PROGRAM FAGXLIt,Ws Usk, } )(IC�UR�' Ni�1VIB�R OF s " PARI NG/TRXFFTC Day Mercy Center and Non-Profit Organization Average of 25, Day program participants park in the Forest Lot. [Lot C on the Programs Chapel Meetings: completed by however, Traffic Report.] The number of day program participants counts Cont... 4:00 p.m. groups range in toward the total of 300 individuals allowed on campus at any one size from 10 to time pursuant to the campus policy established in 1999 100 participants Other Mercy Center Bookstore: Open to the Minor These visitors park in the Forest Lot. [Lot C on the Traffic bookstore; grounds public Monday—Friday Report.] Various 10:00 a.m. -5:00 p.m. Labyrinth Garden: Minor Open to public all day every day RECEIVE® NOV - 12006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Prepared October 2006 2 Mercy Center Use Matrix fnl SISTERS OF MERCY (NON-CENTER) EXISTING USES PROGRAM FACI .2IIESI�bi: CtUItS 1YJMER'O 1"Atti1G/TFtFI 'FO L Motherhouse Motherhouse: Residential use, all day, There are There are 36 parking spaces available — 30 in the rear and 6 in Room and bathrooms,baths, every day. currently 32 front. [Lots E and F on the Traffic Report.] Occasional visitors Board for kitchens, dining Sister residents; share the Forest Lot with the Mercy Center. [Lot C on the Traffic Sisters of Mercy rooms, utility however, there Report.] rooms, community may be up to rooms 50 Sister residents. Marian Care Marian Care Residential use, all day, 40 residents There are 19 spaces for guests and employees in the Lake Lot Convent Center and every day. adjacent to the Marian Care Center and 5 additional spaces in front (for retired Infirmary: of the Center for the disabled. [Lots B and D on the Traffic Sisters) and resident rooms, Report.] If needed, the Center shares remainder of Lake Lot with Infirmary for kitchen, dining Sister of Mercy Burlingame employees and Russell Hall high Sisters of Mercy room, lounge school faculty. facilities,chapel and utility rooms The Lodge Cottage Rouse: Residential use, all day, There are There is parking available for 4 cars adjacent to the Lodge. housing for up to 4 every day. currently 2 Sisters Sister residents; however,there may be up to 4 Sister residents. RCENE® NOV - 12006 CITY AME pLANN NG DEPT. Prepared October 2006 I Sid'- of Mercy Use Matrix fnl SISTERS OF MERCY (NO11. .;ENTER) EXISTING USES 1 PROGRAM FACIi ITIS 1ti US ;' HOUttS NUMBtR OF PAIWNGJZ'RA F)f;'YC,, T3Et)FLE Sisters of Mercy Russell Hall Daily 7:00 a.m.—7:00 25 people There are 38 parking spaces available in the Lake Lot. [Lot B in Administrative (formerly Russell p.m. the Traffic Report.] Offices College)shared with Mercy High School RECEIVE® NOV - 1 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, Prepared October 2006 2 Sisters of Mercy Use Matrix fill Existine Uses Justification RECEIVE® Nov - 12006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. SISTERS %wrr MERCY ­77-77777777777 77, ....... Mercy High School (1) Use established in 1931 . See Appendix A to the LAFCo annexation application included herewith as Exhibit E. (2) Use included in the 1961 and 1973 Use Permits granted by the County, which are included herewith as Exhibits C and D.** (3) Use included in 1979 LAFCo annexation application where the number of students was grandfathered in at 530. The LAFCO annexation application and certificate of completion are included herewith as Exhibits E and F. High School use is, therefore, grandfathered in. Montessori Preschool Use established in 1980 immediately after annexation. See brochure attached as Exhibit Q. However, because the Mercy High School is entitled to 530 students, which existed at the time of annexation per the LAFCo application and Mercy High School only wants the capacity for 500 students, the High School allots the remaining unused 30 spaces to the Montessori school students. Music at Kohl Mansion 1979 LAFCo application included use of Sisters of Mercy campus for "educational, cultural and. . . civic meetings." Music at Kohl Mansion started in 1982. Music falls within all three purposes. Private Rentals In memo from Burlingame City Police Chief Fred Palmer dated 11/05/2001,, included herewith as Exhibit H, Chief Palmer states that "no use permit is required for rental of Kohl Mansion because rental of Kohl Mansion predates the 1979 annexation and all uses prior to the 1979 annexation are grandfathered in." See also (a) City letter dated 11/09/2001 to Linda Abbey included herewith as Exhibit 1; (b) City letter dated 01/02/2002 to Linda Abbey included herewith as Exhibit J; and (c) City memo dated 04/11/2005 included herewith as Exhibit K. Pursuant to Anza Parking Corp. v. City of Burlingame (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 855, 858: "it is widely held that a conditional use permit creates a right which runs with the land." RECEIVED Prepared October 2006 NOV - 12006 Use Justification Matrix fnl CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. SISTERS OF MERCY Motherhouse Room and Board (1) Use was established in 1932. See Appendix A to Exhibit E. for Sisters of Mercy (2) Use included in 1961 and 1973 Use Permits granted by the County. (3) Use included in 1979 LAFCo annexation application, which set baseline of 96 nuns and 67 staff. Current usage includes 32 Sisters residents (with rooms for 50) and 40 staff. Motherhouse use is, therefore, grandfathered in. Mercy Center(overnight 1979 LAFCO application includes use of convent for religious, retreat, educational, cultural and civic programs, day programs and other) meetings. Mercy Center is part of the Motherhouse Convent and use for these purposes is, therefore, grandfathered in. Mercy Center uses predate annexation and are, therefore, grandfathered in. Current usage involves 24 staff. Marian Care Center and County granted use permit in 1974 to allow a 27,000 square foot one story v-wing building with 40 single Marian Care Infirmary beds, kitchen dining and lounge facilities, chapel and utility rooms. This use was included in the 1979 LAFCo annexation application as a"retirement home for aging nuns"and is,therefore, grandfathered in. The Lodge(Caretaker's Cottage) Houses up to 4 Sisters of Mercy. Cottage was included in 1979 LAFCo annexation application which states that cottage was constructed between 1945-55. RECEIVED NOV e 12006 CIT`(OF 13URLINGAME. Prepared October 2006 PLANNING DEPT. Use Justification Matrix fnl 2 Exhibit A Traffic Report RECEIVED NOV - 12006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, F F H R & PFFRS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS RECEIVE MEMORANDUM NOV - 1 2006 CIN OF BURLINGAME Date: July 10, 2006 PLANNING DEPT. To: Jean Hastie, Sisters of Mercy, Burlingame Fr6m: Greg Saur, Fehr&Peers Subject. Sisters of Mercy, Burlingame Community Campus Existing Conditions SF06-0256 BACKGROUND Fehr&Peers is pleased to present this existing conditions memorandum for the Sisters of Mercy, Burlingame Regional Community Campus ("Campus"). The purpose of this memorandum is to quantify the existing (2006) parking and vehicle trip generation characteristics of the Campus. Owned and operated by the Sisters of Mercy, Burlingame Regional Community ("Sisters of Mercy"), a community of Catholic religious women who have committed their lives to serving others, the Campus was annexed by the City of Burlingame ("City") in 1979 and zoned R-1 residential. Since the time of the annexation,the Campus has operated as a legal nonconforming use without a conditional use permit issued by the City. Recently, the City has encouraged the Sisters of Mercy to obtain a conditional use permit for the Campus to serve as a baseline for any future changes in use. It is anticipated that the Sisters of Mercy and City staff will use the findings of this memorandum as a basis for the intended conditional use permit and long-term planning decisions. CAMPUS FACILITIES The Campus is approximately 40 acres, located at 2300 Adeline Drive in Burlingame, CA, bounded by Hoover Avenue to the north and Adeline Drive to the east and south, as shown on Figure 1. Five major buildings house different uses on the campus, as shown on Figure 2: • Mercy Motherhouse Convent and Mercy Center—A building consisting of a convent with 30 Sisters currently in residence and a retreat and conference center with 90 bedrooms and meeting facilities for 200 participants and offices for staff. • Russell Hall—An administrative office building with offices for 20 employees, with 17,000 sq.ft. used by Mercy High School. • Mercy High School —.A Catholic, college preparatory school for 500 young women with 43 teachers and 30 staff members that has school hours from 8 AM to 3 PM (September to June) and athletics and extracurricular activities in the afternoon (year round). The High School includes historic Kohl Mansion, which is available by reservation year-round for wedding receptions, concerts, dinners, and corporate events. The Morning Glory Montessori Pre-School with 30 students and four teachers also leases space from the High School 604 Mission Street,411 Floor,San Francisco,CA 94105 (415)369-0425 Fax(415)369-0426 www.fehrandpeers.com 01 e ts��tice O` 7 Fj Ss�r� Rte/ P Ce y �v F� P �o G� ei9VP Sisters ofMenry Burlingame Community Campus �4nPO r aiddO N Not to Scale LEGEND: © =Driveway Location Sisters of Mercy, fp Burlingame Community Campus Existing Conditions TR E H R PEERS CAMPUS LOCATION TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS July 2006 SF06-02561graphics\0256-1 FIGURE 1 Jean Hastie July 10,2006 fp Page 4of10 FtfIR & I'[[I:5 • Marian Care Center—A residence with both assisted living and skilled nursing services for approximately 30 senior Sisters. • The Lodge—A residence for three Sisters that also has a carport and detached structure for storage of grounds and landscaping equipment. Campus access to the surrounding street network is provided at four driveways, as shown on Figures 1 and 2,which are designated with gates: • Back Gate(Driveway 1)—Located at the intersection of Hoover Avenue and Columbus Avenue,this gate provides access to the Mercy Motherhouse Convent, Mercy Center, and Russell Hall. • Main Gate(Driveway 2)—Located at the intersection of Hoover Avenue and Adeline Drive, this gate is the main entrance to campus, providing access primarily to the Motherhouse Convent,Mercy Center,Marian Care Center,and Russell Hall. • Service Gate(Driveway 3)—Located at the intersection of the Kohl Mansion service road and Adeline Drive,this gate is used primarily by Mercy High School faculty and staff and by vendors supporting events at Kohl Mansion. • Top Gate(Driveway 4)—Located at the intersection of Alvarado Avenue and Adeline Drive,this gate provides access to Mercy High School student and faculty parking lots and pick-up/drop-off areas. EXISTING PARKING DATA Fehr&Peers analyzed the current parking characteristics on the Campus to determine if demand exceeds supply(347 marked and approximately 35 unmarked parking spaces in nine parking lots,as shown on Figure 2)at any point during the day. To quantify the peak weekday parking demand for the entire Campus, Fehr& Peers conducted a parking occupancy survey of all parking lots every hour from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM on May 10,2006,a typical weekday. On that day,in addition to regular Mercy High School activities,there were two events scheduled at the Mercy Center(17 participants for Cancer Prayer from 10:00 AM to 12:30 AM and 12 participants for another all day retreat). There were no scheduled events at Kohl Mansion.The results of the parking observations are shown in Table 1. peet;�e or. Ave Alvarado 4 _ ----- _ ------------------ Hale Dr. Lodge r � , r Poppy Dr. 'r'r 0 ate Man0 , m ` r c � r O , v � � `, ------- 3 - er ' enf` ❑ N O ®0 � Not to Scale a Mo herhous nve LEGEND: ® O = Driveway Location = Parking Lot A-Mercy High School - B-Lake �Pc C-Forest D-Marian Care Center ® E-Motherhouse(Front) 2 F-Motherhouse(Back) Hoover Ave. H-Creek 00 I-Mercy High School Service Rd X96 J-Eucalyptus c Barricade m Sisters of Mercy, Burlingame Community Campus Existing Conditions F E H R PEERS CAMPUS MAP TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS July 2006 FIGURE 2 SF06-02561graphics\02562 Jean Hastie July 10, 2006 FP Page 5of10 FfFIIt & Pans 111AMSronA1109d SONSU11 -IS -� TABLE 1 EXISTING PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND Parking Observed Parking Demand Parking Lot Name Supply 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:0013:001 4:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM PM I PM Mercy High School Lot 132 108 108 110 109 107 111 39 18 Lake Lot 69 60 65 69 66 62 54 32 29 Forest Lot 74 42 49 1 58 50 46 48 41 30 Marian Care Center Lot 5 2 4 6 2 3 2 3 3 Motherhouse Lot(front) 6 1 5 6 7 5 3 2 8 Motherhouse Lot(rear) 30 12 15 16 15 15 15 15 15 Eucalyptus Lot 25 3 2 4 5 5 3 4 3 Kohl Mansion Service Road 20 5 4 5 7 8 8 4 5 Creek Lot 21 16 16 17 17 10 8 8 4 Total Campus 382 249 268 291 278 261 252 148 115 Total Campus(Percent Occupied) - 65% 70°! 76% 73% 68% 66% 39% 30% Source:Fehr&Peers,2006. As shown in Table 1 the typical peak weekday parking demand for the Campus is 291 vehicles at 11:00 AM. During the hour with the peak weekday parking demand, 91 of the 382 spaces are unoccupied, which represents 76 percent occupancy. Ninety percent parking occupancy is typically considered"full,"therefore;the current campus parking supply is more than adequate. EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS Driveway turning movement counts were conducted on May 16, 2006, a typical weekday, during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM), afternoon (2:45 to 3:45 PM), and evening (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak periods at the four Campus driveways. During the count periods, Mercy High School was in regular session and there were no events at Kohl Mansion. There were two events at Mercy Center (a group of 15 between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM and another group of 15 all day). The results of the driveway turning movement counts are shown in Table 2. Jean Hastie {� July 10, 2006 • p Page 6of10 FEFIR & Prrl:S r �rtiwteunow w�sut urr is TABLE 2 EXISTING PEAK PERIOD TRAFFIC COUNTS Beginning of Back Main Service Top All Time Period Gate Gate Gate Gate Gates (15 min) In Out In Out In Out In Out In Out Total 7:00 AM 3 3 7 1 1 0 1 8 12 12 24 7:15 AM 3 1 4 1 3 0 12 10 22 12 34 7:30 AM 3 3 4 5 6 1 24 23 37 32 69 7:45 AM 3 5 17 4 7 0 56 48 83 57 140 8:00 AM 6 2 2 2 4 2 22 14 34 20 54 8:15 AM2 1 5 2 4 1 14 9 25 13 38 8:30 AM 5 3 2 1 5 0 5 6 17 10 27 8:45 AM 0 0 2 1 2 0 6 5 10 6 16 2:45 PM 6 5 0 1 1 2 18 21 25 29 54 3:00 PM 2 15 2 9 1 2 35 33 40 59 99 3:15 PM 0 4 5 13 1 1 25 15 31 33 64 3:30 PM 2 3 4 4 2 4 13 12 21 23 44 4:00 PM 4 7 0 5 0 2 2 10 6 24 30 4:15 PM 1 4 5 1 2 1 1 8 9 14 23 4:30 PM 1 3 3 2 0 7 4 5 8 17 25 4:45 PM 1 3 3 2 1 5 11 7 16 17 33 5:00 PM 3 4 1 0 1 2 5 8 3 14 12 26 5:15 PM 0 5 2 2 2 1 6 9 10 17 27 5:30 PM 0 1 1 2 0 2 6 6 7 11 18 5:45 PM 2 1 4 6 1 1 5 23 12 31 43 Note: 15-minute peak time periods with the greatest amount of traffic are shown in bold Source:Fehr&Peers,2006. Jean Hastie {� July 10,2006 .ll Page 7of10 Fl rig & PIIIts As shown in Table 2,the Top Gate,which is the entrance to Mercy High School,is the driveway that is used the most to access the High School and represents approximately 68 percent of all vehicle traffic recorded during the peak period traffic counts. As expected,the 15-minute time periods with the greatest amount of traffic coincide with the beginning(133 vehicles from 7:45 AM to 8:00 AM)and ending(96 vehicles from 3:00 PM to 3:15 PM)of the school day. For each driveway count period,the hour with the highest traffic volumes was identified as the peak hour. On a typical weekday,as shown in Table 3,there are 276 vehicles in the morning peak hour,from 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM,247 vehicles in the afternoon peak hour, from 2:45 PM to 3:45 PM,and 100 vehicles in the evening peak hour,from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. TABLE 3 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC COUNTS Beginning of Back Main Service Top All Peak Hour Gate Gate Gate Gate Gates In Out In Out In Out in Out In Out Total 7:30 AM 14 11 26 13 21 4 116 94 179 122 1 301 2:45 PM 10 27 11 1 27 1 5 1 9 1 91 1 81 117 144 1 261 5:00 PM 1 5 1 11 1 8 1 10 1 5 1 9 25 41 1 43 1 71 1 114 Source:Fehr 8 Peers,2006. As shown in Table 2,the AM peak hour,which is the highest peak hour throughout the day, occurs between 7:30 AM and 8:30 AM,with 179 vehicles entering the campus and 122 vehicles exiting the Campus. The afternoon peak hour occurs between 2:45 PM and 3:45 PM,with 117 vehicles entering the Campus and 144 vehicles exiting the Campus. The evening peak hour occurs between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM,with 73 vehicles entering the Campus and 71 vehicles exiting the Campus. Even though the Top Gate provides access to the entire Campus,it is mainly used by the High School. Assuming individuals from the other Campus facilities do not use the Top Gate, it is possible to develop vehicular trip generation rates for the High School using the current enrollment levels (475 students). These rates are summarized in Table 4, which shows the morning, afternoon,and evening peak hour trip generation rates per student. In addition to the rates calculated from the collected data,ITE trip generation rates are also presented in Table 4 for comparison purposes. Jean Hastie fp July 10, 2006 Page 8 of 10 F 1 1-I I: & I' i t Its _ Ut.YSOtIN 10M [OY SY UAYII TABLE 4 HIGH SCHOOL VEHICULAR TRIP GENERATION RATES PER STUDENT Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour Source In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Mercy High School' 0.24 0.20 0.44 0.191 0.17 0.36 0.05 0.09 0.14 ITE — High School (Average Rate) z 0.28 0.13 0.41 0.09 0.19 0.28 0.07 0.07 0.14 Notes: 1 — Based on driveway counts conducted at Mercy High School in Burlingame, CA on a typical weekday in May 2006 with an enrollment of 461 students. 2—Trip rates from Trip Generation, 7"fi Edition, ITE, 2003 Source: ITE, 2003 and Fehr & Peers, 2006. As shown in Table 4 the site-specific trip generation rates from Mercy High School are very similar to the ITE average rate for high schools for both the morning and evening peak hours, while the average total ITE rates are slightly lower than the site-speck total rates for the afternoon peak hour. Based on this comparison, it appears that the vehicular trip generation of Mercy High School is similar to a typical high school KOHL MANSION EVENTS At the City's request, the following section provides traffic estimates for three events that typically happen at the Kohl Mansion. In order to understand the potential traffic due to a wedding, corporate function, or concert, the following estimates were prepared. It should be noted that no driveway turning movement counts were conducted during a Kohl Mansion event; rather these estimates are based on the estimated number of guests and vendors/support staff attending each event as well as an approximation of the number of passengers per vehicle. The Campus has a policy that Kohl Mansion events shall be limited to no more than 300 participants and that there shall be no Kohl Mansion events when Mercy High School is in session. Given this policy and recent event participation information, the number of vendors/support staff and guests per event type was estimated by Kohl Mansion staff to represent typical attendee levels. For the purposes of this estimation, it was assumed that all vendors and support staff would drive alone to the event (one person per vehicle). It was also assumed that one-quarter of all guests would drive alone (one person per vehicle), one-half of all guests would ride with a companion (two people per vehicle), and one-quarter of all guests would ride with two companions (three people per vehicle). Table 5 shows the results of the vehicle traffic estimates for the different Kohl Mansion events. As shown in the table, a typical wedding would generate 147 vehicle trips, a typical corporate function would generate 112 vehicle trips, and a typical concert would generate 124 vehicle trips. All three of these vehicle traffic estimates would generate less traffic than the entire campus generates during a typical morning or afternoon peak hour and only 10 to 50 percent more vehicle trips than the entire campus generates during a typical evening peak hour. Jean Hastie July 10, 2006 Page 9of10 FI tY AYS�Y�IAf 1YA1 (OYSUl1AYI1 TABLE 5 KOHL MANISON EVENT VEHICLE TRAFFIC ESTIMATES Attendees Number of Vehicles Event Vendors/ Guests Vendors/ Single Two Three Support Staff Support Staff Guests Guests Guests Total Wedding 30 200 30 50 50 17 147 Corporate 25 150 25 38 38 12 112 Function Concert 25 170 25 43 43 12 124 Source:Mercy High School,Burlingame and Fehr&Peers,2006. Given that Kohl Mansion events typically happen on the weekend or weekday evenings, it is assumed that Kohl Mansion events would not affect traffic to and from the campus during the moming or aftemoon peak hours. However, an event at the Kohl Mansion that would occur during a weekday evening could influence the traffic during the evening peak hour. If all of the event traffic were to arrive between 5:00 PM and 6:00 PM, the campus evening peak hour traffic would increase from 100 to between 212 for a corporate function and 247 for a wedding. Even with a weekday evening wedding, the number of vehicles in the evening peak hour of the campus would be.fewer than the number of vehicles in the moming or aftemoon peak hour. CONCLUSION In summary, analysis of the parking and vehicle trip generation characteristics of the Sisters of Mercy, Burlingame Community Campus in Burlingame, CA indicates the following: • The typical peak weekday parking demand for the campus is 293 vehicles at 11:00 AM. During the hour with the peak weekday parking demand, 79 of the 372 spaces are unoccupied, which represents 79 percent occupancy. Ninety percent parking occupancy is typically considered "full,' therefore; the current campus parking supply is more than adequate. • The 15-minute time periods with the greatest amount of traffic coincide with the beginning (133 vehicles from 7:45 AM to 8:00 AM) and ending (96 vehicles from 3:00 PM to 3:15 PM)of the school day. • On a typical weekday there are 276 vehicles in the morning peak hour, from 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM, 247 vehicles in the aftemoon peak hour, from 2:45 PM to 3:45 PM, and 100 vehicles in the evening peak hour, from 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM. • The site-specific trip generation rates from Mercy High School are very similar to the ITE average rate for high schools and it appears that the vehicular trip generation of Mercy High School is similar to a typical high school. Jean Hastie July 10,2006 fp Page 10 of 10 FrFIR & hFFRS • For Kohl Mansion events,a typical wedding would generate 147 vehicle trips, a typical corporate function would generate 112 vehicle trips,and a typical concert would generate 124 vehicle trips. All three of these vehicle traffic estimates would generate less traffic than the entire campus generates during a typical morning or afternoon peak hour and only 10 to 50 percent more vehicle trips than the entire campus generates during a typical evening peak hour. Even with a weekday evening wedding, the number of vehicles in the evening peak hour of the campus would be fewer than the number of vehicles in the morning or afternoon peak hour. Fehr&Peers hopes you have found the results of this memorandum useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us at(415)369-0425 if you have any questions. Exhibit.B Campus Scheduling Policy RECEIVE NOV ® 1 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. t.ampus bcneauung trrocess Assumptions: The scheduling process has to: effectively manage the campus as one entity I\`//� F be fair for all ministries • be a participative process • be a simple and workable process be financially feasible for the ministries y 2006 • incorporate already scheduled/confirmed events N O V ® 1 • incorporate parking needs and capacity I • be a process we can all live with and support ClOF BURLINGAME All events on campus will be recorded on the campus calendar,major events will require prior approve CANNING DEPT, Guidelines for • The campus calendar will be a rolling two year calendar. structuring the campus calendar • Events which are important for a ministry are given priority. "Importance" is based on the following criteria: --- -the event is integral to carrying out the ministry -holding the event or not would have a significant financial impact on the ministry -the event promotes positive public relations or community outreach • "Traditional/annual" events are also given priority on the campus calendar,e.g., Mercy High School Auction, Christmas at Kohl,Taize Prayer,RSM Convocation. • No more than two-major-events`-will be scheduled for the campus at the same time or on the same day. • If one event has over 300 participants and/or utilizes all the parking on campus,no other event will be scheduled at the same time or on the same day except for the first Friday evening of each month. On a first Friday evening,Taize Prayer may be held at Mercy Center, and Kohl/MHS may schedule an event with no more than 100 guests utilizing 50-60 parking spaces. • If the designated parking lot capacity of a ministry is expected to be exceeded fora major event', the ministry must arrange for any or all of the following or the event will not be approved for scheduling by the office of the Campus Executive Director(CED): 1)permission from the office of the CED to use other parking lots on campus; 2)valet parking service or parking directors; 3)off site parking with a shuttle service. • There will be at least two hours between major events on campus. • The effect that the event has on campus parking and the neighborhood regarding noise,traffic etc.will be considered when scheduling. The effect that the event has on residents,the other ministries on campus, campus grounds/ecology will be considered when scheduling. • Except for major events"as defined in these guidelines or for events that require more parking space ---- than the ministry's-designated parking-lot-capacity,ministries may schedule unexpected events" without prior approval from the office of the CED but must report the event information to the office of the CED as soon as possible for it to be recorded on the campus calendar. • Photographic shoots contained within one or two room of Kohl Mansion will be scheduled similarly to an ordinary request Filming on campus that involves any buidling on property or requires closure of part of the property(e.g. movies etc.)will always require prior approval from the CED • "Arbritration"to determine which ministry's event will take precedence will be determined by these guidelines,the numbers of guests involved and parking lot capacity.Scheduling disputes between two ministry's events that cannot be settled by the guidelines will be settled by the CED who has the authority to manage the campus as a totality. • Exceptions to any of these guidelines will be approved only by the CED. r •major events: events with over 200 guests for Kohl Mansion and 100 guests for one Mercy Center event, or in some cases,as cumulatively 100 guests for multiple Center events. "unexpected events: events which are not approved for the calendar during the annual scheduling session of March of each year and are requested between monthly calendar review meetings. ' DVT✓1Z Scheduling processScheduling events: • All events will be recorded on the campus calendar that will held in the office of the Campus Executive Director. Some events will require prior approval by the office of the CED as described in the guidelines and in the process outlined below. A designated represeritative from each group on campus will submit events for recording on the calendar in accord with the process described below. • When submitting events for calendaring,the date,time,name of the group,number of participants and the requested number of parking spaces will be required for approval. • Events scheduled for the pool and for the Chapel will be included in the master calendar. Handling of events already scheduled and confirmed as of November, 9999: • November 29,1999,10am-noon: -Updating of all constituents on current schedule through 2001 and negotiating changes where needed or possible -Attendees:Michael Lane/Sue Thourson;Cheryl Nash/Linda Hyland;Sally O'Connell;Diane Grassilli. Sally will collect existing dates from Development Department,Motherhouse Team and Marian Care Center. • January 1,2000:Already scheduled events are OK`d. Scheduling new events: • By 1'week of December: High School gives the office of the CED the dates of annual events for remainder of school year and next full school year. 1"week of December: Mercy.Center hold planning session for year's programs 1"or 2' week of March: High School and Kohl Mansion negotiate/integrate dates 2"d or 3rd week of March: Campus constituents will meet for annual scheduling session with a two year horizon.(Attendees:Michael Lane/Sue Thourson;Cheryl Nash/Linda Hyland;Sally O'Connell; RLT Liaison;Campus Executive Director;Motherhouse Team member. Sally will bring dates from Development rk Department and Marian Care Center.) On one of the last 3 days of every month(1 hour): Campus constituents will meet to update and/or negotiate dates for the coming month and review the past month. (Attendees:Michael Lane/Sue Thourson;Cheryl Nash/Linda Hylen;Sally O'Connell,Campus Executive Director, Motherhouse Team member) • Unexpected events needing to be scheduled: Ministries may schedule events between monthly scheduling meetings without prior approval except for major events as defined in the guidelines or events that exceed the ministry's designated parking lot capacity. Events not needing prior approval will be reported to the office of the CED as soon as possible but no later than the next monthly scheduling meeting. Events requiring prior approval will attain it from the office of the CED before confirming the event with the parties involved. Exhibit C 1961 Use Permit RECEIVED NOV - 12006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. November 14, 1961 C01 lege of Our Ludy of M or'cy 2300 Adeline Drive Our Iingame, Cal iforaia Attention Aster M.. Baptist&, Treasurer Ret File 173-1467 Resolution now 2-'6% �e�' Sisters: Iter�r in i e SAV "corrected" Res o l ut ion portelp 1� +6 the 1 Se Pbra� t -jt# you by the i�l n ing . # tc epi ftsl+ -regular meot-164 f*eld on the Sth day of NoVember, 1961., t.d. 'only' 19 Also note . ' stioitlrm Io. 3 addmk " This pervatlt ofaoerers general operation of h i fib BOW*t , 00114p, convent and re'feted Wry truly yours., SAN WTE4,ODUN Y i'iAidll NG OMISSION 0arnard McCaavi tt Zoning Adm ire i strator BY T, W. NacAdam Zoning 1 n vesti. gator- Tlsrr �At 4 November 9, 1961 Col loge of Our Lady of Marcy 2300 Adaline Drive Burlingame, Ca l i forn i s Attention Sister M. Baptista, Treasurer Res File 173-1487 Door Sisters: The P l ann tag Commission of its regular meeting held on the 8th day of November 1961 cans i dered your app t i cation for a use Permit to allow high school, college, convent and all related facilities on approximately- 40 acre's bounded vast by Mi i Is Creek, north by Hoover Avenue, artist by Adeline CW Ivee, south by Burlingame Hills, Bur l n- game School District. This permit was granted subject to the following cond i t ions: 1. Providing adequate off-street parking to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 2. P rm i t Is only for the L i br-tary and Administration Buildings extensions and the building now wader construct Ion. We':azre emlosing :a copy of Resolution No. 2.666 pertaining to this use Permit, My tntecesteddper sons aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Dommission may appeal to the Board of Supervisors within 10 days from such date of determination, or by govember 20, 1961, if no appeel is made by sold date, you may app ty to the County Build- Ing Inspector for your building permit. spectfully SAN WTEO COUNTY PLANNING C"ISSi4lit Bernard Mcav i tt Zoning Administrator By T., W. Macadam Tib:rr Zontng Investigator enc. cct Building insPector RESO LUT I ON NO,- Y -696 USE PERMIT SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ---------------------------- -� RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the County of San Mateo, State of California, that, S i stor M. OW11sta, S tst rs of Newey for WHEREAS, W 11,l Of Our U'WY of Iliet"Cy did on Oaftber 26, 1961 make application to said Commission for a Use Permit to allow h1gh 14cOM10 cai lege, cwvmf and all ro 1 eted f ac i i i f iea on appm, Q acres `laaulmW ,lot by hi l is Creek,. north by WKMW AVOW*, by Ad*I Im lit IV*, South .by ew l Ingame Mill a, bur!ingaam SChoo l 0 Istr Iet WHEREAS,. the Planning Commission of said County, . in accordpnce with the provisions of Chapter 24 of Part I , Division VI , San Mateo County Ordi- nance.Code, held on the Oft day of lid` 196 ! a hearing on the foregoing application in the Chambers .of the Board of Supervisors, Hall of Justice and Records, Redwood City, at which hearing .said Planning . Commission did consider all of the facts pertaining to the foregoing application, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED as follows; I . That. the estab I i shment, -ma 1 ntenance and/or conducting of the use . for which the permit is sought Will r4t under the circum- stances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and welfare of 'persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use and a►1`1,iFt'i' be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property orT improvements in said neighborhood. 2. That said Planning Commission does hereby li the ap cation for aforesaid Use Permit " 1 ,>r t powlOng adeq etft rant iP "k,Io9 to "a 1' of the 131a lm it«�r �,0 Il i.it is alto Llbrwy � AdM1ftt~1Qt eeiidirtgs e�rhnsi ns mid the If tt.!idi tg �a :a tdtr" . ?YM a S a cove r s e e rw t _C - t 6 h o 1 fG I cow v9.Vf A rt(a 4� ('V,'f� oK Regularly passed .and adopted on this Sift day of Novem Nr 19 -61 AYES, and in favr of aid resolution: Commissioners: R Ftdtard 3, Ar1*"V4g, Rbbert Loq# No RN Mala, !,!i0. 9011iddM' -* NOES, and against sairesolution: Commissioners: ABSENT Commissioners: " ATTEST Fri S. Sk lkwin -� Secretary, .San Mateo County Planning Commission vE 0 _ rO OCL V �8 `S o 0` \ FAYWAcr ; OL sP 27,y4AC• '�� �AO r U,SE PET /-,fA87 CO"GG6 OF OUR LADY OF M6RGY. _ \ To AI-Low E./1GN �cl�aoL� c-oa-'g, - coirvs/vT R1-� ROL AJZ.O FAuur«s. ,,ippevx• go Aogeu o0vNac-D W, 6y N445 9-3 cRSSK". All d3r Hoo✓6R Av—c', E, 6 OVR4-14GAM6 ScNool- D16 r: IVOV. 8, I9(oJ SEC, //. 3 17 Exhibit D 1973 Use Permit RECEIVED NOV m 12006 CITY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 23* 1,973 beer, sfsw"S.. . �tQo:for a iiK ft �ltWAt a !!"t�"#��' � row , ��'� ' to =11*'14 .la f e,sf �p Cd~ thin "1wloot i ,. {.,,, yt����fi of. to #°f 1 vt d ,ftplicanf anfi aodeftw.-sti fes' ` fes" wtich,. ' ,Pwm f Is f rt#f mt. under fto at m of fhp psa tsut SII, ril fo flaw smfafp =1"6t « + ham!' convent a ! rif fir f. res# ge* �f f �fum and Wt l t be d tai. f6 fly, publfc "144we or. �r�wl-kims ft prop" awenft -in sstd +p 0 .. of last I"" 1,1moft -for eforew:d wo:p t effer dawmeom wilt flee fvt art"s,a #t"as Um :art# b sti ff . to +a"1f to 1" �� # fel pit ,aud'f`l of Asr-410sw vnwastootnf wtw and ofto wwjQ* t0 Etre f #lftr. sI tiro parklm plan. sM_l 1 be d"f+m$ jodto S tquod dot t ovew is eubsisist lef 001041 eifk Flat .odpw 1 ft►1a d man fia fly 1�t+ t rtttitr Berm" wftvllftl fa too ra Aala Alft .SISTERS OF MERCY - ZA-UP-16-73 f )w additional facilities to existing convent in the form of a convent structure that includes a Nursing Care Wing, located in an R-1 , single-family residential ... . district - 40 acres MOL described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 027-091-080, 027-092-010, 027-093-110, 027-370-010. (Continued from 10-5-73) ..Larry Siders stated this item had been continued in order to allow the City Council of Burlingame time to study it with the staff material , maps, etc., that had been submitted to them; on October-17, a letter had been received from the City Manager stating the Council has reviewed the impact of the above project and the Negative Declaration and had no comments thereon; basically, the Negative Declaration covered both the applications for use permit and grading, there had also been received correspondencefromMr. John Grant, who wished to reiterate his concern about the traffic and fire protection, and to state he is against the bicycle path because of " its contribution to vandalism in the neighborhood. Mr. George Demetrious again voiced his concern about-fire protection_ Mr. Rodda, architect for the Sisters of Mercy, appeared to state he had attended the; Burlingame City Council meeting and that all concerns of the City have -been resolved. Mr. McCavitt informed the audience that as far as fire protection is concerned it is his understanding the City of Burlingame will furnish it; after ascertaining there was- no one else present to speak for or against the application, he' closed the hearing and on the basis of the information provided by the applicant and evidence submitted with the staff report at the hearing of October 5, 1973, made the following. findings: ' 1 . That the establishment, maintenance and/or conducting of the use for which the permit is sought will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience and welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use and will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or .improvements in said neighborhood, 2. That said Zoning Hearing Officer does hereby approve the application- --for.aforesaid use permit subject to compliance with the staff conditions... . SISTERS OF MERCY - Grading ZA-X91 -27-I Allow on-site grading of approximately 11 ,000 c.b.y. of material ptn. of a 32.77- acres site bounded on the northwest by Mills Creek and on the other side by Mercy- _ High School and Convent. (Continued from 10-5-73) Don Newmark gave the staff report and clarified the amount of 11,000' c.b;y. -as the total amount of material that w111 be needed on the site; the 2000 c.b.y. is outside of the foundation of the structure; while the amount of grading appears to. be a large amount, it is contouring the land and there. isnot a great deal of alteration to the site; , the County Engineer has commended the contractors on the planning_ Discussion followed on the grading process, the amount of material that would have to he brought in to the site, the fact that the grading contractors had agreed to d rt some of the trucks off Hoover Avenue in order to alleviate traffic problems, and an explanation of minor changes in the staff conditions. ,� OCTOBER 19, 1973 APPLICANT: SISTERS OF is _ FILING DATE: -. 2 197� REQUEST= To construct an additional convent structure that includes a idursing care ding. Structure will be a single story , Type - one our- building ot approxi ma e y q.f. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: Subdivision: Burlingame Hills; Bloc. # 11,12,5 ; 1,5 027-091 2300 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, Calif. 94010 Parcel 027-092 SCALE: 1/50"=11 02 1-t-T93' 02 70 4 � z r. g W t � W i C�l/ M NM October 10, 1973 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO PLANNING DEPARTMENT Telephone: 364-5600 - Ext. 4161 "1 NEGATIVE DECLA2ATION AP?L IC32T: : . . .. .. SISTERS OF MCRGY, ,300 :Adeline Dyfve, Burlingame, California P�3' 1: : . . . . .. . . Use Permit to allow additiogA facilities to be added to the existing convent school, -*d college_ The addition will be in the form of aco structure that includes a nursing care wing for abo 16 p rsons. . The proposed structure is one story containing ,000 sgtza=feet with 40 single bed- rooms, kitchen, dining and lounge facilities, chapel and utility rooms. Grading Permit to allow on' site grading of approximately 2,000 cubic bank yards of material on a two acre. portion of a 32.77 acre site bounded on the northwest by Mills Creek and on the Southwest by Mercy High School and Convent. ANALYSIS::::ss::::: No significant environmental impacts would result from the granting of the above stated permits. Adequate mitigation measures were indicated by the applicant to preclude significant problems with regard to sewage disposal, tree removal, and turbidity of Mills Creek. . It is- not felt that the proposed facility would generate an excessive amount of traffic. The entire site of the Sisters of Mercy would still maintain an open space character. The option of an alternate bicycle and ped(strian route through the Sisters of Mercy's property and with a connection to the proposed Mills Canyon Park is possible. . In general .the project was felt not .to be of such magnitude and intensity that significantly adverse environmental problems would result. TI1r PERIOD FOR P.n—:'T=GI:• . .. ..... ... . - The San Mateo County Zoning Fearing Office will consider the request .for a Use Permit and Grading Permit on October 19, 1973. Comments on the adequacy of the. Negative Declaration must be received no later.than October 18, 1973. Signature - William F. Powers Assistant Planning Director i n t r a - o f f ice memorandum SAN MATEO COUNTY PLANNING CO M M I S S 1 0 N t o Ordinance Administration & Environmental Div: d a t e : 8-29-73 f r o m Environmental Unit s b j e c t Sisters of Mercy Use Permit.ZA-Up-16-73 and Grading Applica- tion X91-27-1 This division has completed an in-depth environmental evaluation concerning . the use permit to allow additions to the above-:-referenced convent and to do the necessary grading for such additions. Our evaluation has been completed, and we find the grafting of these two permits will not have a significant impact on the environment. Such a finding shall be made a part of any staff report. LT f nlh i I n t r a - o f f i c e M e m o r a n d u m S A N M A T E D C O U N T Y P L A N N I N G DEPARTMENT t ��� T o = Ord ina a d /istration D a t e 7-30-73 F r o m Environmental Unit - Helene Korablatt S u b j e c t Environmental Review of Permit #ZA-UP-16-73 In order to complete the Environmental Review process for this permit, more information will be required of. the applicant than has been submitted at this time. It is recommended that the applicant 'be sent the attached letter requiring, additional information as requested therein. ac Exhibit E LAFCo Annexation Application "rcENE Nov m 1 2006 CITY of BSINGAME pLANNG sAH MArro C( ty-Goverment_Center Reawood City, CA .94063 I F= 364-5600 .Extension 4224 AN APPLICATION AND PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ORGANIZATION, REORGANIZATION OR MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION, INVOLVING The annexation of territory owned by :the SISTERS OF MERCY; a California corporation, and MERCY.HIGH SCHOOL, a California corporation to the..City of .Burlingame, State of California. (Describe nature�of proposal) TO THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSIONOFTHE COUNTY OF SAN"MATEO: REQUEST. AND PETITION, as follows:. (a) This proposal is made pursuant to: The Knox-NisbetAct XXXX The Municipal Organization_ Act commencing with Section 35000; Government Code. The District Reorganization Act of 1965 commencing... with Section 56000, Government Code (b) The ,nature of the proposed change of organization, reorganization, -r .icipal reorga he as-,e ,r nahas of all 'tie., and' dis' for which any change or organization is proposed are as follows: Annexation of territory substantially surrounded by the City to which annexation is proposed, viz: the City of Burlingame. (1) City of Burlingame (2) Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District. (If the proposal is for a reorganization and requests the formation of a new district or districts, designate the-principal act or acts under which .said district or districts are proposed to be formed.) (c) A description of the exterior boundaries of such territory (metes and.bounds) is more particularly described in Exhibit A.and a map of the subject territory is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, and by this reference made a part hereof. (d) -The affected territory included within this proposal is: XXXX inhabited (has more than twelve registered voters) 1 uninhabited (has less than twelve registered voters). (e) The affected territory included within this proposal constitutes 36.51 acres, plus Lot 8, Block 91 and Lot 11, Block 93. (f) The reasons for this proposal are as follows: The territory was originally the Frederick C xnhl psj-F1+-p, constructed 3 nio, o Thp + e is s mmundpd on most- Si rips by the r ' tJr nf a Ii gampx and on the north s dp by Mi 7 1 S C'rPPk ThP ; --- l i c'i- - - the Dr['�Dn pd ation is to retain this 36. 51 acreage as an open space in the City of Bnrlingamp- (g) It is desired. that this proposal provide for and be made subject to the following terms and conditions: None (h) . The land use within the -subject area is: (Include residential density) R-1 (i) Projected future land use: (Include. residential density) Comp - no change, (j) Is the projected land use in conformity with appropriate city and county general and specific plans? Yes XXXX No (If projected land use is not in conformance with appropriate city and county general and specific plans, applicant must justify this proposal on a separate pagq and attach to this application. ) (k) The following persons (not to exceed 3) are designated as chief petitioners and hereby request to be furnished with copies of the Executive Officer' s Report and who are to be given mailed notice of hearing: Name Mailing Address Phone SISTERS OF MERCY 2300 Adeline Drive 342-1461 Burlingame , CA 94010 MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 2750 Adeline Drive 343-3631 or Burlingame, CA 94010 342-1461 -3- (1) Check whichever statement applies: Each of the signers .of this petition is a resident-voter wit2, the affected territory included within this proposal. Each of the signers of this petition is a landowner within the affected territory included within this proposal. XX%X The undersigned proponent(s) own(s) 100 of the affected terri-- . tory included within this proposal This application is submitted by an affected 'governmental agency. (resolution. attached) . This application has the written consent of 100% of the landowners within the affected area. Yes (Documentation attached) No (m) It is hereby requested that proceedings be taken for the proposal hereinabove described pursuant to the provisions of the Government Code as enumerated within paragraph (a) of this petition. . :The following to be completed by registered voters or landowners within ` "the'subject area. . Applications submitted by an affected governmental agency must attach their resolution of application containing the elements as required by Government. Code Section 35140 for the Municipal. Organi.zati-n _ u ��;•. .Cwernment C d4 Sccti- cc, ^� r-_. L6_a L__ � ..moi. JVt.i✓ -LtJ1 uaDis rl ct Reorganization Act. Additionally, applications submitted by a city pursuant .to the Municipal Organization Act shall include a plan for providing services as required by Government Code Section 35102. N/A Residential Address Indicate Status of Petitioner or Election* of Petitioner, Signatures of Date of Identification of Precinct. i.e. Resident- Petitioners Si ature Pro ert Owned Number Voter or La ISTERS OF MERCY 2300 Adeline Drive N/A Landowner Jan. 1979 Burlin ame CA 9401 President Jan. 1979 Secretary :RCY HIGH SCHOOL Jan. 1979 2750 Adeline Drive N/A Landowner President Burlingame, CA 9401 Secretary i EE. RONTPMNTAL INFORNLATION FO LAFCo File No, . General Information Owner__ SISTERS of MERCY ,Owner MFuw arra crunnr i l3dresS 2300 Adelina nri ur, Address_ BnrlinQam CA 94010 Burlingame__ ,- Cp.9401-0 Telephone No.__ (4151 347-1461 Telephone. 110. 415) 343-3631 or .. -Please .answer the followin (415) 342-1461 . g questions in the space provided, Background Information and Proiect Description . 2. Give a brief description of the proposed -project including address. . .Owner . -!-.,CQnveni ,. -tor. Congregation .of Nuns;. _Chapel; Retirement .Home; .( . . )retreat Facilities; School Classrooms; Library; and Ancillary Facil- ities at 2300. Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010. Owner 1 (A): High School, grades 9 through 12; Classrooms; Libraries.; Cafeteria; Auditoriums; Athletic Facilities; and Ancillary Facilities at. 2350 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010. 3. Describe the project area, including distinguishing natural and man-made characteristics. Owner 1: Natural: 32.77 acres of wooded and artfully. landscaped gardens, Dorde_ed`_r�y 'Mills Creek, representing 'beautiful and perpetual open space. Man=made: Convent, Chapel, Schoolrooms, Retirement Home. Owner 1 (A) : Natural: 3.74 acres of artfully landscaped campus. Man-made: The historic Frederick kohl Mansion, converted to Mercy High School fifty years ago. Classrooms, swimming pool, tennis courts added -amidst a glorious English Tudor garden setting. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by city, county, .regional, state and federal .agencies. . No .permits .required.. . Conformance only with Sec. 501 (c) (3) of the Taxation e Internal Revenue. Code and with Sec.214 of the' California .Revenue anck `.Code..- Existing zoning ,.district: Does this project entail any can_e in 2onirg; is yes, to ',chat district? No If residential, include the nu.-wbe_ of units, schedul¢ Of unit sizes,. range of sale prices or rents, and type of househol4 size expected.. N/A `,.f commercial, indicate the type, o:hether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area, number of parking spaces, .and loading facilities. N/A -2- 9c' If, industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, number " of parking. spaces and loading facilities. N/A 10.- If institutional, indicate the major function; _estimated. employment per shift, estimated occupancy,: number of .parking spaces, loading facilities, and. community benefits to be derived from the project. SEE APPENDIX "A" 11. If the project involves. a variance, conditional use or rezoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required N/A uc t c fo'_lct: rc _t To zprl-cable to the preject .or its effects? Dia(-uss.,-,..� below all items checkad YES (attach additional sheets. as necessary) . YES NO XX 12. - Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, lakes or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. xx 13. Change in scenic views . or vistas from existingresidential areas or public lands :or roads. XX. 14.. Change in pattern, scale orcharacter of general area of project. XX 15. Significant amounts of solid waste .or litter. XX 16. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. XX 17. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality . or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. XX .18.. . Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. XX '19. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 percent or more. _ XX . 20. Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables, or explosives. {X 21. Substantial change in demand for municipal or governmental services : J Yes No Yes No Yes No XR Police XX Fire XX_ Water L1/17/76 10. APPENDIX "A" The major function of SISTERS of MERCY is the maintenance of a Convent facility for religious women, including educational and facilities, and a Retirement Home for aging Nuns. The major function of MERCY HIGH SCHOOL is the maintenance of a . four year educational facility, from grades 9 through 12, ex- clusively for girls_ ESTIMATED EMPLOYMENT SISTERS of MERCY: MERCY. HIGH SCHOOL: PER SHIFT: DAYS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 P.M. 's: . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - NIGHTS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . 0 ESTIMATED OCCUPANCY: . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .96. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .530 (School Days Only) NUMBER OF MARKED PARKING SPACES: .55. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 LOADING FACILITIES : _ . . . . . . 3: . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THE PROJECT: The "project", known for almost a half century as"the SISTERS OF MERCY, Burlingame" , was originally the Frederick C. Kohl Estate. The extremely ornate Tudor mansion was constructed in 1913. The Sisters of Mercy acquired this property in 1924. For fifty— five years , they have maintained the mansion with extraordinary care, actually converting it into a major .school facility, known as MERCY HIGH SCHOOL. The dignity of this architectural masterpiece, with an exterior and interior ornate in design and appointments , has been preserved throughout all of 'the years it has been utilized as a school facil- ity. Thousands of mid-Peninsula girls have received quality, college prepatory education since Mercy High School opened on August 10, 1931. The present enrollment exceeds 500. In 1934 and 1955, extensions , including classrooms, cafeteria and ancillary facilities were constructed. The manicured gardens lend to a campus scene of serenity and beauty. The Sisters of Mercy constructed a Convent to the north of the Kohl mansion in 1932 , with an addition in 1963. The architecture -1- was an enhancement to the. original ohl mansion. In. 1973 , a two- story complex of classrooms and me ting rooms was added . In 1974 a quality Convalescentand Retire nt Home was constructed at a cost of in excess of $1 . 3 million . Since moving from San Francisco to the Kohl Estate in 1924 , the religious congregation of the Sisters of Mercy have educated thou- sands of young women who have joined the . Order . Under their auspices , the members of the Sisters of Mercy conduct four major hospitals in California (St . . Hospital and Med- ical Center, San Francisco ; Mercy Hospital , Bakersfield ;. St . John ' s Hospital , , Oxnard ; Mercy Hospital and Medical Center , San Diego) ; and one in Arizona (St . Joseph ' s Hospital and .Medical Center , -Phoenix) . 'Members of the -Order - serve -both- -in --nursing and admin .istration positions in all of these hospitals . The Sisters of Mercy also operate two. high schools for girls , Mercy High School in Burlingame , and Mercy High School in San Fran- cisco . They also operate Our Lady ' s Home (for aged) in Oakland , and. staff numbers of parochial grammar schools in California , in- cluding Our Lady of Angels on Hillside Drive in the City of Burl- ingame , and , until recently , St . Catherine of Siena on Bayswater Avenue , also in the City of Burlingame . The community* benefits derived by the City and the citizens of Burlingame by these unique organizations are commercial as . well as cultural . Being . the headquarter city of - this congregation offers benefits that have been legendary and historical for more than half a century . One principal community benefit will be the retention of- 36 . 51 ' acres of open space along Mills Creek , bordering Millbrae , and the quality residences along Adeline and Hoover Avenues in the City of Burlingame . -2- APPENDIX "B" III.. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 25. The "project" and the "project site" are identical in this instance. No new development :nor change is contemplated in the project or the site. The topography consists of a gentle sloping grade of 5% plus, , with the majority of the interior having ample table top build- ing' areas available. The soil . is .most stable. All of the area surrounding the buildings on the site. are beautifully landscaped. . There is no profusion of wild animals .in, the area . -The. follow- ing existing structures are located on the. site and are used as indicated: Sisters of Mercy Convent, McAuley Hall and Russell College are complexes that are used by the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy for religious , retreat, educational, cultural, and in some instances , civic meetings. Marian Convent is an excellent quality class Convalescent and Retirement Home constructed in 1974 at a cost of approximately $1,350,000. This structure has a stucco exterior over wood frame and re-enforced concrete foundation. It is used for the past- oral and health care of aging members of the congregation. Also located on the site is a caretaker' s cottage, constructed about 40 - 50 years ago, of wood frame, typical .for the period .when it was built. Mercy High School is the former Frederick C. Kohl mansion, built in 1913. A classroom annex, swimming pool,. shower and dressing rooms, basketball and tennis courts were added to. ..the. high school facility over the .years. The historical and cultural aspects have been described in Append- ix "A" to "10" hereinabove. Reference to, and incorporation of said description is made to this section. The scenic aspects of this. site cannot be described in mere words. It would take just a short walk from the upper gate on Adeline . Drive opposite Alvarado Avenue to Hoover Avenue to appreciate the extraordinary beauty of the entire park. An awesome view of the North Peninsula, San Francisco Airport and the Bay awaits from the parking lot inside the gate. A short distance eastward is the Frederick C. Kohl mansion, ex- tremely ornate in English Tudor design and appointments , sitting in a splendid garden of lawns , hedges and rose bushes_ Though �. 65 years old, the mansion, site of Mercy High School, is as beaut- iful as ever. -1- In a little valley, off to the left are Russell -College and Marian Convent Shrines and exquisitely landscaped. gardens are to the right of the roadway, approaching the Convent . and McAuley Hall. The massive ancient oak trees throughout the entire park like area receive special care to retain their. sturdy, everlasting. beauty. Manicured gardens and sone undeveloped wilderness add to the project exquisite beauty. Perhaps .these words will merit a personal review. 26., The surrounding. properties of this project site comp rise Mills Creek. on the north, R-l .single family. residences .on the east on Hoover .Avenue, .and also R-l .single family residences on the - south bordering Adeline Drive. The homes are of . ex ceptional quality and. are universally well maintained by their �-owners. They are all well landscaped and are of a vintage con- struction era. The height .of the homes does not exceed two .living floors , and the applicants are assured that they meet all.. zoning requirements .. for set-back, rear and front yards and gardens. As the homes wind up Adeline Drive, they have an extraordinary view of downtown Burlingame: the Airport .and San Francisco bay. The finest examples of the cultural and historical aspect of --the hundreds of 'families and diti- the surrounding properties are zens who have _lived in these splendid dwellings for decades. -2- YES NO' Yes No Yes No Yes No XX. Sewage XX Roads XX Schools �- XX Parks or other recreational facilities XX Other governmental services XX 22. Will the project involve the use of any service from an agency, district, or utility that is currently operating near or at. capacity? XX 23. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption -(electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.) . XX 24. Relationship to a larger project or series ofprojects. II. ENVIRONMENTAL .SETTING 25. Describe the project site as it •exists before the project, including information- on topography,. soil stability, plans and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site and the use of the structures. SEE APPENDIX "B" 26. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and .any cultural, historical. or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department Gtores, etc.) and scale of development (height, , frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc .) . SEE APPENDIX "B" 7. STATEMENT OF NO S:IGNIFI.CANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS If .you feel that. the project will have no significant environmental impacts, indicate your reasons below. Be specific,. (Attach addi- - tional sheets, if necessary.) The project will have absolutely no significant environmental impacts.. whatsoever, that have not .previously existed since the acquisition of the .property by the. Sisters of Mercy. and the operation of Mercy High_ School. The detailed. description of the project site, and the uses thereof, set forth hereinabove, offers sound proof that the quality of any environmental impact is totally positive and has been for decades in the :pas.t. .RTIFICATION-: I hereby certify that. the -statements furnished, above and in the attached exhibits present the: data and information re- quired for this environmental evaluation to the best of my ability, -;and .that the facts, statements,. and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. SISTERS OF MERCY and 14ERCY HIGHSCHOOL .te January .1979.Submitted by (signature) Name (please type or print) A. Registered voter B. Landowner XX C. Other interest (specify), (Do not write below this line) ecutive Officer' s Findings: Emergency Project - Exempt Categorically Exempt - Class Environmental Evaluation Checklist .and Initial Study Required �e B. SHERMAN COFFMA14 Executive Officer (17/76 Job No. 78237 ,BRIAN • KANGAS • —OULK & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING. ENGINEE PLANNERS . SURVEYORS December 20, 1978 595 Price Avenue Redwood City, CA 94063 Tel.(415)365-0412 DESCRIPTION : . PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF LANDS OF SISTERS OF MERCY AND MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, AND ADJACENT PORTION OF ADELINE DRIVE TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME BEGINNING at the -intersection of the Corporate Limits of the City of Burlingame . as established by Ordinance No. 379 on November 3, 1941 and the Northwesterly prolongation of the Southwesterly line of Hoover_.Avenue, said intersection. also.. being a point on the centerline of Mills Creek; thence Southeasterly along the Corporate Limits of the City of Burlingame as. established by Ordinance No. 133 on March 1,1920 a distance of---985 feet more or less to the intersection of the . Northwesterly line of. Adeline Drive and the Southwesterly line of Hoover Avenue, thence Southwesterly along the general .Northwesterly .line of said Corporate Limits and along the Northwesterly line of Adeline Drive, 1,493.38 feet to the. : . intersection thereof with the Southwesterly line of the right-of-way described. in Volume 2200, Official Records .of San Mateo County at.Page 505; thence leaving said Corporate Limits and .along said Southwesterly line of. said right-of-way North 37'24' West 29.76 feet; thence North 27047120" West 36..06 feet to the intersection-thereof with the Southerly line of that certain. 36.37 acres of land as conveyed to C. Frederick Rohl by Deed recorded in.Book 222 of Deeds at"Page,480, San Mateo County Records; thence westerly along said Southerly line on the arc of a curve to the left, at which a radial line of said curve bears North 20'48'15" East, having a radius of 227.07 feet, a central angle of 19°16'15" and an arc distance of 76.37 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence 264.74 feet on the arc of a curve to the right having a radius or 227.07 feet and a cencral .augle ui UU u., to a point of reverse curvature; thence 132.37 feet on the arc of a curve to the left having. a radius of 227.07 feet and a central angle of 33°24'00"; thence along a tangent to said arc North 55'4' West 128.00 feet to the intersection thereof with the Southeasterly line of Parcel 2-as described in.Volume 2200, Official Records of San Mateo County on Page 504; thence leaving said Southerly line of said 36.37 acres of land and following said Southeasterly line. South 34'56' West .687.63 feet to the intersection thereof with the Northeasterly .line of Vista Lane; thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said lane on the arc of a curve to the -right, at which a radial line of said curve bears South 3102'00" East, having a. radius of. 500 feet, a central angle. of 10°16'00" and an arc distance of 89.59 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence on the arc of a curve to the left having a radius .of 430 feet,.a central angle of 2°45'24" and an arc distance of 20.69 feet to the intersection thereof with the Northwesterly line of said Parcel. 2; thence leaving said Northeasterly line of Vista Lane and following- said Northwesterly line North 34056' East 683.93 feet to the said Southerly line of said 36.37 acres of land; thence along said Southerly line North 55.'4' West 544:.52 -feet to' the intersection thereof with the center line of Mills. Creek; said intersection also being a point in said Corporate .Limits of Burlingame as established by Ordinance No. 379 on November 3, 1941; thence Northeasterly along said Corporate Limits 1,788.58 feet to the point of beginning. o t7 T o a�j is�? 4�P4s'24• `tit �'� .. ''� r .a•...a. Q • i YhTA 4 rT _ "'� r �.1J n• 27.013-250 .A.P.-C 27-M3-110 3 1. c to ? A. 9 �• .• 2 3-146 - i 27-093 oto 0a j. 61 3L'1730d � w'O S o o - V4RAD0 ATE•� �►i '555 011 •E 544.52 J - . ----�`. •/�2•nr.n7' N45•STE 33.16:-.. - q/ o•7517:;." mow" - - G•74.37' -3 N3!'e 9•E SS•ro•-.._- - •'• .. /� .. NVO E 7.5.38'.. n 5579d10K' - 8 N SZ•SPE 40.30*• - p 1SSG4 /f V - . �•.' v.v, ��_ .412•LI'W Sa.03:... a r r 46 1.. � +o pA' •� NE•28'E .83=•.. L� M v e.1,titi s z 1. s � 60 .p v >J ,• 4�A z F « 4d3 •• �« N73•SG•E 84.73•_... A °a N61•to'E 73.4x•...... N 37'23 E 54 52' •- p �•• 1 ` O A\/DSI O. t M ,r 04 - s H,6C20'E loG.05 •• O -- z ! •,u r .�.L N b m .44P'30•C TLSO:11,36. y yy 9y lij .� _ 0 57a•q'E 4798'•.. t L ••�T R �17-q O I e'er- _ _ <J2 N NSrZ?'E 59.4V-- 6� 1A � � coi• .n w o � � .475'36'6 51.85'.. r✓ k N. �/1 Ns•06'W 6a.za••••_ ' o _ NDC06'G 4378'•-- a _a a 71 N7.51'W SS80'•..... r 1 P \ 1 w N • N40•Irw 36.13. tl - - NSPIO E 73.11'•-••-••• In :4-s-' N 15.11'W 46.87!.. •ap� .434.591E 78.96'.... - S •04'F 98 28' HOOVER q►/E• 7. � 20 . m PLAT OF PARCELS TO E5E ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF 13URLINCaAME SAN MATE0 COU NTy CALIFORNIA, sc ALE' 1".200' Dai E vu-1978 BRIAN•KANGAS•FOVLK & ASSOCIATES oil-Br: nr.-T ERA-4W ccinruLrlNu ICNOINC[IlY PLANNtatY • 0111tV6r011B N,iZmoim: Sl" p`-76Z37 \9s PNe•Arawua•n.4"..4 C•11r,CA a4003•-r.imisl 3as-441A DESIGNED Br. I oP (• LOCAL- AGENCY: FORMATION COMMISSION 59.0 •Hami'lton Street _ Redwood .City, CA :94063.. PLAN FOR .PROVIDING` SERVICES I. Describe the changes in land uses.:and land .use .controls which would occur upon completion.;:of proceedings:. 1. Present land use: j 2. County zoning: _ 3. City. prezoning: 4. Effect of city prezoning if proceedings are completed: Service City ServicE_ to be extended II. Summary Estimated City Costs of Pro--- vides* Area Timing Services ' u for Service Extensions.:: to 0 p p •N 14 to N •J .poi b, a) •r . ►� b H q �a A Hb 4JoH .bqo 'N o 'c k - ua) 0 0 W NN > 0. d) 0 9 N o :3 U (1aN) (2) •ri . 4a •'i . N AAa Acn a o N N .m kw4 � 0 � aa) a) . � 4 p u � Nro ogo w 4 P4444U)� H o off � 4Aa4 o 4 0H4 a aO (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) SERVICES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Code Enforcement Redevelopment LEISURE SERVICES, Parks Recreation . , Library Museum PUBLIC SAFETY Police Protection Fire Protection Rescue ParamediCr . - Ambulance Animal Control • * Code: A = Applicant City C = County - D Special District F = Franchisee/Public Utility/MutuaiCompany N No ' Service O = Other City P Private Party or Vendor R Regional Agency. city f i.ce to be Ectended Lary Service . = Estimated costs �f Provider* Area Timing for Service Extensions' Services (continued) N •� Cr 0 0 , H N .N N 0. � 41 41 .W_ N 4J 4J H ro . �J O N G) •r H 40-x.44 � N q �, O � 0 t� N 0 Pa 4J Ra N � M H N -P 4J H 'd +► o u o 'c o S a) -0-,-0- a� >1 U) a). N 0 U •H ''� w o (� S a� 0 U 0 0 O U •1 J � � � Q o N 4 O U � o a, 4 a ' bv o 44 44 o Pa a, va+ a� o , c a H H 0 0w o � � 0 k p 44 44 a0 w 0 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) SERVICES PU$LIC .WORKS Streets Construction Maintenance �— �_.• Sweeping Lighting Flood Control Parking UTILITIES Sewage Collection Treatment Disposal Reclamation Water Acquisition Storage Distribution cable Television Electricity Solid Waste Collection 1 :Disposal Transit City Service to be Extended Summary Service Estimated City Costs -- of Provider* Area _ Timing for :Service. Extensions Services o o q (Continued) o m o •H a) 4Ju rq to 4J •N � a) 0 x O rd :u c a) •rl P rd a) -H . H '+� 44 0 a) Q y, to a) •rl r� b o a� r.4 ro a O H S to a 'v aV ww S a� wa, a) O b U S a)•.. O O a) ?, cn U S a) •u u .ca) o 93a) .0 ou U •rg4JVa) AaoS +, oU 0 U O to .J 4-) .-ri 44 4J U .O P b k O N L; U. 0 a) P 0 u •rl LH -H P P a A a) to N N N U) a) to a o a) a a, cx,4 a) a a) a) .. � G a a) o 44 P H P o 4J +� N o .P cn a) o !4w a v ; - - - �fW.4a O H 4 H O O H p O 4 A A w 0 4 OH O (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7� (8) (9) SERVICES OTHER .•A * Code: A = Applicant City C — County { D = special District F = Franchisee/Public 'Utility/Mutual Company N N— o Service* - O = ,Otherr City P Private Party or Vendor R Regional 1 Agency . . III. For each service identified<.in column 2 as being provided by .the annexing city, describe: 1. The nature of the service to be provided. 2. The location from which each service is. to -be provided. (e.-g. nearest present or, proposed fire station, utility line, library, etc. ) 3. The -service: level capacity from that location.- . Reference should be made to service level standardst such as frequency.' of. street. sweeping, average response. times . for emergency services, water .service pressure zones, sewage treatment capacities, etc. 4. The service level to .be provided. 5. If the service level to. be provided exceeds the existing Service' lev'ci"`a..apaCi a-.Y, i✓C -w11uL.- actions.will be taken to increase the existing capacity, and estimate the cost of increasing such capacity (column 9) . 6. If -any service is not to be provided throughout the affected .territory, describe-'where the service will and . will not be provided and the justification therefor. -7. If any service is not to be provided .upon completion of proceedings, describe when the service will be provided- and. the justification therefor. 8. The estimated cost of extending the service to the affected territory. If the estimated added cost is negligible, so 'indicate'; a precise projection is not required in that circumstance. �- -5- "000m)., IST. Describer: any conditions: which would :be imposed .-or required within the. affected territory,-,.such..,as.:_improvement .or.. upgrading:of'-structures; roads, sewer or water facilities, and the estimated cost thereof; V. Describe. how.:.such `servi.ces 'as. are identified."-in :sections �- III and IV.<above will. be:;:financed e --7- VI. If the proposal is. for city.. annexation of .an..unincorporated - island without. an election: 1. Provide- a map showing .the exterior boundaries of the unincorporated island,.. indicating the boundaries , of all cities and counties and, if applicable, the. PaciEic Ocean, bordering .on. the affected territory. 2'. Provide a map showing all parcels within the. affected territory, indicating the presence. or absence of physical improvements on each parcel and locating the availability of public. utility services and other public improvements. 3. Provide a .map indicating existing zoning in the :affected territory. 4. Provide a map indicating -prezoning in the affected territory._ 5. Submit or reference. sufficient information, . including citations where appropriate, to enable the Commission to ascertain the presence or .absence within the attected territory of ".prime agricultural `land" defines as. follows 35046. "Prime agricultural land" means an area of land, whether a single parcel or contiguous parcels which: (i) has not been developed for a use other than an agricultural use and . (ii.) meets any of the following qualifications: (a) Land. which qualifies for rating. as class I or class II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classification; (b) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 Storie Index Rating; (c) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber. anal .which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one .animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department .of Agriculture in the National Handbook on Range and Related Grazing Lands, July, 1967, developed pursuant to Public Law 46, December;--1935; -8- i (d) Land planted with .fruit or nut bearing trees,. vines, bushes or crops which. have a nonbearing period of -less.-than five years and ,which will _normally: return-during ` the commercial bearing..,period on an annual basis from. the production of unprocessed agricultural plant production not less than two hundred .dollars ($200) per acre; (e) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant products in annual gross value of not less than ..two hundred dollars ($200) : per. :acre for three of the previous five years. (f) Land which is used to maintain livestock for commercial purposes.. 6. Submit sufficient information to enable the Commission to make a determination whether the.:-affected territory will benefit from such annexation or is now receiving benefits . from tree annexing city. Conclusive, factual data :are preferred. =9_ Exhibit F LAFCo Certificate of Completion RECEIVED NOV - 1 2006 G'QLANNNG DEP. SAN MA7_0 0 4M �r ' AGENCY FOR CALIF. CO��I 'IISSO\ = , LOC�.L AG COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • REDWOOD CITY, CALIF. 9.OE3 • TEL.30= So00 ExT,:23s cER -FiCA`E Off' COMPLE"t*yO�T �- - P­rs an- to Gcve=ti'nent Code Sections 35 51-35352r this Cern cake is hey. i' 1 Agency Form-ation C ornmisslon of i_SS:jEd yv the -;=cstive officer of idle l,OCa $;=. California. 1. Short-fes = siQr�a�io:�, as designated by LAFCO is File No - 79-3--Annexa- tion o= Lards of Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School to the City of Burl i.na ane _ y - teach district- or ii stri Ct cr city irtvclved i n this change of crg:r�za.ice 2 1__... ner>.es or _ niz ; c and r-he ::ind o--?- type of chane cr c=g:�za_iCn or e_ed for each :C-: C=tsa=2 as follows: ' o= C1St.]Ct ^i tv or D* s--r lct i'vP r OT C'"iaP_CTe (7t Cr_ca�si zati�n Burlingame Annexation 3. 1:1e above 113L2d C11`.i eS and/Or districts are located `'1?thin -i ne_ fo�.lew?Tz< rounty(ies) San Mateo - t�-e boundaries of the above cited ra =:jge of organizatiol A description Of - , 1 dtescri-o iort. Or r�eorcaisi�.atiOn i3- SY:Ow :�P. i=i'1e at-i6led• Ma- alld t marl== .F.xh=-;_t A & B and "ay reference ir_corporatea-herein. nvo1:- _n `=s c= j-,ge of organization ar reorgan-zat� _ e or',_ ec is inhabited (inhabitedl'=-�i '� ited i . _ E. This change Q. org?n' Z?T_i pC C= reorgarization nes been approved st—bject c di tions, - if amy: none. to the f�Lo;Ji.=.3 terms and ori the resolution ordering this Cham,, Gf crga:iiZation - 7. '.A -.Cart. :J_ CONS% .'Jf j_♦ or reorgall=z^�i on wi a bout election, or coilflrfttl?nQ an order- for L-4&.J- Chax: of tes conf_r-mat_on by the voters, was •aao_>Jted on May 21, 1979 b-% r Burlingame ar_d is mar?, eCit_y Cor.!-lcii or f the City of E:zhibi it C and by. refe--ence incorporated Pei"ei*1. have examined the atove Cited resolatlon and the ma; aZC: i G�:i I-=5=riDtiGIl r�Clu have sound tijcSe GiOCUIteI1tS t0 be its compliance wit t�u Or: Fe 11 ,11 C 79 - - --- - -1 Dat-edfray 2 g, 1979 .. _40.- B. S_PM iT COF FI -N Executive Officer CC �yllssl0 =RS: Public Member John P. Lindley, Chairman . Suparvisbr L1/illiam H. Royer . Supervisor Join Vii.`?lard Councilman Malcolm N. Dudley • Councilman Arthur Lenore A_TERNAT=S: Supervisor Fred Lyon . Councilman John J. klurray. Jr. . Public ?.lember P:lary -W. Henderson >=xPrlitive officer • Thomas F. Casey. Ili, Counsel to the Commission Mc RESOLUTION 170.32 - 79 RESOLUTIO*I APPS OVIiIG A NE-RATION OF LAID OF SIS .LE, OF L.:r's'•CY A`-TD i '_:CY HIGH SCHJQL RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingam that: WHEREAS, a proposal for annexation of certain 'un-inca= porated territories to the City of. Burlingame was heretofcre { filed with and heard by the Local Agency Formation Co*�ission o m the County of San Mateo; and 'VMRFAS, said Commission at its meeting of February n, finding the area to be inhabit: 1979, approved said an-Lexatio and that proceeding might be held without notice, hearing or election pursuant to Government Code- Section 35151; and WHEP.EAS, the City of Burlingame has been requested t, U5 approve said annexation; O ^Y' NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED AND DETEMIMNL'D t — 1. That area, the boundaries of which are set forth r- EXHIBIT A and EXHIBIT B attached hereto and by reference i.ncor o En .n ._ �� porated herein, is approved for annexation to the City of .3 Burlingame. c� \� C) 2. Said area shall be designated T Lands of the o �{ Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School. c x 3. The territory described in E.a-IBIT A and EXHIBIT shall be removed �_or:., the Burling ane ;tills Sewer '__aintenaace vBurlino2 �; �� s v �, J District and service extended thereto by the City of y Z1 4. .- Said area shall be annexeAPRPR �S4xice, he�ri -ri SAN MAI-E-0 or election_. 5/10/79 G ll d _ _-;'_,_ TE. Y 7 5.' -The subject area will not be taxed for any existi_ bonded indebtedness or contractual obligation of the City ^.f Burlingame. 6. The City Clerk shall transmit to the Local AgencS Formation Commission of the County of San Mateo six certified copies of this resolution. — 2` yo I, EVELY11 H. HILL, City Clerk of the City of Burling do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduce3 a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21 day of May, 1979, and.was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES COLEICILIEN: Amstrup-Barton_Crosby-'iangini NOES: COtTNCILNIEN: tone ABSEi7T: COVTCIUNEN: Martin City Clerk P.=EL B U J RECOROEO AT REQUEST of G — IV 10CAL L Ile AC,_ .._. - - ^ilii* - - - --r,-- CrN FR N,tirY1.}i Til�. i�r��'.- > D v>: ', i, ?Sant--)b� .n D;i:,_•�_i.�C3nII� Lei , ; C PAGF A6 L) i _..,. .� w. yK _ DEISCRIPTION f r1n,II.XATIO:t 01' LMID5 PROPOSED OF SISTERS OF 1�IgRCY AiIO iiI:RCY 11IC11 SCI100L, - SI N ' - - - » AND ADJACENT PORTION OF (,DELI.IE DI;IVE TO THE OF EURLI:IGIIE "on of the Corporate Limits of the City of Burlingame _ BEGIMMiG at t:.e inter 1941 and the Northl:esteriy as esta 's 'a by Ordinance rio. 379 on november 3, -+�aLion of the Southt�esterly line of Hoover Avenue; said intersection also prolo._o `.• - thence Southeasterly along the being a point on the centerline of mills Creek; Cor orate Li—mit of the City of Burlingame aso�slessltoetlle�IiOtexsect3olno� sh� ` pa, . on March 1, 1920 a distance oI 983 feet more _ � . Tlflrthwesterly line of Adeline Drive and TthehSesterlytllne erly IM .7 oar , fir thence Southwesterly along the general Dort 'yips and along the tiorthwesterly line of Adeline Dritie, 1.1 Alitwitpb9 intersection thereof cialhFecordsthe uof��Sanettateo1Countytat P in Volume 2200, official or orate Kraits and along said Southwesterly line of said xis h ;s said P feet; thence North 27'47'20" west 36 06 fee�cteste - s` North 370241 jlest 29.76 f ' �e iritersection thereof with the Southerly line of that certain 36-3.7 ' Fre;Ierick I:ohl by Deed recorded in Book 2_2 of Deeds at Pam as conveyed to C. unt Records; thence westerly along said Southerly Forth 20 4Sa15�soFa San piateo Co y a curve to -the left, at which a radial line of said curve jus of 227.07. feet, a central angle of 1941��}lfeetnonatl�crarc1ofa,a having a rance d� y 76.37 feet to a Point of reverse curvature thence 2 r _ __ __ � e. 't�.t 6J ^-rs vv t0 the r1 ht c raalus of 22 .U/ t:TeL dliu a i c11 er i all of g teavin a reverse curvature; thence 132.37 feet on the arc of a curvethcacce a poi..t o- angle of 33°24''00"; left having a radius of 227.07 feet and a central vent to said arc north 55`4' West 128.00 feet' to the -Intersection along a t�n�L i the Southeasterly line of Parcel 2,as dlleaving saia�:Sflu�nex?Y= thereof With on Page 504; thence Official Records of San Mateo County said Southeasterly line Solzth ' °? line of said 36.37 acres of land and followings tof 34 56 West 6 57.63 feet to the intersection thereof with the 1t1 Of Vigra La thence North westerly at°whiLleeaNradial .linea of said pryn g .-c of a curve to. the right, on the 00 feet, a central an. l South 31`02'00" East, leaving a radius of 3 � feet to a point of reverse curvat an arc distance .of 89.59 f radius of 430 €eet, 4 c and a _adi the arc o€. a curve to the left having • thence leaving Bald \orlcaser 2°45'24*' and an arc distance ofn20-G9 feet to the intersectionxn dine North 3D3�i'.`Las the Northwesterly line of said parcel s tleenre.4# S line of Vista Lane and following said Northcrester } h� u � said 36.37 acres of land, 653_93 feet to the said Southerly line of R '4' �vvst 544.52 feet to the intersection along said Sout:lcrly line forth 55 said intersection also being _ Ordinance . ` thereof with the center li.nitsf fir.1ir1Ct ea�0 as es"_abllslicd by 7 i3 11on,,', said Corporate Limits 1, point in said Co_po� s " on november 3, 1941; tlecnce t.ortl,castcrly ,s ; 4 x j feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT .,A REEL , � r f ' .•� /` <L.tel•, �' 7)-CM3-2f -.A • _�,� y„G.I F.,/ _� �y 21•^73- ♦ 1 ,L 11i_ r � t•.•f`.L p.co<i:'[o c. � i � g i_ s c�s•�:'f:- cat:z- 5 ;��`�� � i �f?J7'c•.ti•q:C�' Ian � ..t�>��vz AP`���c :`" �r.rz].nT'- a��,t• •-Ica' - : aec ��E asz - , 4t +171 o:•E i�sa, 9 NSZ 53;.st•30 � Uzrzrw 33cs • � _ �'r• � M-0:2WE ct ir n� O 1t37.23'E 54.12-•-•.� 14 O g ID 1• O - 1 N et'3o'c 72.50:-y� t . i z•coy Fy :1,! t./1 S78'17'£ al9=• �y�..rS ��� . O ^� i o m} �. N Ksa•tYC ss.eY---- - -a� - m . �. V fJ Y R7s•je•E SLes'- '�� "�,^•?. N � ] G n 1:Srlo r 73.•1* r, • �� 1:31•SsaE 7C:S6'... i n K001'F.` l VE. 41 / 20 Z ANN"- I C� -`llt_ C vy1 j Ut= S1�11 NSA�1=() CCNU NT CL15 �� �+111a. o eil i i 11t11nN 1:nr1C:A y (1111.1( 7. A a•1„1♦�'a� Ia u , 11 �11 t / �� (la/1.1„1.1 IN,1 i.N♦.IN 11.IaN i't.ANKI.•.H IM1 >.VJ, 1 f c - .mf 1�' "f�. °'� .. - eU-Ta 11a M,nw•-:hai�..J C/17.1'./• v.uaa T.1.1.s1] s a.1•- - Jr��,p•� 'C'V.uTRTT. Exhibit G Morning Glory Montessori School Brochure In order levelop a child's physical, intellectual and spiritual powers to the fullest, they Must have freedom- a freedom to be achieved through order `'\~ and self discipline. Freedom is a goal, nota starting, point. A free child is one who has developed his potential and prefers to work out problems for himself, but is capable of asking for and receiving - �I direction when necessary: An ADMISSION POLICIES: . undisciplined and unskilled child is Morning Glory Montessorl Pre-School is open to not free, but a slave to his immediate all children who may benefit from.tills type of desires and is excessively dependent program,regardless otrace, nationality or creed: MORNING GLORY on others. Our age range is from two years &nine months MONTESSORI SCHOOL to five years of age. Inspiring a love of learning since 1980. Enrollment is limited to 30 students: we offer 1 daily session from 9:00 am to 1:00.pm. 2750 Adeline.Drive t Children bring their own lunch. Burlingame,California 94010 343-9627 Tuition is based on a yearly fee divided into 10 ' . monthly payments which are due on the first of Director: dune Wisecarver every month.. There is a$50.00 one time only registration fee which is non=refundable. Every child is a born explorer. t 2 Days., =`� From the moment he opens his eyes, 3DaysT they are wide with wonder. The world is full of mysteries on Morning Glory Montessori School is located on 5 Days �,�Cl =— every side. the Hip: 'c Kohl Mansion grounds which also 1' s the Mercy. ffigli School Campus: A SCHOO GOALS &OBJECTIVT OUR,PROGRAM Montessorl 1. philosophy of child growth and Morning Glory Montessori hasis is on: Our, day at Morning Glory has s: acture to education which Is based on respect.for a child's 0 Freedom with Hinits provide the child with a sense of security in knowing unique capacity to develop his/her own capabilities. • Learning how to learn what is coming next. Our program, however, is At MorningGlory the children have the.o opportunity •"Development of self-confidence y pp y accented by special projects;, holidays, and guest to use the Montessori materials according to then teachers. own needs and individual rates of learning, As we Our hope is to provide an environment which is best are concerned with the growth of the"whole" child, suited to your child's development and well-,being.- a we also provide many experiences in art, music, loving, stimulating and aesthetic one where. the a nature,movementand.nutrition. children can "go about. the business. of. creating, themselves." A COMMUNITY We would like to see all.the children develop.;a good At Morning.Glory we also have a sense of`community self ;image, love of learning, "independence, self without losing sight of individuality and individual motivation,,concentratl6h and respect for themselves needs. The children learn cooperation and and each other. responsibility for each other and their environment. Our self insttucting materials and well trained staff They learn to communicate and express their feelings help providesuch..an environment where your child's openly and honestly. Monthly visits to.the Elderly natural curiosity and creativity are encouraged and helps the children to give joy and love to retired allowed to blossom. a� " `u ;, •ri' teachers. Life is rich and rewarding if approached creatively. We hope to foster this attitude in our children - an . CLASSROOM.SCHEDULE attitude which they can carry with them.for the rest Arrival & Circle Activities. At circle the children of their.Hfe. learn songs, poems, music skills and dance. They i are invited to share ideas in a group and develop r social graces. An appreciation of other cultures is 4. > �'. ��;, presented through geography and visual Y: yV+ V stimulation. A Montessori work period. This emjY hasizes o of p. learning and the development of concentration, coordination, order, independence and self-esteem. t, At this time the children choose their own activities THE CLASSROOM and work.at their own pace and level. Stories and The classroom is a "prepared environment" 1 designed to .support the need for purposeful music.are shared. The children help themselves to a activities. The older .children .help the younger snack at this time. children and in so doing reinforce what they have already learned and strengthen their own sense of s ` Play, yard, Morning.Glory.has a well planned play res onsibillt . The younger children in turn benefit yard: The children enjoy playing and learn to play P Y y with others in an outdoor setting. and learn by o' ging their peers. 1 J eP J Exhibit H Memo From City of Burlingame Dated November 5,2001 0014 CITY ow PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO BI,RlJ1+GAME ,m TO: FRED PALMER, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE MA BR FROM: 60KS,'ENIOR PLANNER PLANNING DEPARTMENT RE: SISTERS OF MERCY PROJECT DATE: NOVEMBER 5,2001 This is in response to your request for information regarding the Sisters of Mercy project involving widening and paving of an access driveway and adding a few parking spaces. I have only responded to those questions which are related to Planning. 1. Additional parking spaces,October,2001 a: Does Mercy need a permit? A building permit was issued after plans for the access driveway and revisions to the parking lot were submitted. The only reason building permits were required was to review the lighting(electrical). Planning did review this permit and found that no-planning approvals were required. b. Is a public hearing required? No. C. Does this work constitute a change of use? No. The project an improvement to the parking lot and circulation for the existing uses on the site,this is not considered to be an intensification-of the use. d. Do they have permits to operate all of their businesses? The Sisters of Mercy site was annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1979. All of the current activities on the site (high school, convent, etc)were in place at the time of annexation. A conditional use permit would only be required if the operations were expanded. e. Is the City aware of all the services and businesses? I believe the City is aware of all the services and businesses associated with the uses, including rental of Kohl Mansion for private events. L What permits do they have and when were they issued? Any permits that were granted were issued by San Mateo County. The use was existing when the property was annexed in 1979. The nursing facility was added by use permit approved by the County in 1973. (Check with City Attorney as to whether we accept the County's use permits and enforce, or if the use becomes nonconforming upon annexation.) Memo to Fred Palmer Sisters ofMercy November 5, 2001 8. Does the addition of parking spaces require a permit for grading, construction, drainage and tree removal. No planning permits are required for these maintenance actions. Planning does plan check such submittals to determine no new uses are being added. It is my understanding(check with Building) that the only reason a building permit was required was for the lighting. Tree removal permits are required if the trees to be removed are "protected" size (more than 48" in circumference measured 54" above natural grade). Building plans are reviewed by the City Arborist for compliance. 9. Can Mercy charge a fee for parking? Is this in accordance with their license? If parking is required for a particular use then the spaces must be available free of charge or a planning permit is required. 10. Is the rental of the Kohl Mansion in accordance with their permit? Since the activity predates annexation, there is no pernfit,but is permitted because it was allowed prior to annexation and the annexation was not conditioned to prohibit existing uses on the site. 11. Is the entire area zoned residential? Yes, the entire site is zoned R-1. Churches, convents,parish houses, and schools are all allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 zone district. Since these activities predate annexation in 1979 and the imposition of City zoning, they are permitted as an existing nonconforming use. a. Is the use of the area for a school grandfathered? If so, when did this happen? Is the permission for a girls school? Are there restrictions? Yes, the school is grandfathered since annexation in 1979. There is no restriction regarding the sex of the students. b. Can they rent out the facility? Again, It is the City's understanding that the rental of the facility predates annexation. C. Do they have a permit for a nursing facility or a care home for the elderly? In 1973, the County granted a use permit for construction of a convent structure which included a Nursing Care wing. The use was existing upon annexation to the City of Burlingame. d. Are a certain number of families allowed to live in residence? How much covered parking per residence? The only facility for families that the City is aware of on the site is a caretakers cottage which has been there since the 1930's. requirements on existing facilities. Nuns are allowed to reside in the convent. Any parking for residents is on site. -2- 1 Y Memo to Fred Palmer Sisters of Mercy November S, 2001 12. What road and gate have they applied for a permit? What codes do they have to meet for their new fence? The building permit issued for lighting was for the driveway entrance on Adeline across fi-om the intersection with Alvarado. The fence requirements for residential properties allow a six foot high solid fence, and an additional one foot of open lattice, for a total fence height of seven feet. An open (chain link) 7-foot fence would also meet the fence standards in the zoning code. If these requirements are met, no building or planning approvals are required. 13. What is the role of the City of Burlingame regarding regulating the uses at Mercy, public hearings, etc. If the facility were to expand (add buildings, change uses) a conditional use permit would be required. This would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and be appealable to the City Council. I hope this helps! Please let me know if you need any more information. -3- Exhibit I Letter From City of Burlingame Dated November 9, 2001 CITY C L-7 r BURLINGAME ffhr(nifu of Burlingame OFFlCE OF THE CRY HALL—501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL:(658)559-7206 OFATTORNEY BLouiNCAME.CALIFORNW 94010-3997 FAX(650)55G9287 November 9,2001 Ms.Linda Abbey 2415 Adeline Drive Burlingame,CA 94010 Re:Sisters of Mercy Property Dear Ms.Abbey: This letter is in response to the questions you posed in your letter of October 12,2001,to the City. In 1979,the Sisters of Mercy property was annexed to the City of Burlingame and included in the Burlingame Hills sewer maintenance district. Included on the Annexation Application: A. Sisters of Mercy a. Convent for Congregation of Nuns b. Chapel C. Retirement Home d., Retreat Facilities e. School Classrooms f. Library g. Ancillary facilities h. Convalescent and Retirement Home B. Mercy High School a. Classrooms b. Cafeteria RECEIVED C. Libraries d. Auditoriums NOV 13 2001 e. Athletic Facilities,swimming pool,tennis courts f. Ancillary Facilities CITY OF BURLINGAME g. Kohl Mansion(built in 1914) PLANNING DEPT. All of the current activities on the site appear to have been in place at the time of annexation. Ms. Linda Abbey Re: Sisters of Mercy Property November 9. 2001 Page 2 A building permit related to the parking spaces being added was issued on September 21, 2001, after plans for the access driveway and revisions to the parking lot were submitted to the City. The only reason a building permit was required was for installation of electric lighting. our Planning Department did review the permit and found that no planning approvals were required.' No public hearing is required for issuance of a building permit- Tree removal permits would have been required if the trees to be removed were"protected"(with a size of more than 48" in circumference measured at 54" above natural grade). The City Arborist reviewed the plans, made a site inspection and authorized the removal of several trees that were either unprotected or in ill health. The fence requirements for R-1 zoning allow a six-foot-high solid fence, and an additional one foot of open lattice,for a total fence height of seven feet. An open(chain link) seven-foot fence would also conform to these standards. If the requirements are met, no building or planning approvals are required.(Municipal Code section 25.78.020 (2)). The current work at the property does not constitute a change of use. Since the project was an improvement to the parking lot and circulation for the existing uses on the site, this is not considered to be an intensification of the existing uses. The entire site is zoned R-1. Churches, convents,parish house and schools are all allowed by conditional use permit in the R-I district. However, since theses activities at this property predate annexation in 1979 and the imposition of city zoning, they are permitted as an existing nonconforming use. The only facility for families on the site of which the City is aware is a caretaker's cottage, which has been there since the 1930's. Nuns are allowed to reside in the convent, and parking for the residents is on-site. The Kohl Mansion was available for public use, on a rental basis, in early 1970's,prior to the annexation. Any permits that were granted previous to annexation were issued by the County of San.Mateo. For example,the nursing facility was added by use permit, approved by the County in 1973. 1 believe your letter refers to a letter request from Sisters of Mercy for a red zone at the comer of Adeline Drive and Hoover Avenue to Frank Erbacher,Assistant Director of Public Works. He had received a similar verbal request prior to that letter and had a one-vehicle red zone installed 'The Municipal Code does not require permits for surface parking lots. Linda Abbev Re: Sisters of Mercy Property --� November 9, 2001 Page 3 on the uphill approach on Adeline Drive to Hoover Avenue so vehicles on Adeline Drive will see pedestrians crossing Hoover Avenue. He also installed a one-space red zone on Hoover Avenue to open up the views for vehicles exiting that School driveway. To this point, Mr. Erbacher has not received a request for a red zone on the south side of Adeline Drive. in your letter you asked to be kept informed of all matters that Mercy addressed to the city and all City departments. We cannot comply with that request. The City gives notice of all planning applications pursuant to Title 25 to properties within 300 feet of the property to which the application applies. However, notice of building permits and encroachment permit applications is not given to neighbors; those permits are ministerial and there is no hearing. The City does not have either the capability or the constitutional right to keep a citizen informed of all communications between the City and another citizen or organization. You are welcome to periodically come to City Hall and check with the building and planning departments' files on any property in the city. I hope this is responsive to your concerns. --� Sincer ly, Y i,. ANDERSON City A omey attachment cc: Mayor and Council City Manager City Planner Director of Public Works BUILDING PERMITS ON FILE �- Following are the building permits on file with the City of Burlingame Permits Issued for 2300 Adeline 1. 9502836 Replace fire alarm system in Marion Convent Bldg. 2. 9601174-Alterations to chapel bldg to accommodate replacement of steam heating system 3. 9602048-Relocate Fire sprinklers 4. 9602077-Remodel and Expand Kitchen 5. 9700905 - Revision to permit 9602077,relocate door and additional electrical work 6. 9701003 - Fire hood suppression system 7. 9701234- Re-roof 8. 9900980-Ventilation modification 9. 2011130 -Replace receptacles and switches . 10. 2011010-Re-roof rear bldg. 11. 2001633 - Relocate standby generator 12. Permits issued for 2750 Adeline . 9405123 -Termite repairs B. 9502814 -New"Ansul"system in main bldg. basement snack bar C. 2010911 -Pave Parking lot/electrical Exhibit J Letter From City of Burlingame Dated January 2,2002 r �� CITY PAZ A S BURUNGAME . . . . . . . . y e ThP aTifu Df gurltYtpnw CITY HALL—501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL- (650)558-7204 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (6501556-9281 January 2, 2002 Mrs. Linda Abbey 2415 Adeline Drive Burlingame, ca. 94010 Dear Mrs. Abbey This Ietter is in response to a letter which was hand delivered to our Ci Attorney requesting some follow-up information " rte Below is some information that the City Attorney has provided me relative to your question. Intensification for purposes of a conditional use occurs when the reasonably expected uses under the conditional use permit are exceeded. This is usually a result of an expansion of a building or the undertaking of a new program that was not reasonably contemplated under the conditional use. F' NIIIII 1 11 MI- - - -- - mgr: =. }�Ylli2laS � Intensification for purposes of chapter 25.50 — non-cuuforming uses — is defined as: 1) "An extension within the structure it occupies." For example, if a restaurant that is nonconforming on the first floor of a building is expanded into the second floor of the building, that would be an intensification. 2) `Beyond the confines of the structure." For example, if the non- conforming restaurant expands into a patio area, that would be an intensification. 3) "Location on which it is located." For example, the restaurant expands �O into an adjacent property, that would be an intensification. In addition, chapter 25.50 is concerned about a change in use; for example, the ��, Q nonconforming restaurant is changed into a nonconforming auto repair shop. That constitutes a change,that is probably an intensification. der eneral rovtlo qe ses Finally,un g r� �: b . ` e _= " i' 1T • - _ p si�ication has For example, the nonconforming restaurant brings in a battle of the bands show every weekend, which is the first time that entertainment has ever been offered on the property; then the City Planner may determine that the restaurant has to either drop the battle of the bands or seek approval of a modified conditional use permit. yf �v s Another inquiry that you had was the relationship of the open space element and Mercy High School property. Below is a response from our Planning Director,Meg Monroe. agoschooUconvent site was annexed er the Open Space Element was adopted in 1973,the compatibility of the existing use of the site with the open space goals and policies of the pity was J5: ". ryL acknowledged. �;"- - T It further notes that the open space around a ui iiigs, a significant stand of live oak and other vegetation, should be preserved; concluding that the visual amenity of the area which, even without access, also provides a form of open space. 3IQt . 4 ar 4M When the school/convent were annexed in 1979,the city accepted the existing uses on the site and found them consistent with the City's General Plan including the Open Space Element and pre-zoned the site R-1 sin le family residential, 10,000 SF lot minimum). . _.osm ago epingd Lastly, you indicated that you felt that in response to previous correspondence perhaps the City attorney had responded to questions which you had intended for other department heads. In actuality the City attorney had coordinated a meeting with the appropriate staff members to ascertain information to respond to your questions in your earlier correspondence. We believe that there is no additional information to be provided from those departments at this time. c M As per my discussion with you after the City Council meeting of Nov 28`'', as I have had considerable experience in dealing with a similar situation in San Mateo relative to Serra High School's impact on adjoining residential properties,I would be happy to work with you and any other neighbors who would be interested in meeting with Mercy High School staff to discuss impacts of their operations on adjoining properties. I believe that working collaboratively with the school administration and perhaps with the assistance of the Community Mediation staff is probably the most productive way to try to address your concerns. Having spent considerable time in the past with neighbors attempting to use the City's land use and building codes to address the variety of impacts that you have raised, I am concerned about the continued impact on city staff as try to assist you. Therefore please understand once staff has given you the information that.they have they may not be able to spend any additional time on further research. If you or other neighbors would like me to facilitate a meeting with the Mercy High School Administration to discuss the issues,please let me know. Sincerely, ames Nantell City Manager cc: City Attorney Planning Director' Public Works Director U:Le m\Linda Abbey Exhibit K Memo From City of Burlingame -� Dated April 4, 2005 Item#2 City of Burlingame Study Item Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2750 Adeline Drive Meeting Date:4/11/05 ' Request: Application for conditional useermit and hillside area construction permit for a remodel and addition to an existing cs hoot gym(Mercy High School). Applicant:Laura Held,Principal,Mercy High School ATN:027-370-020 Property Owner:Mercy High School Lot Area:3.74 acres Architect:Land Weismehl,DES Architects&Engineers General Plan:Low Density Residential Zoning:R-1 Summary: The'Sisters of Mercy property was annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1979,which included the Sisters of Mercy(convent,chapel,retirement home,retreat facilities,school classrooms, library,ancillary facilities and convalescent and retirement home)and Mercy High School(classrooms, cafeteria, libraries, auditoriums, athletic facilities, ancillary,facilities and Kohl Mansion). The high school and convent facilities are on separate properties: All of the current activities were in place at the time of the annexation. The entire site is zoned R-1. Churches,convents,parish houses and schools are allowed by conditional use permit in the R-1 District. Since these activities on these properties predated amiexation in 1979 and compliance with the city zoning,they are permitted as an existing nonconforming use. However,since the proposed project includes expanding the existing school gym, a conditional use permit is now required for the school. A hillside area construction permit is also required for the gym expansion since the site is located within the hillside area construction pen-nit zone. 1 The existing gym building(3,582 SF),located at the south end of the site,contains a weight room, showers, lockers, storage rooms and associated offices. The applicant is proposing a remodel and addition to the existing Mercy High School gym building. The proposed single-story addition is located along the north side of the building(proposed addition is approximately 250 feet from Adeline Drive). The addition includes adding a 320 SF storage area(10'-0"x 32'-0"). The proposed addition will match the height of the existing building and measures 10'-6" above grade where 30'-0"is the maximum allowed. Exterior materials for the addition include wood siding with batten finish to match the siding on the existing building. The proposed remodel and addition will be built to current code standards and will comply with disabled accessibility requirements. Interior remodeling includes converting the existing weight room to a dance room (1,275 SF), converting the existing entry/storage area to a weight room(662 SF),remodeling the existing locker room (889 SF), remodeling the existing shower/bathroom area(624 SF), and enlarging the existing office within the existing building from 132 SF to 234 SF. A new trellis(I10 SF,10'x 11D is proposed at the remodeled entry to the gym building and a second trellis(56 SF,T x 8�is proposed at the entrance to the existing swimming pool Within the existing swimming pool facility,the applicant is also proposing to install new bleachers(200 seats)and a new storage shed(204 SF, 8'-6"x 24'-0")measuring 8'-0"in height. The'exterior material of the storage shed will be wood siding with batten finish to match the existing gym building. The proposed storage shed and bleachers would be located between the existing swimming pool and tennis courts. Conditional Use Permit and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2750 Adeline Drive The project requires the following application: "'N • Conditional use permit and hillside area construction permit for a remodel and addition to an existing school gym (Mercy High School)(CS 25.28.030, 2 and CS 25.61..020). There are a total of 147 on-site parking spaces serving the Mercy High School campus (83 spaces in Lot A, 33 spaces in Lot B and 31 spaces in Lot C adjacent to the gym building). With the proposed remodel and addition to the gym building, a total of 18 parking spaces are required (1200 SF for gym use; 1:300 SF for office use; 1:1000 SF for storage use). Planning staff would note that 15 spaces are currently required for the existing gym building, so the remodel and addition requires and additional Oe_e asking spaces above the requirement for the existing building. The 31 parking spaces in Lot C, wli7ch is adjacent to the gym building, meets the parking requirement for the proposed remodel and addition (31 spaces provided where 18 spaces are required). Table 1 —2750 Adeline Drive Existing Proposed Allowed/Req'd Side Setback. 170'-0" to gym 250'to addition 7-6" (along Adeline Dr) 220' to storage shed 185' to bleachers Height. 22'-0" 10'-6" to addition 30'-0" --� 8'-0" to storage shed Lot Coverage. 26,960 SF 27,446 SF 65,165 SF , 16.5% 16.8% 40% Parking. 31 spaces for gym 31 spaces for gym 18 spaces for gym (147 total spaces for Mercy High School) Staff Comments: Staff would note that, although the County issued a conditional use permit to the school and convent, before the City annexed the site, the County'spermit has no s+andin2 in�he City. All the uses on this site are identified as conditional in the R-1 zone. So without a City use permit, the use of the site is presently nonconforming. The expansion/remodel of the gym/pool area represents an intensification of use (expansion of the structures) so now a conditional use permit is required for the school. Because the convent, parish house and other facilities serving the order are on a separate parcel and no intensificationof use or structures is being proposed, these uses may remain nonconforming and it is not required that a conditional use permit be obtained at this time. Ruben Hurin, Planner (JVl eqvv'-4 c. Land Weismehl, DES Architects & Engineers, architect C-1-09`J YID a 2 I r� v (l�A-;� ri P"J EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 2300 &2750 Adeline Drive Effective February 1,2007 MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 1. that the Mercy High School shall only be open during the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, from August to mid-June, with a maximum enrollment of 500 students and 80 faculty/staff members; 2, that after school programs shall occur only during the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; 3. that students shall be informed that cars shall only be parked on site in designated parking areas,no student parking shall occur in the surrounding residential streets; 4. that all buses used by students or visiting teams shall be parked on site;parking directions to on-site parking areas shall be provided to visiting teams and schools; 5. that enrollment for summer school and sports camp programs shall be limited to a total of 275 participants; summer school and camps may occur only during the hours of 8:15 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Monday through Friday; 6. that Montessori Preschool shall only be open during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. .Monday through Friday,with a maximum enrollment of 30 students; 7. that any intensification of use including maximum number of students enrolled in the school, number of support educators and staff or summer school and sports program enrollment number, which exceeds the maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; KOHL MANSION 8. that outside of ordinary school events, Kohl Mansion shall be used weekly for events, including,but not limited to,receptions and musical concerts, only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, weekday evenings after school, and up to a maximum of six (6) events during the school year, provided most guests arrive by bus during weekdays. Such uses shall be limited to a combined maximum number of 300 guests plus appropriate support staff per event; that any changes in the area leased, operation, maximum number of guests which exceeds these maximums stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 9. that evening events held at the Kohl Mansion shall end no later than 11:00 p.m.; 10. that amplified music, with the exception of occasional weekday Mercy High School student body events, shall only occur inside the Kohl mansion and the music shall conclude by 11:00 p.m.; -2- EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption and conditional use permit. 2300 & 2750 Adeline Drive Effective February 1, 2007 11. that between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., the "take-down" for outdoor parties shall be limited to activities that do not cause a noise disturbance across property lines into a property located in a residential district, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.40.039; MERCY CENTER 12. that overnight programs at the Mercy Center shall be limited to a maximum of 97 guests; meetings and sessions as a part of these programs shall conclude by 9:00 p.m.; these programs may include an internship program in July with a maximum of 60 participants, and retreats which last an average of three (3) days and a maximum of ten(10) days with an average of 33 retreat participants; 13. that day programs and activities at the Mercy Center and Chapel shall be limited to the activities such as a Sunday speaker series; Saturday spiritual direction programs; daily meditation, chapel and prayer groups; evening services, including, but not limited to, the Friday evening Taize service; Sunday mass; non-profit organizational meetings, Mercy Center bookstore. Day Program events shall be scheduled only during the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m., and shall be limited to no more than 150 participants; 14. The Labyrinth Garden shall be open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset. 15. that the Motherhouse Room and Board facility for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 50 residents; 16. that the Marian Care Convent and hifirmary for Sisters of Mercy shall be limited to a maximum of 40 residents; 17. that the Lodge Cottage House shall be limited to housing a maximum of 4 residents; 18. that Russell Hall shall include classrooms for Mercy High School and administrative offices for the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, shall be open only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily and shall be limited to a maximum of 25 employees; ENTIRE SITE 19. that the combined total of participants for events scheduled at the Kohl Mansion and Mercy Center shall not exceed 350 participants, including event staff, on site at any one time; and 20. that as a part of the agreement for use of any facility on the site,information shall be '1 provided regarding available parking for the event;participants shall be informed that all parking shall occur on site,there shall be no overflow parking on the surrounding public streets. -3- RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for conditional use permit to establish a use baseline for existing activities at Mercy High School and Sisters of Mercy facilities at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive zoned R-1, Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School, property owners; APNs: 027-370-010 & -020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on January 22, 2007, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15301 — existing facilities; operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination, is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" `— attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22°a day of January, 2007 by the following vote: Secretary CITY OF BURLINGAME BURL® PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 .� TEL:(650)558-7250•(650)696-3790 $00.240 www.burlingame.org 'C�� 8:: v { maiied rrom 94017 � ia US POSTAGE Site: 2300 & 2750 ADELINE DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces PUBLIC HEARING the following public hearing on Monday, January 22, NOTICE 2007 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for conditional use permit to establish a baseline for an existing high school and religious facility use at 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive zoned R-l. (APN 027-370-010& 027-370-020) Mailed: January 12, 2007 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, ybu may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the noticeor 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. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) AWA 7� °„i" �& ak •,y,. � I'+4 :..*'`Ba" j �'1 q, '"Lq �'a � ,o-' p�Y ../ � :u,. ,a x gg>Xaa- � \ ti:� «.c #:,• �a x f o- § . a 6�'/" „) �" � §d. .. ,^ a —IT w W—M xu�� ^ti` #� ' '� F.,. 7 v'" ' '_)°' s„he.Vit.` E,,,,;.• `°.t _,y i°! "n - y�` MC yp "3! , ,� R:,:.-0" » �.. 3�, p,t ,�.,,,., :a °: as §'o-`a., �r 8" & -. �`�°°' � z, *°` aP ,'� •; .� ,,.. ,�w,. j,„ � VP .tom ,�; �•,. Ra V47 " k w �A4 »:i� t'.a ` e ">,,�`„ ;= ;' -,? ?�x» ro+. .«• - „.vim JR> e :x: . t". a •r, ,;, u�°'�' 'Z +', ,.d. ,.e. " � ,,x ^�P' .�. .Qrd^.. n� ':.' i. , < , w^P P.. ,k' N".5* . ^ �.'<. M" ',,%'✓"�x' §4 5°Y '"' ° +,4, .„,,i?%.. et a y# 4 } ,.� Fi<2�`"^°'e �d ar° «eb' wr"�a+•• �%:� .;pip+. i '�°:,.s, '�' �i as },:. -p. p• W16.'a1=^ ,ama •= <y� ''z. �. ..t� ¥,�.., ��w Y, a`•< ; ' k: �, A}�a ,i�' � ,.b w^'M$°' ii q�U.` -� R. � }� Eli c' JORd R,«.r ,-, C a.L^ �' n ', >.'s.`m'« '` a�, ”A,:,.rr �'� '�a'.> M� .s'`s+ 3.' ;. r �'•'a a 5 '�J"e ,3° ...3.9:a`p`' "' s�°'�'� ar:✓'s<� .'a�„ ," � ''�s� `� **�.,, �„r;i? ,»";r tt'„s. 'y � $� .�« ,•^ o- FT 414 < .<s ^�d:1 ”; >:t ,',". ;�;a° •,feaalrri*+fl ? '*,r`.._;,r: �. ,a :✓ .^a x y�,.+" y, ,gtC• .,w N- ffi- "'ra., w :.s d' Jn» /, .a `fY �,4�. ,�.:,xx '"F t;g'f, b ;�w as } - '" „4 gam' ,a ',,, cM'� s,'°Qrr s,g�;.ea c," `�' a° re" .;,„,yr <.< °'� •'" `-z ": �'�< �.. a is .''�, �t� '''�.� a € �.aa ��.�'#� °S `•�.�"'"�A' §y ,r a.'"y q,. aw'` �^`��, .�-.; <,y'� , � (" !,!O;mv .> '.°'` rn�r+;':;r' Y low ,...afi� gw aid y'e '� ��� � ^bKas�'t., `¢` � -<,zq,�,n,�•.. "$ e �.>. � .; � % ::�:a .�", .r1y,. „ oe L \\' 4 „$ibt3 ca�, \ " w " `"• Vii " aea« ✓a*zw^�• '�°ye� � ,�, �' ,.,a",`r:J'a °- w"�... <��'. � fe �.r" �p v m I AMs, '1 -. MERCY NEIGHBORS PROPOSED SOLUTIONS FOR THE MERCY BASELINE/ CUP: 1. One non -school event a week. 2. All events shall end by 9pm except Friday and Saturday, those events shall end by 10pm. All event traffic to exit Mercy property one hour after the event concludes. (This includes attendees, event staff, and trucks.) 3. Establish and maintain a one-way traffic pattern in and out of the Mercy campus. 4. Amplified sound shall only be allowed in the Kohl mansion (no amplified sound systems in any tents or outside on the lawn.) The noise from these events shall adhere to the noise regulations set in residential areas in Burlingame. 5. Mercy high school should remove the 17 parking spaces added at the entrance of the service road in 2002. This parking is unnecessary, and creates additional dangerous traffic on Adeline Drive. Please be aware of these facts: 1. In Hillsborough, Crystal Springs and Uplands School and Nueva School are not allowed to have non-school events in their mansion. 2. In the last few years Mercy has held up to 4 back to back events in the evening with amplified sound (Thursday -Sunday). 3. Because of the topography, the sound travels differently and therefore some neighbors are impacted severely while others don't hear the noise at all. 4. Police noise complaints are not accurate and do not reflect the reported or unreported number of calls complaining of the loud noise, accidents and property damage. 5. Neighbors have had cars hit by drunk drivers leaving the events, attendees have vomited on our front lawns and in the street and have been known to throw out empty liquor bottles and cans on our property. 6. There are 2 daily traffic jams that are the result of 2-way traffic entering and exiting the school. 7. There are other ways that Mercy can raise funds to support their school. They could raise their fees, solicit from alumni and create an endowment. The neighbors should not be inconvenienced by Mercy's commercial non-school events. Thnrsdav Fehniary R. 2007 Linda Abbey 2515 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA. 94010 February 20,2007 Honorable Mayor Terry Nagel Honorable Members of the City Council City of Burlingame Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: Addendum to my letter of February 12, 2007, with regards to accidents (property damage)to Adeline residents. Dear Honorable Mayor and Honorable Council Members: Please add the following more recent information to page 7,which lists reports of accidents: NOTE: 2325 Adeline—One hit and run listed on page 7,near the Mercy Service Gate,was done by a Mercy Student,owner of property ran after her and stopped her on Columbus (picture 11). ADD TO: 2501 Adeline—A few years ago the Bereford's car had $12414,000 of damage from a drunk driver that left a party at Kohl Mansion, this is near the Mercy Service Gate (picture 17). 2208 Adeline—Owner said they had a car come crashing into their living room years ago (picture 21). 2212 Adeline—Owner of 2208 said the car that went crashing through this brick wall before crashing into her living room (picture 22). 2215 and 2217 Adeline-Brian, owner of 2217,said a drunken teenager coming from Mercy crashed his vehicle and the Levy's vehicle at 2215,this was some years ago (picture 23 and picture 10). 2315 Adeline—Meena, a newer resident, said their mirror was knock off and their tail light was damaged, it was a hit and run,this is near the Mercy Service Gate (picture 24):-14165/A1,I�_ 2709 Adeline—Linda,homeowner said a drunk driver coming out of Kohl Mansion crashed into one of their vehicles (picture 25). ACROSS from 2848—A car flipped over two to three weeks ago (picture 26). 2864 Adeline—Suzie,homeowner said there were incidents at her home years ago; one was a drunk driver that landed in her garden and fell down the hill and broke his neck,his car had to be towed out;the other incident was a motorcyclist driving up Adeline went airborne 30' and landed in her driveway. Suzie says the residents are in danger due to the increase in traffic and speeding on Upper Adeline and says the drivers especially on the cell phone are not cautious at all. They cannot have the pleasure of walking their dogs when there's Mercy traffic and Kohl traffic; this goes on during the day and evening(picture 27). 1516 Hoover—Adel,homeowner, said he has had two hit and runs where the mirror was knocked off of two different vehicles of his (picture 28). This (picture 29)was taken this morning and is an excellent example of how cars and trucks very often and on a daily basis drive into the oncoming traffic lane dangerously. Sincerely, Linda Abbey r I' Pi Vin„ ` r. A � 4 n i vy I d .r�,.•;i.��s� �� awe a � O e ypi . ,, i G t � ' t -� �� �.`4 ca,,'.: � �� � ,I'll t,' � � _ =� `t #$ -/ - _ - ..:a a...a1.,u-.tea _ �'� _ � - moi''''-\+.®�,�,_ �I���;'i�.J.� ; � 3 fR44RRj. NOR" 1" ASO y} 4t n I tll� 46l! r IIu R a � I I I 01' a rry�� �I ��� Mi �41��II�Phlll III III a� ' I �IIyI M•', 14` SII' I .i Ail i�tAd� iu✓ � �I'8 i,Il�l II� ,0.. � �I•����" may, n iP,P�ryI q j I rrnr , rrr I � '(hrr r(f[r(rdP �Jf � m q m r „I �rrP yirrrf�rr'i� �.I �•m ti P 4 ' NOW PIS i I � r 3r rte I IPI t j ijl rllliP�lA I k p"'I. IIP' � ryli III I1 N.'�I I� � r IIIy ISI 16 �R r II �I n 9li ul�Ulr�. �ii� . � � II I I I�al� y it I l i "' 'I i�'I�i �I���I i��6��lli IJ�HI I��Ih� VII I'�r��I a ��I��r.a I a��U�;�I lu VIII I'°��I�h I�I IN�� � , ;�A. III II III i i I� �V� '' � 'r h i li I I S I id ... Y C � �il� b�� I w.' ;. � s "� � 9NI' � � e � P yr �. � 7t ggyS�,S[.. F,�: "fit � \1�'�, 'n i �, .� j g � � ��- S �1l 1M1 �A „� �( n�. �71'�'`y4p� t ����4+�`� r�'�� � '+'�`1��.� �t9 k _ � l' r "" �� • , �, � ,�j, i � �A k'. .�m � �'��rr�� II�h t �'t�1 II '�I�616 e* � � '} ,�� '��� �� .. - �.� I ��I� MINI " �,6 '�I � j ��, � I rin i y�7u ,� ,�. f F W� dti I I , .� ��. ,� _ �,.�� �.. _.._. __ .�M� ._ b, 1� ��i���l�il IC�iNIC i�� ,I: rF � � I N �{��� I� t H i r moi. •��• �- ��,'..�f f �, f !'� h i' �'"�� 44 17_ k ^ n G � �t a :' i \ � \ { \ lip, ! p. . /��� \ \} \ ~ \ \ ^ ƒ �.��i ^�\ y, r Y° �7 I Yet. �,�•, r � yr +NM✓A. ++ 1�k yM, • �P I , II Y d t , i 9 October 12, 2001 F 1 2 2007 "1, J Larry Anderson, City Attorney Fred Cullum, Building Department George Bagdon, Public Works and Engineering Department Maureen Brooks, Planning and Zoning Department Phil Scott, Street and Sewer Department Homayoun Barekat, Traffic and Safety Department Shirley Lauddy, Business Licenses Burlingame Beautification Committee 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010-3997 Re: Letter dated august 9, 2001, addressed to Mr. Frank Erbacher and letter dated August 19, 2041, addressed to Neighbors of the Mercy Campus (copy enclosed). Dear Sir/Madam: We have just become aware that the Sisters of Mercy are having additional parking spaces built on their grounds adjacent to the service road on Adeline Drive. On October 6, we received copies of letters from the campus director which were sent out in August to other residents. We had never received these letters; other neighbors still have not received these letters. We only realized that there was construction when we saw a crew grading and removing trees from the grounds across the street from our home. There are many concerns and questions we would like addressed: Does Mercy need a permit for this work? Isn't a public hearing required before work like this can begin? Doesn't this constitute a change of use?Do they have licenses and permits to operate all -- the businesses and services they provide at Mercy? Is the City of Burlingame aware of all their business and services? What licenses and permits do they have? When were they issued? Mercy is on a heavily wooded estate in the center of a residential neighborhood. We are vehemently opposed to having any added parking, building, or traffic across from our home. It would materially damage our property values, safety, privacy, and quality of life, and our neighbors' as well. The service road cannot handle two-way traffic. Vehicles waiting on Adeline for the service road to clear run the risk of being rear-ended by approaching traffic. The rise in the hill creates further hazards by impeding sight lines. The service road is heavily congested with service vehicles and parked cars. Adding more paving will only increase the congestion and danger. Large commercial trucks back up and down that service road all the time. RECEIVED ()PT 1 1; -)n r%4 Z"he service road intersects Adeline Drive where it forms an "S" curve in the road, in addition to being on a hill. The topography does not allow drivers coming up or down Adeline a clear view at the service road because of the rise of the hill. The bend in the road does not allow vehicles exiting the service road to see the traffic coming at them on Adeline. I cannot emphasize enough how dangerous this intersection is. Neighborhood pets have been hit and killed here, and our cars and those of my neighbors on both sides have been struck. My neighbor's tree has been rammed twice by Mercy students. I often run to our front window after hearing loud sounds to see if someone is hurt. It is not uncommon that we get out of bed, even during the night, to see if everything is safe. If you were to watch this area, I would guarantee you that you would feel under siege, as we do. In addition, there is a water drainage problem on the Adeline Drive. Water percolates up through the asphalt road, in the service entrance area, on even a dry day(up to two or three days), after it has rained. Underground water may be collecting in this area from Mercy. Water consistently flows down the service road into Adeline because no gutter exists to divert it to street drains. These issues must be addressed before proceeding with any kind of construction. It is unbelievable that, with near forty acres of land, such a terrible choice of area was made. I know there are much better alternatives. I also have questions, concerns and comments regarding the August 9, 2001 letter addressed to Frank Erbacher. I want you to understand that although the Sisters of Mercy are concerned with safety on Adeline Drive, only once in twenty four years have I seen a teacher monitoring the traffic at the service gate. My son and I have come within inches of being run over by a teacher who was trying to get to school on time. Do the Sisters know that in the last two weeks three bus loads of Mercy girls were walking up the middle of Adeline headed back to the campus? Regarding the red zone concerns, I have not seen any cars parked at the service road entrance for years(although Mercy had the girls parking there at one time). No parking - - -- signs are already posted along that fenced side of the property and are doingg thejob. f - want to be very clear about where red zones would be placed, if at all. We absolutely do not want any red zones on the south side of Adeline Drive, which would deprive residents of legal on-street parking in order to fix a problem we never created. The visual hazard at Mercy is compounded by the placement of the gates, its topography and most of all its own traffic. As a matter of fact, they encourage people to commute here. The number of commuters from Mercy is thegreatest threat to our public safety. Finally, I have called Burlingame Police Department within the last two to three weeks to report buses parked above Mercy's main entrance gates. The buses were blocking the road acid obstructing the view of drivers on Adeline Drive and Mercy's main entrance road. They were buses for Mercy students. Traffic driving up Adeline was forced to drive into the downhill lane. This has happened twice. I did not see the police respond to my call. Why can't these buses drive onto the campus and safely pick up and drop off students? We request to be kept informed of all matters that Mercy addressed to you and all the departments in the City of Burlingame. I also have questions, concerns and comments pertaining to the Neighborhood letter from Mercy, dated August 13, 2001. We too are sensitive to the ecology. I would like an environmental impact report done for all projects in relation to this service road, the surrounding area and all other Mercy projects. This letter does not specify where and how many spaces will be added in each location. One neighbor was definitely confused about the location (maybe others were also) of this project; she thought from reading this letter that behind the school was toward the northern area of the campus. This letter also states that the lots are on the interior of the campus; the work in fact is actually on the periphery of the property. The letter states that they will not be visible to the surrounding neighborhood. From what we can see, this is absolutely not true. The verbal information I received about the parking area from Jeffery Snyder and Sr. Diane Grassilli was not only vague about its location, but placed the construction in a different area. Sr. Diane said four or five'spaces would be added; she later said that it may be six. Mr. Snyder said it would be seven. A worker from Bruggato said they were going to put in as many parking spaces as they could. Isn't a permit required for grading, construction, drainage or removing trees? Mercy High School charges a fee for parking. Is this in accordance with their license or pen-nit? Is the rental of Kohl mansion in accordance with thea license or permit? I noticed signs on the Alvarado entrance fence this summer indicating that there are other (private types) of businesses there. I was once told the complete area belonging to the Sisters of Mercy was zoned residential and that they have a grandfathered clause written in to allow them to have a school there. Is that true? When was this and what does it say, exactly?Does it indicate that it is for a girl's school? Are there restrictions in it?May I please have a copy?Does their permit allow them to rent out the facility, to be in the rental business, or to have another business other than an educational one? Do the Sisters have a license or permit to have a facility for nursing, or a care home for the elderly? Are a certain number of families allowed to live in a residence and;ghat is it? Is there a code that requires so much covered parking per residence and what is it? Is the residential zoning at Mercy in conflict with any of my questions, comments, or concerns in this letter? I have a number of suggestions regarding the August 13, 2001 letter. The most important one is that Mercy's interior two,roads should be opened up to through traffic. That is, the traffic that is going to Mercy. Has this idea been discussed with the City? Why don't they increase parking in front of their own residence? I recall someone telling me that the residents on Hoover were upset about the parking lot facing their homes. I believe this to still be true today; given enough time I could research this. Parked cars are visible from their property and this has damaged the value and desirability of their residences. I would also like to know for which high school road and gate have they applied for a permit. I do not want to assume it is the Alvarado road. What codes do they have to meet with their new fence? Would it be the same as other residences, five feet in front? Would the gates have to be five feet? Where does Mr. Erbacher wish to restrict parking, since there are no parking signs along the property, and is he aware of that? Never once have I seen a change of use notice, a variance notice, or a public hearing notice from the City of Burlingame in regard to the ongoing changes at Mercy. Are you aware of these changes? What is the role of the City of Burlingame regarding regulating the use and non-use of licenses, permits, and zoning? I believe all my questions to be significant. I prefer my questions, concerns and comments be addressed to us in writing. Our address is: Mr. and Mrs. M. Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Thank you, Linda Abbey LIZ cc: Mercy High School Board of Directors My neighbors, (a certain number) Not disclosed, (a certain number) Jeffery Snyder Sr. Diane Grassilli Sr. Judy Carle v, . CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BtJWM91 ME AGENDA 6b ITEM# tiC0 900 DATE 2.21.07 ORATED DYNE� TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: JANUARY 19, 2007 BY APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 3 RIO COURT, ZONED R-1. Recommendation: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action to approve the applicant's request should include findings for each of the requests made, in this case for design review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. Any Council action should be taken by resolution. Following the public hearing City Council has three action alternatives: a. to uphold the Planning Commission and deny the application without prejudice by resolution which would allow the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a revised design without additional fees; b. to reverse the Planning Commission and approve the application by resolution; or c. to deny the request by resolution which would terminate this application. The City Planner would have to find any resubmittal within a year to be substantially different from the application denied. The criteria for findings for design review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are included at the end of the staff report. Notice of the public hearing on this item was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project as required by law. The notice was mailed on January 26, 2007. Conditions on the project approved by the Planning Commission: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 3, 2006, sheets Al through A9, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be simulated true divided-lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Chief Building Official's, the Fire Marshal's, the Recycling Specialist's and the NPDES Coordinator's July 10, 2006 memos shall be met; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILYD WELLING AT 3 RIO COURT,ZONED R-1. February S, 2007 3. 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; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on November 27, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 3-2-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent). on a roll call vote to deny without prejudice the applicant's request for design review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second floor addition to the house at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1. In their action the Commissioners noted that the primary issue with this application is impact on view. However, in discussion of the design commissioner's made several comments: on materials look at cedar roofing material, install bigger 6x knee braces, use simulated divided lite windows, rear of the house does not have the same feel as the front, the orientation of the cul-de-sac puts one or two rooms looking straight into the neighbor's yard, could these windows have obscure glass. -2- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING AT 3 RIO COURT,ZONED R-1. February 5,2007 In their findings for the motion of denial without prejudice the Commissioners noted: massing of the house has been handled nicely; added detail is a nice improvement; stone base at the front is not repeated anywhere else, real issue is views and setting a precedence; cannot support the application the way it stands now, there are significant view blockage issues; if a second story were built, it would be creating views that the homeowner didn't have before and then creating a problem if a different neighbor were to propose an addition that would block those new views; this was a close decision based upon the percentage of the distant views that would actually be blocked; maybe the plate height could be lowered; there are ways to add onto the ground floor; no matter what changes are made to the project, there is going to be an issue with view blockage; a denial without prejudice will give the applicant the opportunity to change the project, which will be difficult; Commissioners in favor of the project noted: when the CC&R's in this area expired, people in the neighborhood began putting up second stories and creating new views that then became protected, the engineering of hill for safety will be addressed with the building permit; the view blockage here is not as extreme as in the previous project (which this proposal replaced), views being blocked are not really distant views; most compelling argument is that there are no two-story homes in the neighborhood, do not feel that the project is blocking distant views. BACKGROUND: The applicant and property owner, Jeffrey Marks, and architect, John Stewart, are proposing to remodel an existing 2,921 SF (0.28 FAR) one story house by reconfiguring the front porch and garage areas and adding a new 1, 252.5 SF second floor. The remodeled house will have five bedrooms, an attached garage, and a floor area ratio of 0.42 (4, 402 SF)where 0.43 FAR(4,421 SF) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 19 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The attached garage will be reconfigured but will continue to provide two covered parking spaces each of which meets the required 10' x 20' dimensions. There is one required uncovered parking space (9' x 20')provided in the driveway; on site parking requirements are met. The following applications are required: ■ Design review for anew two-story single family dwelling(CS 25.57.010); and ■ Hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition (CS 25.62.020). Summary of Project Review This project was first brought to the Planning Commission for design review and a hillside area construction permit on September 11, 2006. At the design review study meeting the Commission expressed some concerns about the consistency of the architectural detailing, the window types and the potential for view blockage. At the study meeting the Commissioners noted even though there are no second stories in the vicinity, the owner has a right to develop the property but that the Commission will be concerned about the potential for view blockage and moved to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked and story poles have been installed as instructed, (Planning Commission Minutes September 11, 2006) On November 3, 2006 the applicant submitted revised plans which included adding more architectural detail to the front and rear of the house e.g. new bay windows on the second floor at the rear, a bay at the kitchen on the first floor; all solid glass windows were replaced with simulated true divided lite windows, corbels were -3- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILYDWELLING AT 3 RIO COURT,ZONED R-l. February 5,2007 added under the second story balcony at the rear elevation, wood pedestals were added to the balcony on the second floor rear elevation. A condition was added to require that all windows be wood clad, simulated true- divided liter. Story poles were installed on the roof of the existing house and a story pole plan was submitted. Staff would note that these poles continue in place for the City Council to see in the field. Also the addresses and contact information for the surrounding neighbors is attached to the packet should the Council wish to contact any of them directly, to see the proposed project from these neighboring vantage points. Neighbor Comments at the Planning Commission Public Hearing At the public comment (design review) and public hearing neighbors identified the following concerns: with safety, there is a drainage problem and this property contributes; first of many projects in this area, concerned with engineering and slope stability as other properties develop will create an unsafe condition; have planted trees to prevent mud slide; will affect our view, every room in the house has a view, appraisal noted that in our case more than typical was added for view-addition will block view of a large row of trees; addition will change the architectural balance of the neighborhood, now all the roofs are the same height; parking is an issue, with more bedrooms will need more parking, owner now has a Winnebago in the driveway; should require story poles so can assess impact on views; was attracted to this area because all houses are single story ranch style,neighbors on both sides have made one story additions, now am boxed in; all four houses on Rio Court have views of the bay, there are no two story houses on Rio court,project will change the character of the neighborhood and impair view and privacy of adjacent neighbors; concerned about who owns this house and if it is a spec house. (PC Minutes, September 11, 2006) At the public hearing the neighbors added the following comments: all the houses in the area are built on fill so are vulnerable, what will happen if the weight of one of these houses is doubled? The second story on this site will block view on one side of 5 Rio Court, will remove existing privacy and will obstruct afternoon sunlight to the property; view from the rear of the proposed house facing west is all windows and applicant will have direct view into existing living room and master bedroom of 1814 Loyola; surprised privacy issues are not addressed in the code, first time this has come up here because first second story requested; house was built to take advantage of the view,proposed house will seriously impact that view(pictures of story poles included in the packet); hate to see a precedence started over view blockage in the neighborhood. Hillside Area Construction Permit (CS 25 60 020 The Hillside Area Construction Permit is the City's view protection ordinance. The regulation focuses on the loss of distant views from living areas (habitable) inside a neighboring house. The ordinance does not set a priority on the loss of views from parking areas, garages,patios or decks. Views are only defined as `distant' in the ordinance. In past actions, lost views have included the Coastal Ridge, East Bay Hills, the airport, the open waters of the bay, open sky, and substantial foliage. Each decision was individual based on such factors as: elements of the property, the context of the development and the design of the proposed change. It should be noted that zoning regulations do not address the loss of privacy, either as a view or a right. One of the fundamental reasons historically for Zoning regulations was the loss of air and light in the public health sense e.g. tenements in New York City. Staff Comments Comments from Public Works, Building, Fire and NPDES staffs are attached to the Planning Commission Staff report which is included in the packet. There were no comments made that cannot be addressed at the building permit stage of the approval process. -4- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DESIGN RE MEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STOR Y ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMIL Y D WELLING AT 3 RIO COURT,ZONED R-1. February 5,2007 Planning Staff would note that a denial without prejudice is not the same as a denial. In the case of an out right denial the applicant may not resubmit the same project for one year. He may design a new project and begin the review process again, including paying fees a second time. Any new project submitted within a year must be determined by the City Planner to be substantially different from the project denied. With a denial without prejudice, the applicant may resubmit to the Planning Commission any revisions he wishes, including the same plans which were previously denied without prejudice. No additional fees for planning review are required, unless the resubmitted plan is referred to a design reviewer. The applicant must pay the additional fees for the contract design reviewer. Generally speaking, if denied without prejudice, applicants usually revise their plans before resubmitting them for a subsequent review. Staff encourages that the revised submittal address any direction given by the City Council and Planning Commission. The subsequent action on a project denied without prejudice is considered to be independent of earlier action. In other words the resubmitted project may be approved, denied or denied without prejudice. It is infrequent that a project which has been denied without prejudice on its initial review, is again denied without prejudice on its resubmittal. Environmental Review Status The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including(a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Action Alternatives and Criteria for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Attachment B: Planning Commission Minutes ■ Planning Commission Minutes,November 27, 2006 ■ Planning Commission Minutes, September 11, 2006 Attachment C: Submittals at Planning Commission Meeting, November 27, 2006 ■ Amir Tabrizi, 5 Rio Court,November 27, 2005, with attachments ■ Larry and Joanne Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive, undated pictures ■ Laurence and Joanne Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive,November 27, 2006 letter with attachments ■ Picture of distant view from unidentified address, submitted to Planning Commission November 27,2006 Attachment D: Planning Commission Staff Report, Action, 3 Rio Court,November 27, 2006 with attachments Attachment E: Appeal Requests and Setting ■ John Stewart, architect, to City of Burlingame, January 19, 2007, request rescheduling ■ City Council Minutes, December 13, 2006, setting appeal hearing ■ Mrs. Carefantino, 1813 Loyola Drive, December 11, 2006, Re: appeal date ■ Amir Tabrizi, 5 Rio Court, December 12, 2006,Re: appeal date ■ Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive, December 13, 2006, Re: appeal date Attachment F: Letters Regarding Appeal of 3 Rio Court ■ Larry Barulich, e-mail, January 25, 2007, Re: 3 Rio Court ■ Planning Staff Memo, Re: story poles ■ Alonzo Richardson, 1809 Loyola Drive, January 31, 2006, Re: 3 Rio Court Attachment G: Aerial, 3 Rio Court and neighboring properties Attachment H: Resolution -5- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORYADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILYD WELLING AT 3 RIO COURT,ZONED R-1. February 5,2007 Notice of Appeal Hearing, Mailed January 30, 2007 -6- ATTACHMENT A Action Alternatives and Code Required Finding Criteria for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for 3 Rio Court ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance,use permit,hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably,with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No.1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR AN HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Code Sec. 25.61.060: 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 habitable areas within a dwelling unit. January 19,2007 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes ATTACHMENT B November 27, 2006 Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: CA noted that variance findings require that there be a hardship relating the property in this case the configuration of the lot,relationship to the creek, and the determination of the front, rear and side setbacks impacted the layout of the house resulting in variances, the house is located properly on the site given the surrounding conditions and adjacent properties. Discussion of adequate parking, if there were a way to get three cars on this lot would support it, but given the parking issues at the end of the street this is a covered garage which will be used, added space between the houses is important for livability and also a justification for exception. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve this project with the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 8. 3 RIO COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MONICA LIANG, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFFREY MARK, PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, stated that all architectural comments have been addressed; the issue tonight on this project is view blockage; and that the only part of the view from 1821 Loyola Dr. being blocked is the view of some trees. Other comments from the floor: A. Tabrizzi, 5 Rio Court; Mario Muzzi, 1814 Loyola Drive; and Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive, spoke. Only 4 houses on Rio Court, all houses are built on fill,because of this the soil on the hillside is vulnerable. All houses are currently almost the same weight, what will happen if the weight is changed on one side of this curved court? If the soil collapses it could cause a catastrophe; has a geometric study been conducted as part of this project? A second story on this house will block a view on one side of 5 Rio, will remove existing privacy and will obstruct afternoon sunlight to the property; would like to ask the Commission not to approve the project; view from the rear of the proposed house facing west is all windows and applicant will have direct view into existing living room and master bedroom of 1814 Loyola; surprised that privacy issues are not addressed in the code; this is first time these concerns have come into the neighborhood because this is the first and second story requested; homes in the neighborhood were built right next to each other because they are all one-story; parking has been a problem, can imagine that an increase to the number ofbedrooms would only increase the parking problem; thank you for coming out to house; invited the project architect and homeowner to come by but they did not; house was built to take advantage of the view and the addition will severely impact that view; the architectural balance of the neighborhood is all single story; hate to see a precedence started over view blockage in the neighborhood; and it is devastating to have the potential to lose existing views. The architect responded that a soils report will be conducted by a soils engineer as a part of the Building Permit Application. Commission commented to architect: could look at cedar roofing material; should install bigger 6X knee braces; has a window manufacturer been picked? Wood window with simulated divided light would be better. Feels there are improvements, like the front, not the back, overall feel of the back is completely 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 1006 different; the issue of privacy,the orientation of this cul-de-sac puts one to two rooms looking straight into the neighbor's back yard; could these windows in the bathroom and the office be made of obscure glass?-`� The architect responded that secondary windows were put on this side and that obscure glass could be put in but they rather it not be fixed glass. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: Massing of the house has been handled nicely;added detail is a nice improvement; stone base at front is not repeated anywhere else;real issue is views and setting a precedence;cannot support the application the way it stands now,there are significant view blockage issues;if a second story were built, it would be creating views that the homeowner didn't have before and then creating a problem if a different neighbor were to propose an addition that would block those new views; when the CC&R's in this area expired, people in the neighborhood began putting up second stories and creating new views that then became protected; and proper engineering for the hill will be done. C. Deal moved to deny the application because of view blockage issues from habitable areas within neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment amended on motion: this was a close decision based upon the percentage of the distant views that would actually be blocked;maybe the plate height could be lowered;there are ways to add onto the ground floor; the view blockage here is not as extreme as with the previous project;views being blocked are not really distant views;and would the maker and second of the motion consider denial without prejudice so the applicant can redesign a one-story addition? The maker of the motion and the second amended the motion to a denial without prejudice. Comment on motion: no matter what changes are made to the project, there is going to be an issue with view blockage; a denial without prejudice will give the applicant the opportunity to change the project, which will be difficult;most compelling argument is that there are no two-story homes in the neighborhood, do not feel that project is blocking distant views. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to deny the project without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 9. 1613 MCDONALD WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PATRICK AND ANNETTE DOHERTY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report November 27,2006,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Annette Doherty,property owner,stated that she couldn't find a roofer who would frame the eyebrow and that there are no other eyebrow dormers in the neighborhood. Other comments from the floor: Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa; John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel St. San Carlos;RG Development is a reputable building company;time to talk about levying some kind of fine for people coming in with as-built changes found during the final inspection; don't think the changes are significant; it is a good thing to have the architect certify the architectural details at the framing inspection. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS �..e. 3 RIO COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA r CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MONICA LIANG, STEWART ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;JEFFREY MARK,PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect,and Jeffrey Mark,3 Rio Court,applicant represented the project. Commissioners asked: Has the applicant been in touch with the neighbors? No. Bob DeVincenzi, 1809 Castenada;Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola;Alonzo Richardson, 1809 Loyola;Mary Anne Rowe-Beccio,2 Rio Court;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa;Bahman Zohuri,on behalf of Amir Tabrizi,5 Rio Court; spoke regarding the project. Not opposed to properties being improved, this project is below my property,am concerned with safety,there is a drainage problem,property now drains onto other properties, this will be the first of many additions in the area, concerned with the engineering and slope stability, as other properties develop will it create an unsafe condition;have planted trees to prevent mudslides,want to be proactive to prevent future problems;the proposed addition will affect our view,every room in our house has a view, had an appraisal of the house, indicated that more value is added for my view than is typical, addition will block a large row of trees from our view,this addition will change the architectural balance of the neighborhood, now all the roofs are the same height, parking is an issue, when add rooms, need to accommodate additional parking,with five bedrooms there is the potential for six cars,and owner now has a Winnebago in the driveway; should require story poles to assess the impact on views; was attracted to this area because of the uniform appearance,all houses are single-story ranch style houses,have had neighbors build first floor additions on either side of my property,now it is boxed in;own home on Rio Court,all four houses have views of San Francisco Bay, there are now no two story houses on the court, will change the character of the neighborhood and impair views and privacy of adjacent neighbors; concerned with who owns this property, deed says property transferred to Li Wen Bu, tax statements are mailed to business address in San Francisco; question if this is ultimately a spec house; neighbors have asked for story poles, only fair so can see what the change will be;bought the home for the view and sense of privacy,there is no parking available on the cul de sac, concern with safety, not much land left, when it rains hard will cause stress and there will be erosion. Applicant response: Drainage is not the purview of the Planning Commission,do not think this project will substantially block views,will work on design consistency all the way around the building;need to know if we should pursue this, it is clear the neighbors do not want a second story addition. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners clarified: with the addition,the Public Works Department will require that all drainage will go to the street; drainage issues will be better if the addition is done because it will need to meet current seismic and drainage requirements, the house will be engineered for the hillside. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Concerned with the consistency of the detailing,front elevation is nice,but it stops at the front and does not carry throughout; needs to follow through on the sides and rear; • Massing is well done,nice design, it's hard to add on to this style of house; 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 • Replace the proposed vinyl windows with wood clad simulated true divided-lite window; • Need to install story poles to assess potential view blockage; story poles shall be installed and surveyed for accuracy at least the Friday before the public hearing so the Commission can see over the weekend; story poles shall show the outline of the entire structure with mesh; • Ask staff to provide contact information for neighbors so that Commissioners can visit the neighboring sites once the story poles are installed; • Even though there are no second stories in the vicinity, owner has a right to develop the property, but will have to be concerned about potential for view blockage; and C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked and the story poles have been installed as instructed. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 7. 525 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (SCOTT ADAMS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NARESH DHADHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. -� Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. Scott Adams, 949 Via Casitas, Greenbrae, project architect; and Naresh Dhadhal, 525 Oak Grove, applicant, presented the project, noting that originally wanted to convert garage to a family room and build another garage, ran into problems with ceiling heights of existing garage, now propose to take off the existing second floor, raise the building, add second story and add a one car garage. Commissioners noted that there is an existing accessory structure on the side, appears to be in the way of the proposed uncovered parking space. The applicant noted that the accessory structure will be removed and not replaced as part of the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project. • Massing is an improvement, location of the addition is good, but concerned with the detail; • There are existing, simple but specific details on the existing house, it is not clear from the plans that these details will remain, existing plans need to accurately reflect what is there; and proposed plans need to show details which are to remain; • Do not have a problem with contemporary design, but it is a problem when it is coupled with the existing style, should go with one style or the other; • Would prefer if the new would match the existing style; • Modify the fireplace to have a more traditional shape, the style of the chimney is not consistent on all the elevations; • The wrought iron proposed at porch and second floor does not work with the existing style of the house, it is too ornate; 10 ATTACHMENT C To: City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 From: Amir Tabrizi 5 Rio Court Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: NOV 27, 2006 Re: November 27, 2006 hearing for the site at 3 Rio Court, Burlingame, CA 94010 I purchased my existing property located at 5 Rio Court over 25 years ago. I bought this property at that time because the house is located in the Mills Estate. It is a single-family home, one story building, has a panoramic view and is located in a cul-de-sac. There are only four homes on this court; all are one-story, single-family residences of a similar size and character. Recently, 3 Rio court(next door to me) was sold. The new owner is proposing a complete demolition and reconstruction which will result in a massive two story, multi- family dwelling. All the houses in this court are not built on solid rocks. The houses in this hillside court are built on a man made filled soil (please see the colorful attachment of US Geological Survey"USGS"). How vulnerable do you think this hillside Rio Court is going to be? At this time, the layers of soil are holding because the houses are all one story buildings,they are all standing around the curved shape court and they are almost all the same weight. I would like to ask from the City Planning Commissioner the following: 1) What happens if we increase the weight on one side of this curved shape court? Do you think all the layers of soil are going to hold? No one knows. What if the soil on this curved shape hillside does not hold its own characteristic and it collapses, then it will create a big disaster? It will damage surrounding properties and it may take away people's lives because the existing Rio Court area is on the hill side and it is curved shape. Has a geographic study even been considered and factored for this project? 2) A permit for an additional story on this court will have adverse characteristics of this area. 3) A second story added to the property replaces the current greenbelt view with a ... solid wall on one side of my property. It will also remove my privacy and enjoyment rights in my own house and back yard. To insure my family's privacy, I will need to close all the drapes on one side of my house. I will not even be able to walk freely in my own small back yard in privacy. 4) The height of a two story house to the west of mine will obstruct afternoon sunlight of my home and yard. 5) The small size of our cul-de-sac was not designed nor is it sufficient to support street parking of additional vehicles which will surely result from a multi-family residence. Additionally, the construction itself will contribute to several factors which represent a grievance and inconvenience to myself and other residents of the court. The dust and construction residue will increase my maintenance costs dramatically during the time of the construction. Furthermore we will be unable to leave any windows open throughout the course of the construction in order to keep the dust and residue out of the house. Lastly, our small cul-de-sac will be overburdened and inconvenienced by having construction crews, supplies and equipment in it for a extended period of time, impeding our ability to enter and exit our residence safely and easily. Again, as you can see by the attached pictures, ingress and egress from our driveway and street is light as it is, let alone having construction crews for a lengthy period of time For reasons listed above, I would like to ask from the City Planning Commissioner please DO NOT approve the current plans for the owner of 3 Rio Court to construct a two-story building as an addition to his property, and to create a multi-family residence. At the same time, while I would prefer no major construction at the site, I do certainly promote real estate growth in the City of Burlingame. For this reason, I am not opposed to horizontal expansion of a single-family, single-story home at 3 Rio Court; to whatever extent the City of Burlingame Commissioner permits him accordance to the City codes and laws. Thank you very much for considering my concerns. Sinc ly, Am7iTa rizi U.S. DEPART LENT OF THE INTERIOR JSGS iencelwachary/ingwarld U.S.GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP UNITS Historical I Artificial fill Artificial fill over estuarine mud Artificial levee fill ® Artificial channel fill Artificial dam fill �Vb Gravel quarries and percolation ponds Artificial stream channel Historical stream channel deposits P I� d 5 Rio court Burlingame, CA d o �� n Microsoft TerraServer Imagery Page 1 of 1 -21 'TerraServ-A Home i Advanced Find I Famous Places 1 Web Services i About US Search TerraServer rfq t;,Z The National Map Millbrae,California,United States 2/27/2004 Street Download l E-mail 1 Info 1 Print 1 Order Photo -------------- 5 RIO Cout ® sae Urban Areas - ------------ City OIIT 1P .000 NORTH 11111111111lor.... ---- ------------------ Budingame /Ih Statewas CA ONE - ) NEW o .,a a� Longitude Latitude i -122.39149 37.58640 - IN m Click to get Weather Forecast _ Maps for this point 16 rn _� 20 30 40 Image courtesy of the U.S.Geological Survey Yds z5 30 45 Source=367604 Running Time 46.88 ms �J 2005 Microsoft Corporation. ITerms of Use I Privacy Statement I Sponsored By ZUS`GS nro&\rrWaj Earth Server=TK2TERRAWEB22 http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=4&s=8&Lon=-122.3 9129100&Lat=37.586 11/21/2006 EQ Map for Burlingame/Millbrae/Hillsborough Page 1 of 1 Earthquake Hazard Map for _ Burlingame/Millbrae/Hillsborough Scenario: Peninsula Segment of the San Andreas Fault System These intensity maps are not intended to be site-specific. Rather,they depict the general risk within neighborhoods and the relative risk from community to community. For information on how these maps were made, click here. To see the full description of the modified Mercalli intensity scale, click here. Are you in a hazard zone? For help with retrofitting,go to our HOME QUAKE SAFETY TOOLKIT. Did you get to this page from a QUIZ? If so, close this window to return to the QUIZ. San Andreas Earthquake Magnitude 7.2 Modified Mercalli Intensity Shaking Severity Level ■ X-Very Violent ■ CK-Violent _ VIIWery Strong ❑ VII-Strong ❑ VI-Moderate ❑ V-Light Highways o Streets Source:AEA-j62003 The map is intended for planning only. Intensities may be incorrect by one unit higher or lower. Current version of map available on Internet at http:iquake.abag.ca.gov Select another city or fault. Return to ABAG Earthquake Maps and Info Home Page. jbp 10/20/03 http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/pickmapx.pl 11/21/2006 Conterminous 48 States 2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions Latitude=37.5864 N F k.,\ .��. NAI ►��` -� Longitude=-122.39149 vv Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and S1 Ss and S1 =Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values `�CAL `� Site Class B- Fa=1.0,Fv=1.0 ?lea Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing Period Sa , (sec) (g) 0.2 2.190 Ss, Site Class B 1.0 1.240 S1, Site Class B Conterminous 48 States 2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions Latitude=37.5864 Longitude=-122.39149 Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SM1 SMs=FaSs and SMI =FvSI Site Class B- Fa=1.0,Fv=1.0 Period Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 2.190 SMs,Site Class B 1.0 1.240 SM1,Site Class B Conterminous 48 States '2003 NEHRP Seismic Design Provisions Latitude=37.5864 Longitude=-122.39149 SDs=2/3 x SMs and SD1 =2/3 x SM1 Site Class B- Fa=1.0,Fv=1.0 Period Sa (sec) (g) 0.2 1.460 SDs, Site Class B 1.0 0.826 SD1,Site Class B Conterminous 48 States L,aULVn 1.UVEU1/VUtPUL! raKc 1 Vl ■ LOCATION 37.5864 Lat. -122-39149 Long: The interpolated Probabilistic ground motion values, in 8g, at the requested point are: 1a 32G 10%PE in 50 yr 5%PE in 50 yr 2%PE in 50 yr >/ PGA 84.30 102.89 132.65 a 0.2 sec SA 177.25 230.66 279.86 2e -1 G 0.3 sec SA 180.97 239.49 296.46 1.0 sec SA 103.12 147.56 213.74 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROJECT INFO:SEISMIC HAZARD:Hmwd W LO/Len,1996 a TGA " Fea K C ro o f Aced sm-�0 'n °/ Q- kA v Puce I eroe -�-t b 0, http://egint.cr.usp.gov/eq-men/egi-bin/find4l-interp-06.cgi 11/20/2006 Design Spectrum Sa Vs Sd x.50 t i r 1.: 1,35 1:3Q 1.25 ff i v 4 20 85 f �t f to � r S ' r _ ,a Q. 0.10 I Q.os a 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.Q 22-5 25.0 B(UgAtNG6MB Project; 3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning Department By Larry & Joanhe Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive Imo , ' z � ice, iii, ull .... �,'"1',j. ,•��. r �w •� g� rwe Ala s 114 Rti41'NGAFRE', Project: 3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning Department By Larry & Joanne Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive Y xr � I wr AiRa ,wMa� f III III , . v �Y y% W i.• PJM 2/4 tu�r auau++Gnar Project: 3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning department By Larry & Joanne Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive a •n vim' 9',» " oil* Y hyJ ay �a 3 It �i ill a y N Nom+ 'P3�3 h C.' + 3/4 lAl fjy ftUit'NGAHR' V Project: 3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning Department By Larry & Joanne Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive S itY 6CA --Mono, 4"'t Y : -r Tiµ 4/4 Lawrence&Joanne Barulich 1821 Loyola Drive Burlingame,CA 94010 (cell)415/728-5840 (home)650/697-5984 November 27,2006 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Re: Opposition to3 Rio Court Second Story Addition Dear Commissioners: My name is Lawrence Barulich and I live at 1821 Loyola Drive with my wife Joanne.We have lived in our home since 1988.We are opposing the second story addition to 3 Rio Court.Our home was custom built to take advantage of the view from every room.Our home will be esthetically and financially damaged,and we will be emotionally damaged as well. The focal point of the view is a park setting located directly over the roof of 3 Rio Court. Our home is able to take advantage of this distant view.For 18 years we have been able to look out our windows and see a beautiful setting.If the addition is approved,the best part of our view will be gone"forever".I realize the residents have the right to improve their home,but I do not believe it should be at the expense of others. The view from our home would be devastated. The review criteria states"Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit". Our home has distant views from three bedrooms,a dining room,living room,breakfast room,entry way,and hallway,which are all habitable areas.There are also three decks and a jacuzzi tub that would be impacted and that should also get consideration.The distant view from the third bedroom would be completely removed.The new chimney will also extend 10 feet higher than the existing. At night,when the city lights come on,the view is beautiful.This would be completely covered up by the addition and taller chimney. The second story addition would be a constant reminder of our view loss every time we look out the window. The second story will conflict with the architectural balance of the neighborhood.There is also a parking issue in the cul-de-sac.With a five-bedroom home,there is potential for at least six cars with little parking on the street. Thank you all again for coming to our home. We appreciate your time and your �-- consideration of the impact this obstruction would have on our everyday lives. /,," 0 -UM Co fil, � i Cn Co WTI Cr r * CDQ 4CD Q M g f :Al o cn ' . z f iiilA 00 e N N r3 PA 'psis ■ r✓ (fl :,4 ' CD r�o ,;.� a � r ai a,�EoW � N CD 'n t: View from the Family Room Story Poles in place View from the Family Room Not shown is that the chimney on the left Original View with no Story Poles in place will extend approx. 10' higher (i-.4* ftURi.'.NdA MC.I Project:3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning Department 11.27.06, along with 11.27.06 letter By Larry&Joanne Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive y.x CNO vt z r+ I � a y.w a� ttTI M E i CJ 2117 t: ♦'IU4t.i Nee^ANS " s Project:3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning Department 11.27.06,along with 11.27.06 letter By Larry &Joanne Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive rill a" W c 0 r� L Cry CC'S C? .i u a � s' 3/7 Yui r r4. Ou iir ,y r- O i cnPO C A Or { 1 ( O 3_ O W i o " °0° N taa t. o m 1i. p View from the Third Bedroom Story roles in place This shows how the Addition would View from the Third Bedroom Completely Block the Distant View original View with no Story Poles in place Not shown is that the chimney on the left )ill extend approx. 10' higher ) Ell ► i" CLm yf CO t, 3 t A O N rn t to + s * p CD 3, a CD from the View f ' Main Deck View from the Third Bedroom and the Jacuzzi Tula At night we have a Distant View of the City LightsThis Area is essential to the house and should These would be completely blocked be giwen some consideration RJR4��t�AMR'.( Project:3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning Department 11.27.06, along with 11.27.06 letter By Larry &Joanne Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive p III V I,�;, 191 v7"Y ian..►� Y+r p. -M 3 � g M •ysw w w Rw'1s�cRit�Y� � �9dt7kaeklK ��m.,s�.^�ss ��c ,"�� .���.,� w,. sus 6� � II Mm 'ms i.+ E �E CSM u ti 6/7 (fSilNl.tHf.AMC Project:3 Rio Court Photos Submitted to Planning Department 11.27.06, along with 11.27.06 letter By Larry& Joanne Barulich of 1821 Loyola Drive Ij IW C v •� C U � F � � n CJ a n_ 717 /,j t 1, 31.iJA1_I v�.4MF i Y � Project: 3 Rio Court Photo Submitted to Planning Department 11 .27.06 By Unidentified Source 1,7 t � k 1 a A. a. w s s` k 1r1 A 1 , � � 1 If I b � i• � v l/•sW � �r[4 i �j J �t�'� � 4 ,,.,.�.,,. d,Yr " , .' .�"✓ .k^ q t F �+ 8 � { b Item# 15 City of Burlingame Regular Action Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 3 Rio Court Meeting Date: 11/27/06 Request: Design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition. Applicant/Architect: Stewart Associates APN: 025-051-200 Property Owner: Jeffrey Mark Lot Area: 10,379 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary: The existing one-story house, with an attached two-car garage (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions), contains 2,921 SF (0.28 FAR) of floor area and has four potential bedrooms (existing family room counts as a potential bedroom). The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the front porch and garage areas at the front of the house on the first floor and add a new 1,252.5 SF second floor. With the proposed first and second story addition, the floor area will increase from 2,921 SF (0.28 FAR) to 4,402 SF (0.42 FAR) where 4,421 SF (0.43 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 19 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. With this project, the number of potential bedrooms will increase from four to five. Three parking spaces, two covered (20' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20'), are required for a five bedroom house. The existing attached two-car garage will be reconfigured, but will still have two staggered covered spaces (each with 10' x 20' clear interior dimensions), which meets the covered parking requirement. There is one uncovered 9' x 20' space provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The following applications are required: • Design review for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.57.010, 5); and • Hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition(CS 25.62.020). Table 1 –3 Rio Court Lot Area: 10,379 SF ORIGINAL REVISED EXISTING PROPOSAL PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQ'D (07/06/06) (11/03/06) SETBACKS Front(1"flr): 27'-6" (garage) 22'-4" (to garage) no change 16'-5" (block average) (2"d flr): none 44'-0" no change 20'-0" ....__._....... ..... Side(left): 7'-4" 32'-4" (to 2°a floor) I no change 7'-0" (right): 4'-10" 15'-4" (to 2°a floor) no change 7'-0" _—.— - – _—--.__-- _.......... Rear(P flr): 12'-0" 132'-6" (to kitchen bay) no change 15'-0" (2nd flY): none 20'-0" no change 20'-0" Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 3 Rio Court ORIGINAL REVISED ALLOWED/REQ'D EXISTING PROPOSAL I PROPOSAL j (07/06/06) I (11/03/06 Lot Coverage: 3,036 SF 3,283 SF 3,282 SF 4,152 SF 29% 32% 32% 40% ._.___.._...___.__..__............ _____ 2,921 SF 4,362 SF 4,402 SF I 4,421 SF1 FAR: 0.28 FAR 0.42 FAR j 0.42 FAR 0.43 FAR #of bedrooms: 4 ; 5 no ch e_ _ --- -..._..-_._dr_.-..._._.._.__......._._..._.._ ._....._._.._._..__.__ —- _ ---....-... - ._..—._._....._._._—._--- - - - �--- --..._ --------; t 2 covered 2 covered j 2 covered Parking: (20' x 20') 1 (10'x 20') X 2 (20'x 20') 1 uncovered 1 1 uncovered no change I 1 uncovered (9'x 20' j (9'XP Height: 15'-11" 25'-6" no change 30'-0" DHEnvelope: complies complies i no change I CS 25.28.075 (0.32x 10,379 SF) + 1,100 SF=4,421 SF (0.43 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached. Design Review Study Meeting (September 11, 2006): At the Planning Commission design review �. study meeting on September 11, 2006, the Commission had some concerns with the consistency of the detailing, the window types and the potential for view blockage. The Commission noted even though there are no second stories in the vicinity, the owner has a right to develop the property but that the Commission will be concerned about the potential for view blockage and moved to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked and the story poles have been installed as instructed (September 11, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans and a letter from a surveyor indicating that the story poles had been installed correctly to address the Commissions concerns, date stamped November 3, 2006. The following is a list of the Commission's direction and responses by the applicant. 1. Concerned with the consistency of the detailing,front elevation is nice, but it stops at the front and doesn't carry throughout; needs to follow through on the sides and rear. • The architect revised the plans to include more detail at the rear and sides of the house. The additional detail includes: two new bays at the rear of the property at the second floor, and a bay at the kitchen window on the first floor; all solid glass windows were replaced with simulated true divided lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; corbels were added under the second story balcony at the rear elevation; and wood pedestals were added to the balcony on the second floor at the rear elevation(revised plans, sheets A3 through A9, date stamped November 3, 2006). 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11,2006 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS �6. 3 RIO COURT,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA r CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(MONICA LIANG, STEWART ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;JEFFREY MARK,PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos,project architect,and Jeffrey Mark,3 Rio Court,applicant represented the project. Commissioners asked: Has the applicant been in touch with the neighbors? No. Bob DeVincenzi,1809 Castenada;Lawrence Barulich,1821 Loyola;Alonzo Richardson,1809 Loyola;Mary Anne Rowe-Beccio,2 Rio Court;Pat Giorni,1445 Balboa;Bahman Zohuri,on behalf ofAmir Tabrizi,5 Rio Court;spoke regarding the project. Not opposed to properties being improved,this project is below my property,am concerned with safety,there is a drainage problem,property now drains onto other properties, this will be the first of many additions in the area,concerned with the engineering and slope stability,as other properties develop will it create an unsafe condition;have planted trees to prevent mudslides,want to be proactive to prevent future problems;the proposed addition will affect our view,every room in our house has a view,had an appraisal of the house,indicated that more value is added for my view than is typical, addition will block a large row of trees from our view,this addition will change the architectural balance of the neighborhood,now all the roofs are the same height,parking is an issue,when add rooms,need to., accommodate additional parking,with five bedrooms there is the potential for six cars,and owner now has a Winnebago in the driveway;should require story poles to assess the impact on views; was attracted to this area because of the uniform appearance,all houses are single-story ranch style houses,have had neighbors build first floor additions on either side of my property,now it is boxed in;own home on Rio Court,all four houses have views of San Francisco Bay,there are now no two story houses on the court,will change the character of the neighborhood and impair views and privacy of adjacent neighbors;concerned with who owns this property,deed says property transferred to Li Wen Bu,tax statements are mailed to business address in San Francisco;question if this is ultimately a spec house; neighbors have asked for story poles, only fair so can see what the change will be;bought the home for the view and sense of privacy,there is no parking available on the cul de sac,concern with safety,not much land left,when it rains hard will cause stress and there will be erosion. Applicant response: Drainage is not the purview of the Planning Commission,do not think this project will substantially block views,will work on design consistency all the way around the building;need to know if we should pursue this,it is clear the neighbors do not want a second story addition. There were no other comments from the floor.The public hearing was closed. Commissioners clarified: with the addition,the Public Works Department will require that all drainage will go to the street;drainage issues will be better if the addition is done because it will need to meet current seismic and drainage requirements,the house will be engineered for the hillside. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Concerned with the consistency of the detailing,front elevation is nice,but it stops at the front and does not carry throughout;needs to follow through on the sides and rear; • Massing is well done,nice design,its hard to add on to this style of house; 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 • Replace the proposed vinyl windows with wood clad simulated true divided-lite window; • Need to install story poles to assess potential view blockage; story poles shall be installed and surveyed for accuracy at least the Friday before the public hearing so the Commission can see over the weekend; story poles shall show the outline of the entire structure with mesh; • Ask staff to provide contact information for neighbors so that Commissioners can visit the neighboring sites once the story poles are installed; • Even though there are no second stories in the vicinity, owner has a right to develop the property,but will have to be concerned about potential for view blockage; and C.Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked and the story poles have been installed as instructed. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 7. 525 OAK GROVE AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND NEW ATTACHED GARAGE (SCOTT ADAMS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NARESH DHADHAL, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Deal opened the public comment. Scott Adams, 949 Via Casitas, Greenbrae,project architect; and Naresh Dhadhal, 525 Oak Grove, applicant, presented the project, noting that originally wanted to convert garage to a family room and build another garage,ran into problems with ceiling heights of existing garage,now propose to take off the existing second floor,raise the building,add second story and add a one car garage. Commissioners noted that there is an existing accessory structure on the side, appears to be in the way of the proposed uncovered parking space. The applicant noted that the accessory structure will be removed and not replaced as part of the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project. • Massing is an improvement, location of the addition is good, but concerned with the detail; • There are existing, simple but specific details on the existing house, it is not clear from the plans that these details will remain,existing plans need to accurately reflect what is there;and proposed plans need to show details which are to remain; • Do not have a problem with contemporary design,but it is a problem when it is coupled with the existing style, should go with one style or the other; • Would prefer if the new would match the existing style; • Modify the fireplace to have a more traditional shape,the style of the chimney is not consistent on all the elevations; • The wrought iron proposed at porch and second floor does not work with the existing style of the house, it is too ornate; 10 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 3 Rio Court 2. Replace the proposed vinyl windows with wood clad simulated true divided-lite windows. • The architect revised the elevations and added a note to sheet A6 that all windows will be wood clad windows with simulated true divided-lites with wood trim (revised elevations, sheets A6, date stamped November 3, 2006). Staff would note an addition to condition number one stating that all windows shall be simulated true divided-lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions. 3. Need to install story poles to assess potential view blockage; story poles shall be installed and surveyed for accuracy at least the Friday before the Public Hearing so the Commission can see over the weekend; story poles shall show the outline of the entire structure with the mesh; ask staff to provide contact information for neighbors so that Commissioners can visit the neighboring sites once the story poles are installed. • Story poles were installed on the roof of the existing house and the applicant submitted a story pole plan and a letter from a surveying company certifying that both the vertical and horizontal location of the story poles are correct and true (see story pole certification letter and story pole plan included in the staff report). Staff would note the contact information for adjacent neighbors is attached to the top of the staff report. 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. Required Findings for a Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit(Code Sec. 25.61.060). Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and Hillside Area Construction Permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated 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 Department date stamped November 3, 2006, sheets Al through A9, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and ^1 that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be simulated true divided- 3 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 3 Rio Court lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Chief Building Official's, the Fire Marshal's, the Recycling Specialist's and the NPDES Coordinator's July 10, 2006 memos shall be met; 3. 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; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Erica Strohmeier `- Zoning Technician 4 Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 3 Rio Court c. Stewart Associates, Architect 5 j�]' (� -_ 62 Tilton Terrace ,john Margaroni, 1 LTJ /� San Mateo,CA 94401 (650)3437916 Surveying and Construction Services Fax(650)3437916 October 23 ,2006 Jeffery Mark 3 Rio Court Burhnga.me,CA 94010 Dear Jeffery Mark, i STORY POLE CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the vertical and horizontal location of the story poles installed at 3 Rio Court, Burlingame, CA 94010, on October 23, 2006, are true and correct. Attached are sheets 1 and 2 showing the pole heights and locations . The plan location was created by the clients architect, Stewart Associates. Sincerely, John Margaroni,PLS 6044 p LAND s� UAR Na. 60 6 13o(07 RECEIVED NOV 0 8 2006 CRY OF BUpUNGAME p ANNING DOPT, STORY POLE PLAN MARK RESIDENCE . LEGEND: I� COURT ��RZ STORY POLE NETTING BURLI NGAME, CA GROUND STAKES X _. ---- -- - - RECEIVED 120.71' NOV 0 3 2006 12f3-7.1 �� -- CRY-OF BURLI GAME _- PLANNING C EPT. Fes_ ` - i t 125.60' 120.71' _ -1=20.7 ' {t ' _--- t 1 10.71' ! t t r _L:_ _ =S`�,�� �[� �t1UM o� L , ls. 3 �N L W N o N Z iG � -- m � John Margaroni, PLS 650-343-7916 VR8 m 650-619-2403 cell W o' Story Pole Elevations per Stewart Associates Story Pole Plan 3 Rio Court Bulringame, CA ' 9/29/2006 Mark Residence Point# Fill to top of pole Fill in Inches ov�c above roof mark /,0/?,-,1 ;WO 28 7.79 7'-9-1/2 29 7.21 7'-2-1/2 30 18.88 18'-10-5/8 ! 31 18.84 18'-10-1/8 32 6.32 6'-3-718 ,,, E 33 8.91 8'-11" 34 7.33 7'-4" -t G,c1 35 8.48 8'-5-3/4 9&ZO 36 10.91 10'-10-718 37 10.92 101.11if 38 9.40 9'-4-3/4 q,A� G'',G"d Jeff,gy Mark story poles elevations 9/29/2006] � � P City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 3 RIO COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MONICA LIANG, STEWART ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFFREY MARK,PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, project architect, and Jeffrey Mark, 3 Rio Court,applicant represented the project. Commissioners asked: Has the applicant been in touch with the neighbors? No. Bob DeVincenzi, 1809 Castenada;Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola;Alonzo Richardson, 1809 Loyola;Mary Anne Rowe-Beccio,2 Rio Court;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa;Bahman Zohuri,on behalf of Amir Tabrizi,5 Rio Court; spoke regarding the project. Not opposed to properties being improved, this project is below my property, am concerned with safety,there is a drainage problem,property now drains onto other properties, this will be the first of many additions in the area, concerned with the engineering and slope stability, as other properties develop will it create an unsafe condition;have planted trees to prevent mudslides,want to be proactive to prevent future problems;the proposed addition will affect our view,every room in our house has a view, had an appraisal of the house, indicated that more value is added for my view than is typical, addition will block a large row of trees from our view,this addition will change the architectural balance of the neighborhood, now all the roofs are the same height, parking is an issue, when add rooms, need to-� accommodate additional parking,with 5 bedrooms there is the potential for six cars, and owner now has Winnebago in the driveway; should require story poles to assess the impact on views; was attracted to this area because of the uniform appearance, all houses are single-story ranch style houses,have had neighbors build first floor additions on either side of my property,now it is boxed in;own home on Rio Court,all four houses have views of San Francisco Bay, there are now no two story houses on the court, will change the character of the neighborhood and impair views and privacy of adjacent neighbors; concerned with who owns this property, deed says property transferred to Li Wen Bu, tax statements are mailed to business address in San Francisco; question if this is ultimately a spec house; neighbors have asked for story poles, only fair so can see what the change will be;bought the home for the view and sense of privacy,there is no parking available on the cul de sac, concern with safety, not much land left, when it rains hard will cause stress and there will be erosion. Applicant response: Drainage is not the purview of the Planning Commission,don't think this project will substantially block views,will work on design consistency all the way around the building;need to know if we should pursue this, it is clear the neighbors don't want a second story addition. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners clarified:with the addition,the Public Works Department will require that all drainage will go to the street; drainage issues will be better if the addition is done because it will need to meet current seismic and drainage requirements, the house will be engineered for the hillside. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • Concerned with the consistency of the detailing, front elevation is nice, but it stops at the front and doesn't carry throughout; needs to follow through on the sides and rear•, • Massing is well done, nice design, it's hard to add on to this style of house; 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 11, 2006 • Replace the proposed vinyl windows with wood clad simulated true divided-lite window; • Need to install story poles to assess potential view blockage; story poles shall be installed and surveyed for accuracy at least the Friday before the public hearing so the Commission can see over the weekend; story poles shall show the outline of the entire structure with mesh; • Ask staff to provide contact information for neighbors so that Commissioners can visit the neighboring sites once the story poles are installed. • Even though there are no second stories in the vicinity, owner has a right to develop the property,but will have to be concerned about potential for view blockage; and C.Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked and the story poles have been installed as instructed. This motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Vice-Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 7. 5 OAK GROVE AV UE,ZONED R-1 —APPL ATION FOR DESI REVIEW SPECIAL P IT FOR ATTACH GARAGE FOR A FIRST SECOND STOR ADDITION NEW AT CHED GARAGE (S TT ADAMS, APPLIC AND ARCHITECNARESH D HAL, PROP TY OWNER 68 N CED PROJECT PL R: RUBEN HUR SP Brook riefly presented the pro ct description. There wer o questions of staf. Chair Browne opened the public com ent. Scott Adams,949 Vi Casitas,Greenbrae, oject architect; and Naresh Dh hal, 525 Oak Grove, app icant, presented the proj t, noting that origin ly wanted to convert garage to amily room and build an her garage,ran into probl s with ceiling heigh of existing garage,now propos o take off the existing se nd floor,raise the buildin add second story an add a one car garage. Commiss ners noted that there is a existing accessory struct e on the side, appe to be in the way of the propose ncovered parking space. he applicant noted that t accessory structure i 1 be moved and not replace s part of the project. Ther were no other commen from the floor and the p lic hearing was closed. Commiss ners had the followin omments regarding the p 'ect. • Massin ' an improvement, to tion of the addition is goo but concerned with t detail; • There are fisting, simple but spe 'fic details on the existing ouse, it is not clear fr the plans that these details *11 remain,existing pl s need to accurately reflec hat is there;and prop ed plans need to show details hich are to remain; Don't have a pro b in with contempor esign,but it is a problem en it is coupled with e existing tyle, should go wi one style or the othe • uld prefer if the n would match the ex ting style; • Mo 'fy the fireplace to ve a more traditional ape,the style of the chicon is not consistent on a the elevat ns; �. • The wro t iron proposed orch and second flo does not work with the exi ing style of the house, it is too o ate; 10 ComMUNICATIONRECEIVED J TER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: Mario B. Muzzi [muzzi@usfca.edu] Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 4:34 PM To: PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Subject: 3 Rio Court Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Mario B. Muzzi. I am the son of Neda Muzzi and the trustee of her estate. The estate is the owner of the property located at 1814 Loyola Drive (111814") . My mother has resided at 1814 since 1978 and has been a resident of Burlingame since 1968. I was born and raised in Burlingame and resided at 1814 from 1978 to 2000. Neither my mother nor I could attend this evenings meeting. My mother is currently in Italy with her family. I teach a course at the University of San Francisco that meets Monday evenings from 6:15pm- 9:OOpm and although my students would not have objected, I could not afford to cancel the class following last Monday's holiday. My mother and I have reviewed the plans for the addition at 3 Rio Court and have the following concerns: 1) Loss of privacy: Currently there is a 6 foot fence that separates our backyard from 3 Rio Court. From our backyard we cannot see into their home and they cannot see into ours. This will change with the addition. They will have a birds eye view of our entire backyard. Further, since the backside of our home is primarily windows, the residents of 3 Rio Court will have a clear view into our family room, --� living room, and master bedroom. I did not have time to provide photographs of our backyard, but I would be happy to do so if the commission believes that it would be useful. 2) Inconsistent with the neighorhood: The second story addition is inconsistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. There are no two story homes on the east side of Loyola in Burlingame. This addition would set a precedent that ironically my mother and I would want to follow. In fact, the addition will give us an incentive to do so the same with our home so as to mitigate the loss of view and maintain the value of the property. Based upon the aforementioned concerns with the proposed addition we respectfully request that the commission deny the applicants request. Sincerely, Mario B. Muzzi, Esq. 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED OFSTAFFREPORT 747 1 06 RECEIVED CITY OF SEP Puxu'.aom06 )��/v JJ Rio ct 0-Y, oAt cuo) PAtu) (A gascm ' eye - sage 1 ' S� ; Als 09/07/2006 10:15 6507771201 FEDEX KINKOS0756 PAGE 01/01 E olMUNICATIONRECEIYED OWA S7AFFREPORT / Castenada Drive Homeowners o�,C�,�� � tt� Burlingame, CA 94010 September 4, 2006 RECEIVE® City of Burlingame Planning Department SEP - 7 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OFBURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. In response to a notice that we received from the city about a hearing on Monday, Sept. 11,regarding new construction at 3 Rio Court, Burlingame (APN 025-051-200), please consider this letter to be a formal notice of problems including burnotTRUed to the following: A landslide(or mudslide after winter rains)occurred on the steep hill below Rio Court extending down to Castenada Drive not long after the original construction of homes in this area. Therefore,construction on Rio Court can result in a potential for a landslide that threatens human life as well as property damage. Drainage of water off that steep hill has been a recurring problem for homes on Castenada Drive, so we are understandably concerned that any construction might change water drainage patterns and/or cause other problems that might precipitate a landslide,especially considering the history of slides in SM county during winter rains and/or during earthquakes,etc. Also,will the increased weight of the new construction on Rio Court be too much too close to the steep hill,considering that the notice indicates a new second story addition, as well as an addition to the first story? Example of problems that may precipitate another landslide: Steep hill, potential disturbance&/or changes in water drainage patterns,history of water-soaked ground and flooding, earthquake-prone area,disturbance of ground during construction and additional weight of a new building that borders the steep hill,and history of a prior slide on that hill. Yours truly, Ypurs truly, Mr.&Mrs.J.DeMarco Mr. Devincenzi 1805 Castenada Drive 1809 Castenada Drive Burlingame Burlingame (0 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED o I. J� AFTER PREPARATION To: City of Burlingam OF STAFF REPORT Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED From: Amir Tabrizi SEP 112006 5 Rio Court circ of BurAuraGAME Burlingame, CA 94010 PLANNNG DEPT. Date: Sept 11, 2006 Re: September 11, 2006 hearing for the site at 3 Rio Court, Burlingame, CA 94010 I purchased my existing property located at 5 Rio Court over 25 years ago. I bought this property at that time because the house is located in the Mills Estate. It is a single-family home, one story building, has a panoramic view and is located in a cul-de-sac. There are. only four homes on this court; all are one-story, single-family residences of a similar size and character. Recently, 3 Rio court (next door to me) was sold. The new owner is proposing a complete demolition and reconstruction which will result in a massive two story, multi- family dwelling. I would like to ask that the City Planning Commissioner deny a permit for the present version of the plans for the following reasons: 1) A large two-story house will cause non-conformity on our small street. All of the houses are of the same relative size, and to build a massive two-story would detract from the aesthetic appeal of our quaint, quiet street. 2) A second story added to the property replaces my current greenbelt view with a solid wall on one side of my property. It will also remove my privacy and quiet enjoyment rights in my own house and yard. To insure my family's privacy I will need to close all the drapes on one side of my house. I will not even be able to walk freely in my own small back yard in privacy. 3) The height of a two story house to the west of mine will obstruct afternoon sunlight and warmth in my home and yard. 4) The small size of our cul-de-sac was not designed nor is it sufficient to support street parking of additional vehicles which will surely result from a multi- family residence. Additionally, the construction itself will contribute to several factors which represent a grievance and inconvenience to myself and other residents of the court. The dust and construction residue will increase my maintenance costs dramatically during the time of the construction. Furthermore we will be unable to leave any windows open throughout the course of the construction in order to keep the dust and residue out of the house. Lastly, the our small cul-de-sac will be overburdened and inconvenienced 1 by having construction crews, supplies and equipment in it for a extended period of -� time, impeding our ability to enter and exit our residence safely and easily. For reasons listed above, I would like to ask that the City Planning Commissioner NOT approve the current plans for the owner of 3 Rio Court to construct a two-story building as an addition to his property, and to create a multi-family residence. At the same time, while I would prefer no major construction at the site, I do certainly promote real estate growth in the City of Burlingame. For this reason, I am not opposed to horizontal expansion of a single-family, single-story home at 3 Rio Court, to whatever extent the City of Burlingame Commissioner permits him accordance to the City codes and laws. Thank you very much for considering my concerns. incerely, o Amir Tabrizi 2 2fJD6 1 :01 �566yb3791� Pact Jb/uc. CITY Or IWRLINGAMC PLANNING nFPARTMI NT 501 PRIMROSP ROAD P(650)558.725(1 F(650)69W790 APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 4 W=J- / Type of application: Design Reviewx Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number:0 ZS-0 Project address:- Ro CA----- ,)k- A ` --,)k- APPUCANT PROPEL I'YOWNER14 l Name: CV�I(,G{i( IL'1nG� __`_.--.. __ Name: 1 L i� 3 fz l 0 C+. Address: LAIWeA �---..-_-� Address:-- City/State/Zip-sor Phone w ): LAi U 3 Plrune(w): 1 S ) �( Z , ARCH(ITECT/DESIGNER Name: yt k5 Address: 1 .c�1u� S ''____ 11le ise itadicate with an asterisk the contact person for this project._ o ('ity/State/7ip._( in py �._. �_�_ Phone(L%-): (6 0 ! ' LU' - ---- RECEIVED JUL 6 2006 CR ) G�.(, Y OF BURLINGAME a PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DE CRIPTION:�I✓�A1i��21�y1Q��.�Gi�C� (- "1011 ► N SQ Co i,A ±j vacd h AFFADAViT/SIGNATURE: .1 hcrcb certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to est of my knowledge and l' f. Applicant's signature' -- Date: I know about the proposed application and 1 reby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to dic Planning C mmissio - a -i Property owner's signal __ Date: L lk 'A 1'CAPPYRNI 08/30/2006 16:30 4158223323 MC METAL INC PAGE 02 RECORDING REQUESTED BY " �DRDERIA G i' 0x aN 025-051 -200 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO Cc>ujjt :,f pages — NAME LI WEN BU Fecor AEd inofficial Record', S;treetL:L;fl Adaress 1347 DONNER AVE. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 Z'p k Grant Deed The undersigned grantoqs)dedare(s): Documentary transfer tax is$......G................. ...... computed on full value of property conveyed,or computed on full value less value of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. Unincorporated area: City of....................... . ......... ........... ....... . . ...... X Reatty not sold, EOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Ll WEN 13U, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN AND JEFFREY MARK, AN UNMARRIED MAN, AS JOINT TENANTS hereby GRANTS)to LI WEN BU, AN UNMARRIED WOMAN that property in THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, COUNTY OF SAN MATED, STATE OF CALIFORNIA: LOT 20, BLOCK 35, AS DESIGNATED ON THE MAP ENTITLED 11MILLS ESTATE NO. 9 BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON DECEMBER 3, 1956 IN BOOK 46 OF M-N?G AT PAGE 33 34 . Mail Tax StatementS to LI WEN BU 1347 DONNER AVE. SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 Date 09/14/2005 3 RIC COURT BURLINGAME, CN 94010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1) COUNTY OF FRANQTqCO On 0 9/1.4/2 00 5 before me.the undersigned.a Notary Public in and for said state,personally appeared ;.y Mkp I R J_ JErtyo ;Y MkRK LI WEN BU AND JEFFREY MARK I personally known tome(or proved to me orithe basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person($) whose name(s)whose rianle(S)461are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ?wsewthey executed the same In ftia/herttheir authorized capacity(ies), and that by "wtrwNiheir signature(s)on the instrument the person(s). or the entity upon behalf of which Me perion(s) acted.executed CLING CUN GUAM the instrument, 9 WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA City&Comy of San Fronclivo- my Comm. Signature rn REE 104 (M (typed or printed) tThis area for-)Iftail 110•R�44, 0 2006 GIS 140 8/94 MAIL TAX STATEMENTSASDIRECTED ABOVE CITY OF 81.1fl1LNGAM1E PLANNING DEPT. J t^ II 3 RIO COURT SUBJECT PROPERTY r RECEIVED JUL - 6 2006 4 RIO COURT CITY OFBURLINGANIE PLANNING DEPT. MARK REMODEL & ADDITION .. •cue' -._'� ,� w-: s.� - �•�f; j. 7 5 • 3YYWffi�aSYWi 1 �.� �''- _� S vy�a , /9 20 lb c N V 6 I�a,°s9 ,2 12�gf^, .�; O Project Comments Date: July 6,2006 To: d 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 and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051-200 Staff Review: July 10,2006 1. Storm drainage shall be designed to drain towards the street frontage or to the City storm drain system. 2. Replace all displaced/damaged sidewalk,driveway,curb and gutter. 3. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works— Engineering Division at(650)558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V P5;�5 Date: 7/10/2006 Project Comments Date: July 6, 2006 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 and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051-200 Staff Review: July 10, 2006 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide a complete demolition plan that indicates the existing walls,walls to be demolished, new walls, and a legend. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 4) According to the City of Burlingame Municipal code"when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." Therefore, this building must comply with the 2001 California Building Code for new structures. 5) Comply with the new, 2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings. Go to http//www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 6) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 7) 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. 8) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 9) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 10) The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. Review Date: Project Comments Date: July 6, 2006 To: ❑ City Engineer X 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 and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051-200 Staff Review: July 10, 2006 Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: Date: 71IVo (o Project Comments Date: July 6, 2006 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 and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051-200 Staff Review: July 10, 2006 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: Date:�o � Project Comments Date: July 6, 2006 To: 110' City Engineer 00" Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 Oil Chief Building Official 110' Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 City Arborist 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650)342-3727 City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1, APN: 025-051-200 Staff Review: July 10, 2006 1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site; clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 Project Comments Con't — 3 Rio Court - 1St & 2nd story addition, hillside construction. 2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. The easement shall be protected from any site runoff. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if necessary): a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion control have been established; b. Address method(s) for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff around the site; c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site. 4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for _ your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: Date: 07/10/06 2of2 WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION? Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such Ami A construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 time, that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. �: G: G 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 Ternescal 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 :ailed "Money Down the Drain. " It is available for showing California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from :o any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries 341-9730. and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. 4BAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur- .'ace 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. nent 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. AV SSOCIATJON EAST BAY REGIONAL SAY AREA GOF OEANUENTS I PARK DISTRICT PROTECTING YOUR t Aw P ROPERTY :�:�. ROM �� r4 IONEROS =- f-��� -_ WHAT YOU CAN DO TO on all areas that are not to be paved or, otherwise covered. CONTROL EROSION AND PROTECT , YOUR PROPERTY G 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 STABILIZE THE SOIL BEFORE AND Grass provides the DURING cheapest and most ef- fective short-term ero- CONS?RUCTION sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To • Plan construction activities during spring and summer, find the best seed mix- tures and plants for Ir % so that erosion control measures can be in place when I�l / your area, check with the rain comes. 1;.:- - t= your local nursery, the " ' c U.S. Department of Ag- xami a your site carefully before building. Be aware of �. riculture Soil Conserva- -the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site tion Service, or the design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work. University of California Cooperative Extension. • Preserve existing vegeta- tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas -` _="_`` Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection under current construe- -��_ . "= 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 100% effective when held in place by cost of landscaping later.) spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber(tackifiers), 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 tackifer 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 tackifer. Commer- appearance. dal hydraulic mulch applicators—who also provide other erosion control services—are listed under"landscaping"in • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation the phone book. EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT FUTURE HEADACHES Sys Vegetation-stabilized Bare Slope: Headaches f r 1(tj 1 Slope:Security and Liability •',; ' ( / (� / • soil in place • mudslide danger • minimum of loss of topsoil � •clogged storm erosion gg ;k: ...7''•:' �} • fewer winter dean- drains, flooding up problems problems • protection for expensive house foun- cleanup f' dations • eroded or buried house l�4/ foundations C=CZP TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNER �y y "Winterize" your property by mid-September. Don't Seeding of bare slopes wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need be done • Hand yard can broadcast done r use a les than anthouder." Atypical winter protection. Final landscaping . Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. later. . Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, Inexpensive measures installed by fall will give you bark chips or straw. oil and seeds on protection quickly that will last all during the wet , Check with Use netting to olocal nursery for advice.ep slopes. season. ..... Winter alert — In one afternoon you can: • Check before storms to see that drains and ditches • Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away 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 Spot seed any bare areas. hold seeds. • Riprap (rock lining)—to protect channel banks = �i from erosive water flow - c..r.�','{�`xix;:`a''£'•`.`,s. - • Sediment trap—to _ V stop runoff carrying r sediment and trap the sediment 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 oat 1 e t -� - protection—to reduce � l the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con- ^' p 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. aL- 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 Swale—to divert doesn't cause erosion. runoff from a disturbed area or to contain runoff within To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump- a disturbed area �.ng 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 landscaping \ , ; hydraulic mulch '�r•. -_ -_-- g2•r.r plastic sheeting erimeter dike saw- §::- :•�;, diversion ditch bench straw mulch sediment trap outlet protection AWCorservairee RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED,by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS,a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and a hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Courtzoned R-1, Jeffrey Mark,property owner, APN: 025-051-200; WHEREAS,said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 27, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed,and comments received and addressed by this commission,it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) - additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50%of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review and hillside area construction permit are approved,subject to the conditions set forth in -� Exhibit"A"attached hereto. Findings for such design review and hillside area construction permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of November, 2006 ,by the following vote: SECRETARY 1 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and hillside area construction permit 3 Rio Court Effective December 7, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 3,2006,sheets Al through A9,and Boundary and Topographic Survey,and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be simulated true divided-lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Chief Building Official's, the Fire Marshal's, the Recycling Specialist's and the NPDES Coordinator's July 10, 2006 memos shall be met; 3. 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; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. CITY 0CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BV.WF1GAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD r r BURLINGAME,CA 94010 aE - TEL:(650)556-7250 FAX:(650)696-37904' �� '' kx 5 www.burlingame.org „# +,24" _. w V. a Site: 3 Rio Court The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces PUBLIC HEARING the following public hearing on Monday, November NOTICE 27, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Nall Council Chambers,501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA: Application for design review and hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Court zoned R-1. (APN 025-051-200) Mailed: November 27, 2006 (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 ,Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. ..k If you challenge the ubject applications) in court, you may be limited to y raising only those issues you ors6meone eine raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public fieanng"` r Property owners who receive th pot ce are responsible for informing 'additional information, please call their tenants about'this notice,; ,, (650) 558-720 Tfiank TM " Bt Margaret Monro ; City Planner , PUBLIC HEAR INGyNOTICE (Please refer to other side) STEWART ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE • INTERIORS • PLANNING 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650)591-9578 November 30, 2006 Job 0613 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: City Council Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Ruling of November 22, 2006 for 3 Rio Court Dear Council Members: I am appealing the ruling of the Planning Commission regarding the project at 3 Rio Court. The Commission felt that the proposed second story addition would block "distant" views from the neighboring home at 1821 Loyola Court. We do not feel this is the case. Sincerely, zlo—ovda,� John L. Stewart, AIA cc: Jeffrey Mark ;STEWART ASSOCIATES 1R('HI'I'EL'1'LRE • IN11"RIORS • PLANNING 351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 f E-_EPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650) 591-9578 December 12, 2006 Job 0613 Lawrence Barnlich 1821 Loyola Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 3 Rio Court Dear Lawrence: I would like to come and take photos from your house and would like to do this as soon as possible. Please call me at 650-591-8283. Thanks. Sincerely, John L. Stewart, AIA, CORA cc: Jeffrey Mark ,/Erica Stromeyer, Planning Department, City of Burlingame RECEIVED DEC 14 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. A � CITY G BURUNGAME �AATEO JVNE6 NEW BUSINESS MEMORANDUM Office of the City Clerk To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Doris Mortensen Date: December 13, 2006 Re: Planning Commission Appeal Hearing for 3 Rio Court Attached are three letters from neighbors of 3 Rio Court requesting Council to change the subject hearing date of January 2, 2007. One request is to postpone the hearing date until January 15 and another until after January 17. The two regular Council meetings scheduled to follow January 2nd are January 16 and February 5, 2007. Attachments c: City Manager City Attorney City Planner To: City of Burlingame RECEIVED City Hall Council 501 Primrose Road DEC 12 2006 Burlingame,CA 94010 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CrrY OF BURLINGAME From: Amir Tabrizi 5 Rio Court Burlingame,CA 94010 Date: Dec 12,2006 Re: January 02,2007 hearing for the site at 3 Rio Court,Burlingame,CA 94010 Dear Sir/Madam I am writing this letter to request a postponement of hearing about the 3 Rio Court scheduled for Jan 02,2007. It is important for me and my family to attend this hearing because the decision made at the hearing will directly effect us. I am employed at San Francisco State University.The reason to my request is that the month of January is the only vacation time and my teaching would resume end of January 2007. Thank you very much for considering my request. Yours Sincerely X Amir Tabrizi S o T UJ (l c'e 4l)ro U t�iQ� �j 6-r26L ©n RECEIVED / DEC 12 2006 CITY OF B RIiNGFl EE tw �%� /CPQ✓'✓�-�, �-i T�� Myr wyl dig . Lawrence&Joanne Barulich 1821 Loyola Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 (cell)415/728-5840 (home)650/697-5984 December 13, 2006 RECEIVED DEC 13 2006 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME Re: Request to Re-Schedule the 3 Rio Court Second Story Addition Appeal Dear Council Members: My name is Lawrence Barulich and I live at 1821 Loyola Drive with my wife Joanne. We are opposing the second story addition to 3 Rio Court. We understand that there has been an Appeal filed and scheduled for the City Council to hear at the January 2"d meeting. We are requesting that the case be postponed until the January 15th meeting. This project has a huge negative impact on our home and on our neighbors' homes as well. With the pressure of the holiday season we will not have sufficient time to prepare for the Appeal. I am asking for the audio recordings of the Planning Commissioners meetings,and I am not sure how long it will take to receive and evaluate the tapes. Also, we would like to allow enough time to invite the Council Members to visit our home to observe the view blockage that a second story addition would create. Thank you for considering our request. Very truly yours, Lawrence Barulich RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AT 3 RIO COURT,ZONED R-1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS,a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and a hillside area construction permit for a first and second story addition at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1, Jeffrey Mark,property owner. APN: 025-051-200; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the City Council of the City of Burlingame on February 5,2007, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this City Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed,and comments received and addressed by the Planning Commission and City 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. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1(e)(1) -additions to existing structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. 2. Said design review and hillside area construction permit are approved,subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"A"attached hereto. Findings for such design review and hillside area construction permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 27th day of February,_Z007,by the following vote: Ayes: Council Members No: Council Members Abstaining: Council Members CITY CLERK 1 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and hillside area construction permit 3 Rio Court Effective December 7, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 3, 2006, sheets Al through A9, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be simulated true divided-lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Chief Building Official's, the Fire Marshal's, the Recycling Specialist's and the NPDES Coordinator's July 10, 2006 memos shall be met; 3. 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; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 3 --N ATTACHMENT E STEWART ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE • INTERIORS • PLANNING 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 TELEPHONE: (650) 591 -8283 FAX: (650) 591 -9578 January 19, 2007 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: City Council Re: Request for Hearing Postponement for 3 Rio Court Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter to request a postponement on behalf of my client, Jeffrey Mark, for the appeal hearing of 3 Rio Court scheduled for February 5, 2007. My client would like to have more time to prepare additional materials. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, �z ale John Stewart, AIA,, CORA '� �. w�l� l � ( I I� -i-L ,`2 S C•�.2 � +� �� '�U .�� i, , 21 , 2 �,*7. NIX, RECEIVED JAN 2 2 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ��CITY G A BUPUNGAME NPTEO JUNE° BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Special Meeting of December 13, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed special meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the Lane Community Room at the Main Library. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Albert Guibara. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None NEW BUSINESS -� a. REMOVAL OF TREE IN FRONT OF EASTON BRANCH LIBRARY Mayor Nagel announced that there will be a public hearing on the removal of the tree in front of the Easton Branch Library on Tuesday, January 16, 2007. She requested expansion of public noticing by issuing a press release, posting street signs by Public Works and including a notice in the City's e-Newsletter. b. PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL HEARING DATE ON 3 RIO COURT CC Mortensen said three letters from neighbors of 3 Rio Court had been received each requesting Council to postpone the appeal hearing date of January 2, 2007. One neighbor requested changing the date to January 15 and one requested a date after January 17, 2007. Council agreed to change the hearing date to Monday, February 5, 2007. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke on the Easton Branch Library tree: Mike Dillon, 1715 Easton Drive; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Joanne Garrison, 2905 Adeline Drive; Diane Condon Wirgler, 1536 Cypress; Sue Fuller, 2210 Poppy Drive; and. Jean Silveira, 2331 Poppy Drive, spoke on the Centennial monument. George Chavez, 1860 El Camino Real; Dan Andersen, 728 Vernon Way; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, and Mario Muzzi, 1766 El Camino Real, spoke on the proposed El Camino North Zoning District. Albert Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road, requested a study session on the Animal Shelter. Kevin Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road, spoke on City documents he is reviewing as they pertain to the proposed El Camino North Zoning 1 Burlingame City Council December 13,2006 Approved Minutes RECEIVED DEC 12 2006 TCLEURBLINGAEIOF Moyc RECEIVED CITY OF N DEC 13 006 GAME PLANNING DEPT. p e Ao-q dwAfl, �! h WA �o X2� deal?? 70 0 . 7'0 myw� To: City of Burlingame RECEIVED City Hall Council 501 Primrose Road DEC 12 2006 Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME From: Amir Tabrizi 5 Rio Court Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: Dec 12, 2006 Re: January 02, 2007 hearing for the site at 3 Rio Court, Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Sir/Madam I am writing this letter to request a postponement of hearing about the 3 Rio Court scheduled for Jan 02, 2007. It is important for me and my family to attend this hearing because the decision made at the hearing will directly effect us. I am employed at San Francisco State University. The reason to my request is that the month of January is the only vacation time and my teaching would resume end of January . 2007. Thank you very much for considering my request. Yours Sincerely Amir Tabrizi -F.e� S u V-e4j Ira RECEIVED DEC 1 3 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Lawrence&Joanne.Barulich 1821 Loyola Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 (cell)415/728-5840 (home) 650/697-5984 December 13, 2006 RECEIVED Burlingame City Council DEC ' 3 2006 501 Primrose Road CITY CLERK'S RiNGAME Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Request to Re-Schedule the 3 Rio Court Second Story Addition Appeal Dear Council Members: My name is Lawrence Barulich and I live at 1821 Loyola Drive with my wife Joanne. We are opposing the second story addition to 3 Rio Court. We understand that there has been an Appeal filed and scheduled for the City Council to hear at the January 2nd meeting. We are requesting that the case be postponed until the January 15`h meeting. This project has a huge negative impact on our home and on our neighbors' homes as well. With the pressure of the holiday season we will not have sufficient time to prepare for the Appeal. I am asking for the audio recordings of the Planning Commissioners meetings,and I am not sure how long it will take to receive and evaluate the tapes. Also, we would like to allow enough time to invite the Council Members to visit our home to observe the view blockage that a second story addition would create. Thank you for considering our request. Very truly yours, 4"'.. e&J— Lawrence Bandich pF 1 3 2(1Q' GIT,,of BURLINGi pLgNNING DEPT' ATTACHMENT F CLK-Mortensen, Doris ,... ,From: Terry Nagel [terrynagel@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 12:08 AM To: lawrence barulich Cc: CLK-City Clerk; GRP-Council Subject: Re: 3 Rio Ct Appeal on 2/05/07 Dear Mr . Barulich : Thank you for writing . I believe we have your request to reschedule your appeal hearing on the agenda for our Saturday meeting . It is helpful for us to have the staff report summarizing the issues before you schedule meetings with us . Once we have that in hand (generally the Thursday before the council meeting) , council members are usually quite willing to meet with all parties involved in an appeal . I am copying this email to all of the council . Terry Nagel Mayor On 1/ 24/ 07 , lawrence barulich <1 -j . barulich@sbcglobal . net> wrote : > Dear Mayor Nagel : > My name is Lawrence Barulich and I live at 1821 Loyola Drive in > Burlingame . I am protesting the appeal for the second story addition > to the > 3 Rio Court project . This project initially went before the Planning > Commission on September 11 , 2006 . `— > At that meeting, the architect , John Stewart , stated : " I don ' t > believe we ' re blocking anyone ' s view, substantially I wouldn ' t have > taken the project if I thought we were . " After the meeting, I gave CEIV F`'D > him my phone number and extended an invitation to him and the > homeowners to see the view blockage . After the story poles were 6107 > installed , I called Mr . Stewart ' s office and again extended an JAJAN > invitation . I was contacted by his secretary and told that if I had > any concerns I should pass them on through the Planning Commission . CfWIty OF BURUNaAME > Subsequently, I went to 3 Rio Court and again , in good faith , extended PlJpb ?41NG_l3f_PT. > another invitation to the homeowner to visit my home to see the view > blockage . I never heard from either of them until after the project > was denied and they filed an appeal to the City Council . > On December 14 , 2006 , I received a letter from Mr . Stewart > requesting to come by and take some pictures . After much consideration , I called Mr . > Stewart and told him he could come over but I had already submitted > two sets of photos and , if he wanted any more pictures , I would take > them for him, at which time he hung up on me . > What I am asking of you and the other Council Members is to see in > person , rather than in a photo , the impact the second story addition > will have on our view and our home .- Please contact me to schedule a > convenient time for you to come to our home . Thank You . @K > Sincerely, Larry Barulich City Please respond Manager > Cell ( 415 ) 728 - 5840/ Home ( 650 ) 697 - 5984 V•ty Ctty Attorney D No Response Required D ir. Finance Rt*City Planner ❑ Dir. Public Works D Human Resources ❑ Police Chief `- ❑ Fire Chief ❑ On Next Agenda ❑ Parks & Rec ❑ Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK 1 DISTRIBUTION: CLK-Mortensen,Doris From: Cathy Baylock[cathyb@baylock.comj Sent: Thursday,January 25,2007 10:01 AM To: lawrence barulich Cc: PLG-Monroe,Meg;CLK-Mortensen,Doris Subject: Re:3 Rio Ct Appeal on 2105/07 Dear Mr. Barulich, . Thank you for your note. I wanted to let you know that this matter most likely will e postponed until our February 21st meeting, which will be on a Wednesday (due to the President's holiday). I would like to obtain a copy of the plans before I meet with you, so will contact you when the time is closer to the actual meeting. I will contact you to set up a meeting date once I have a copy of the plans and staff report. Cathy Baylock BurlingameCity Council On Jan 24, 2007, at 11:06 PM, lawrence barulich wrote: > Dear Council Member Cathy Baylock: > My name is Lawrence Barulich and I live at 1821 Loyola Daddition > Burlingame. I am protesting the appeal for the second story > to the 3 Rio Court project. This project initially went before the > Planning Commission on September 11, 2006. > At that meeting, the arOIIeiseviewJohn Stewart, substantiallytItwouldn't ohave > believe we're blocking any I gave > taken the project if I thought we were." After the meeting, > him my phone number and extended an invitation to him andthere > homeowners to see the view blockage. After the story poles > installed, I,called Mr. Stewart's office and again extended an > invitation. I was contacted by his secretary and told that if I had > any concerns I should pass them on through the Planning commission. > Subsequently, I went to 3 Rio Court and again, ingood fait see the, extended > another invitation to the homeowner to visit my home view > blockage. I never heard from either of them until after the project > was denied and they filed an appeal to the City Council. > On December 14, 2006, I received a letter from Mr. > Stewart requesting to come by and take some pictures. After much > consideration, I called Mr. Stewart and told him he could come over > but I had already submitted two sets of photos and, if he wanted any > more pictures, I would take them for him, at which time he hung up on > me. > What I am asking of you and the other Council Members is to see in > person, rather than in a photo, the impact the second story addition > will> convenient time foreyounto comend our oto ourease homeconThan mY u. schedule a > Sincerely, Larry Barulich > Cell (415) 728-5840/ Home (650) 697-5984 1 Page 1 of 1 PLG-Monroe, Meg From: PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:28 AM To: PLG-Monroe, Meg Subject: 3 Rio Court Meg, On Tuesday, January 30, 2007, 1 contacted Jeffrey Mark, the property owner of 3 Rio Court, to discuss the re- installation of the orange netting on his story poles. I informed him that because he is scheduled on the February 21 , 2007 City Council Agenda, he needs to have the orange netting re-installed by Thursday, February 15, 20071 which is the day the Council Members receive their packets for the meeting. He told me that he will make sure the orange netting is re-installed by the 15th. He also confirmed with me that the poles that are currently up are the same poles that were installed prior to the Planning Commission Action Hearing, but that it's the orange netting that keeps blowing down. If you need to reach him for any reason, his number is (415) 760-1288. -Erica 1/30/2007 Alonzo Richardson 1809 Loyola Drive Burlingame, CA. 94010 FEB 5 2007 January 31, 2007 City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 RECEIVED Subject: 93 Rio Court FEB 0 5 2007 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Gentlemen: Please deny the permit to build a second story on the existing building at #3 Rio Court. All the houses in this area are single story, single family, residences. Every neighbor wishes it to remain that way. We feel the value of our property would suffer if a second story addition were permitted. I have lived at 1809 Loyola Drive for forty six years. I picked this neighborhood because it a single family area in which children could be raised under the watchful eyes of all the neighbors. The neighbors are also friends. I would like to attend the council meeting but find doing so at my age (90) is difficult. Please don not let this building addition destroy the friendly neighborhood we have enjoyed through the years. 1a City Council V•lv" please respond 0, Tty Manager Sincerely, Dr City Attorney No Response Required VV❑ Tr.Finance Planner ❑ Dir.Public Works ❑ Human Resources ❑ Police Chief ❑ Fire Chief D On Next Agenda ❑ Parks&Rec ❑ Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK nT.CTR TRT TTT 11N ..w.% �"�• �:i�+# �:�: rS h. ' A?# f ;'♦ sv � .y*..*pYk9";" ci _r. •i a"�� `�"` ••ridgy? V� nay}' '� "t1ti �-" ;�.Y' �E 'S` t x , n 9i't�a _ ......,Y•, � ., .'*! � r *�••.. torr; .� t .�'>ar a i. '' `.♦��3a s.,y, ,:. ""'fix,. i .. 7 E N a9 � ����'„ ,� �.., s .� y�s� Qy,.. fi Y fes` 'FS i A ",,, ,ct ...Y�(' r til•: 5. • _ M� y� ,. �l 4 � +�y� �''�"Y"• �""wry q�,�„� �* i -10 r 6 ,♦ .•. A: � _ y y'Y��� t 4 ���+� ��.9�Y� �'� s" '� T,'.� 'F�x ••n 'M tij.�,:t '�' �`T`•'!a�i'' Y� 7M1F� �C'� 0 i �•::,�i� 7� •5w�R �'Ri' .+ i4}nw�'�''�"�..., # �i .q,.,y' y, YY � �4J"Fa'., �i 1� • Y J' , v rr .. � • s, 4 it t j, ��` R � r: �•A .+sss r ,sT CS-~' .,� �r ! �� ,Ank��� ? � '7 q � „w�"_ • i ' ' /` •aR`` ,� � fey �,*..\, ;•� ,�. *•4r � �, r.} .w.+a;�� t a: ii'�.f d3 .1.Y i'{y"� � � t�»� ♦ ,�r,, *: 1 }ti AP t r A `'� ,.:.:.: ..' •\ .: .. , � s J� �+ F:� s��, t .'?,� .tom �•+*� �'� �^ �"'� ' •, p `t�;:•e`-- ��C }.'c 's" r may„ � - '.,�c s a„ a,'t•'�{$n�' wv`-�i, �� ( � L"♦•' w :. `.. .. :�,4� '� A �•"t'i��.\•:'..»r} .:.�A., *• e/, �¢� �� f�„} `4e tL JJ//L��^^ W. •,Y •�.. ` ,^� �7"y�'o,� ._ .?:;��,.�•K �,.t�.-�'S�. � � x!' F '"•w '�..�' '4{, J,µ" ,r,� ..+'.i`;'f��a «r^ `�� r '�S k,�t,;r• s:��• �. .P"�" r d� •�¢ a'�• " 'a,, t♦ a p..:.* .,�i,.., .,, +c., ,�'',' :',i:s ,^E`+ `iIC X44, '..as "�a� i �,'^ '1 °° a ,dei"'' ' • .,.+,ef r d�' - Q Yrr-!'. ♦t'�� r j !` '�.. / �;r:,�.,r. r „^�. '� .fpm 'c � = .f.,:?' .�¢ ;," �' ~1' �'' .�3c �'�e" ''��. � ,rst>�° ��+;► •'#rd ,V. • "`� 'i... , �53� „�, e .�^• is t.,..,',_*,...�.p,.,� ;4.., Xp[�+..�'' � •���a.�a.� ���aXY'"'�.�,�R� �' �..sz� `�,. !t'�l �'M �" Ma*.% ." •;.. " .t ::\ ,}'' " '.,,r`' �:- ,.'Y�; A !� «+ ,U w"'Vis:` [ - tx t��. , `* a01 ,y � .. :: „.f'. .„•�° n' .."^'.5;7•,� � ' `c'"' a ��,a:^ rt �,a"'' '�r,+K"✓�!'r � ,�:.� •�� '� "�: ». �+e. .., ., v k,. 3 �tl <e :��i"= �.� .as �,�yPu if•. ��r"::' M1x` ,.i - �u� �, � J*'y ' 71 ..,�'t yJ' ,, s" ♦ %r �".,�..,�. �W `3�.�3 rr:<. �"k' �.: �'�f 't���: Rr. �`>'�cY ';r,' ��• Ar :,�. cy ..; �. -�+.��+�,y,,t+,,P ''w.- r� '''�:�; f � ,.'.ar �f' �,.',;r.y'�' !�„k,�;�� ' •�°'yE•R. ;'•i .J.;:�t ft 1 °�'% • 'i• ♦.,i� .� Imo•,' ,. �Fps�,.,. - ... �` .. �,�.f,,t� .r�C����1' .t Y�'�t" ;`t '"sf a c '.2-ffi. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 C16i i' ,04325 TEL:(650)558-7250•(650)696-3790 9 www.burlingame.org �� CJ 00.240 Maiied From 94010 HEARING DATE CHANGED Site: 3 RIO COURT PUBLIC HEARING Appeal to the City Council the Planning Commission's decision on NOTICE design review and a hillside area construction permit for a single family house at 3 Rio Court zoned R-1 (APN 025-051-200). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the public hearing on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. For additional information,contact the Planning Department at (650)558-7250. Mailed: January 30,2007 - (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application' and;plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. . Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) ATTACHMENT H RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permits for an attached garage and declining height envelope for a new single family house located at 3 Rio Court, zoned R-1_,APN: 025-051-200; Jeffery Mark,property owner. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on November 27, 2007, at which time said application was denied without prejudice; WHEREAS,this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on February 21,2007,at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW,THEREFORE,it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed,and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303-Class 3-construction and location of limited numbers of new,small facilities or structures including(a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas,up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review special permits for design review and Hillside Area Construction Permit subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"A"attached hereto. Findings for such design review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are as set forth in the Planning Commission and City Council staffreports,meeting minutes and recordings of said meetings. 3. 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, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16th day of June, 2003, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COIJNCILMEM 3ERS: CITY CLERK Exhibit A 3 Rio Court 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 3, 2006, sheets Al through A9, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be simulated true divided-lite windows with three dimensional wood mullions; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Chief Building Official's, the Fire Marshal's, the Recycling Specialist's and the NPDES Coordinator's July 10, 2006 memos shall be met; 3. 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; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8. that 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 2 Exhibit A 3 Rio Court 11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. 3 CITY C� STAFF REPORT BU UNGAME AGENDA ITEM # 6c MTG. 'MCO� FATED JUNE b`9O0 DATE February 21, 2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBM1T BY DATE: February 21, 2007 API OVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY SUBJECT: Final Adoption of an Ordinance Calling For a Special Municipal Bond Election for Approval of Bonds to Finance Construction and Completion of Municipal Improvements for Flood Control and Safety Improvements to Existing Recreation Center Recommendation That the Council adopt an ordinance calling for a special municipal bond election for approval of bonds to finance construction and completion of municipal improvements for flood control and safety improvements to existing recreation center. Background On January 16, 2007 the Council introduced an ordinance calling for a special election on June 5, 2007 for the purpose of obtaining voter approval for the issuance of general obligation bonds. The total amount of bonds to be issued is $37 million. The proceeds will be used for the following purposes: Improvements Amount Storm Drainage $ 35 million Recreation Center $ 2 million Total: $ 37 million The term of the bonds is 30 years. Four separate series of bonds will be issued for a total of $37 million. Fiscal Implications General obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the city. Repayment is ensured by an associated new property tax levy. Annual debt payments and associated annual administrative costs are distributed to all Burlingame property owners based on the assessed value of their property. The annual debt payments are estimated to be: Total Bonds Issued $37 million Average debt payment $ 25214,779 Maximum debt payment $ 2,690,288 Total debt payments $795732,038 Ordinance Calling A June 2007 G.O. Bond Election.doc Page 1 The typical annual tax payment for Burlingame residents is estimated using the median assessed value of a single family residence. That amount is currently $425,000. Burlingame homeowners with this assessed value will pay the following estimated amounts: Tax Payment $37 million Minimum $17.72 Average $96.86 Maximum $159.89 Election Costs A preliminary cost for a June election is estimated to be $90,000. At present only the city measure would appear on the ballot. Funds would need to be appropriated to the City Clerks Office from the budget contingency reserve. The reserve is currently set at $500,000. Voter education costs are not included. If the Council believes that Burlingame voters should be better informed about the election then additional funds would be needed for voter education materials or services. Storm Drainage Improvements The bond proceeds will fund $35 million in storm drain work. The scope of the improvements is reduced from the original Measure H list. Two projects would be deferred into the future. They are the Easton Creek Levee and Catch Basin Improvements ($1.5 million) and the Bayfront Improvements ($2.5 million). Recreation Center Improvements The bond proceeds will also fund seismic improvements at the recreation center. The work has been identified as necessary to protect our citizens and preserve the integrity of the building in the event of an earthquake. The improvements are not a long-term solution to the continuing need for a new community center, but they serve an important purpose in ensuring citizens that their lives and property are protected. Citizens'Oversight Committee A citizens' oversight committee shall be appointed by the City Council upon voter approval of the bonds. The oversight committee will monitor the expenditure of bond proceeds and have the authority to request annual independent audits of expenditures. Attachments Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Calling A Special Municipal Bond Election For Approval of Bonds to Finance Construction and Completion of Municipal Improvements for Flood Control and Safety Improvements to Existing Recreation Center Ordinance Calling A June 2007 G.O.Bond Election.doc Page 2 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION FOR APPROVAL OF 3 BONDS TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL, AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS TO 4 EXISTING RECREATION CENTER 5 6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as 7 follows: 8 WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Burlingame (the "City"), 9 by resolution duly passed and adopted by affirmative vote of more than two-thirds of all its 10 members at a meeting of the Council duly and regularly held on January 16, 2007, did 11 determine that the public interest and necessity demand the design, construction and completion 12 of the municipal improvements hereinafter mentioned; and did further determine that the cost 13 of the design, construction and completion of said City plan of municipal improvements will be 14 too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City and will require 15 an expenditure greater than the amount allowed therefor by the annual tax levy, and will require 16 the incurring of a bonded indebtedness therefor; and 17 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has heretofore approved a city plan of 18 improvements consisting of the aforementioned projects; and 19 WHEREAS, this Ordinance was introduced and first read at a meeting of the City 20 Council held and conducted on January 16, 2007; and 21 WHEREAS, a summary of this ordinance was published not less than 5 days prior to 22 this meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 36933; 23 24 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as 25 follows: 26 27 Section 1. Specifications of Election Order. 28 (a) A special municipal bond election is hereby ordered to be held throughout the City 1/16/2007 1 I of Burlingame on June 5, 2007, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the 2 City a proposition of incurring bonded indebtedness of the City, summarized for purposes of 3 Section 13247 of the Elections Code of the State of California(the "Elections Code"), as 4 follows: 5 6 "BURLINGAME FLOOD PROTECTION AND SAFETY MEASURE. To safeguard 7 Burlingame residents, homes and businesses, shall the City of Burlingame be authorized 8 to issue $35,000,000 in bonds to improve aging and undercapacity flood control 9 infrastructure; and for seismic stability, disabled access, safety, security, fire protection, 10 and ventilation improvements in the existing City recreation center, shall the City be 11 authorized to issue $2,000,000 in bonds; with all expenditures monitored by a citizens' 12 oversight committee with annual independent audits?" 13 14 (b) The Registrar of Voters (the "Registrar of Voters") of the County of San Mateo 15 (the "County") is hereby requested to reprint the summary of the measure contained in 16 subdivision (a) of this Section (the "Measure") as the ballot measure in all official materials 17 pertaining to the election, including notices of election, notices inviting arguments, and other 18 notices, voter information pamphlets, and the official ballots. 19 20 Section 2. Required Recitals. 21 (a) Purpose. The object and specific purpose of incurring the indebtedness is to 22 finance a portion of the cost of construction and completion of the municipal improvements 23 described in Section 1(a) hereof(including acquisition and/or construction of other facilities, 24 works, property, or structures necessary or convenient for the flood control improvements so 25 described), and proceeds of the bonds shall be spent only for such purposes, pursuant to 26 Government Code Section 53410. These municipal improvements constitute and are hereby 27 approved as the City's plan of improvements proposed to be funded from a bond issue at this 28 time. 111612007 2 I (b) Cost of Improvements. The estimated cost of the municipal improvements 2 described in subdivision (a) to be funded from the bonds is $37,000,000. The estimated cost of 3 the municipal improvements includes legal and other fees incidental to or connected with the 4 authorization, issuance and sale of the proposed bonds, the costs of printing the bonds and other 5 costs and expenses incidental to or connected with the authorization, issuance and sale of the 6 bonds. 7 (c) Amount of Bonds. The amount of principal of the indebtedness proposed to be 8 incurred for said municipal improvements is $35,000,000 for flood control improvements and 9 $2,000,000 for the safety improvements to the existing recreation center described in Section 10 1(a). 11 (d) Maximum Interest Rate. Said bonds shall bear interest at the rate of not to 12 exceed 12%per annum, the maximum currently allowed by law, such rate or rates to be 13 determined at the time of sale of the bonds or any series thereof. 14 (e) Date of Election. The election will be held on June 5, 2007. 15 (f) Election Procedures; Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to Section 10400 and 16 following of the Elections Code, the Board of Supervisors of the County and the Registrar of 17 Voters are hereby authorized and requested to canvass the returns of the election. Except as 18 otherwise provided herein, the manner of holding the election, the forms of the ballots, the 19 procedures for soliciting ballot arguments and the dates on which such arguments are due, the 20 procedures for voting for or against the Measure, the procedures for canvassing the vote, and all 21 other procedures for conducting the election, shall be as directed by the Elections Code, or as 22 determined by the Registrar of Voters in accordance with the Elections Code. The City Clerk is 23 hereby authorized and directed to cooperate with the Registrar of Voters and to follow the 24 procedures and meet all deadlines established by the Registrar of Voters. Costs charged by the 25 County for conducting the election are hereby declared to be a cost of the municipal 26 improvements to be paid from the proceeds of bonds. The Measure shall be approved by the 27 affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on the Measure. 28 (g) Maximum Maturity of Bonds. The final maturity date of any of the bonds shall 1/16/2007 3 I not exceed 40 years from the time of incurring the indebtedness evidenced by such bonds or the 2 series of bonds of which such bonds are a part. 3 (h) Special Bond Proceeds Account; Annual Report to Council. Upon approval of 4 the Measure and the sale of any bonds approved, the Council shall establish an improvement 5 fund or account (which may be an existing fund or account, if appropriate) in which proceeds of 6 the sale of bonds will be deposited. As long as any proceeds of the bonds remain unexpended, 7 the City Manager shall cause a report to be filed with the Council no later than December 31 of 8 each year, commencing December 31, 2007, stating (1) the amount of bond proceeds received 9 and expended in that year, and (2)the status of any project funded or to be funded from bond 10 proceeds. The report may relate to the calendar year, fiscal year, or other appropriate annual 11 period as the City Manager shall determine, and may be incorporated into the annual budget, 12 audit, or other appropriate routine report to the Council. 13 14 Section 3. Request for Consolidation. Pursuant to its resolution declaring the public 15 interest and necessity of calling the election, adopted on January 16, 2007, the Council hereby 16 requests with respect to the special municipal bond election called hereby, that the Board of 17 Supervisors of the County consolidate said election with any other election being conducted on 18 the same date in the same territory or any territory which is in part the same. The precincts, 19 polling places and officers of election shall be the same as those set forth in any order of the 20 Registrar of Voters or the Board of Supervisors of the County providing for the precincts, 21 polling places and election officers for any other election to be conducted on the date of the 22 special municipal bond election, as set forth in the notice to be published by the Registrar of 23 Voters pursuant to Sections 12105 and 10417 of the Elections Code. 24 25 Section 4. Tax Rate Statement. The Finance Director of the City is hereby 26 authorized and directed to cause to be prepared a tax rate statement as required by Elections 27 Code Section 9401 in connection with the Measure. The Finance Director shall submit the Tax 28 Rate Statement to the City Attorney and the City Clerk, in such time to permit the City Clerk to 111612007 4 I cause the Tax Rate Statement to be filed with the Registrar of Voters at the same time as this 2 Ordinance is filed, in any event no later than March 9, 2007. 3 4 Section 5. Primary Arguments. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to 5 select an argument for and an argument against the measure to be printed and distributed to the 6 voters pursuant to Elections Code Section 9287. 7 8 Section 6. Rebuttal Arguments. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to 9 enable preparation and submittal of rebuttal arguments as set forth in Elections Code Section 10 9285. The City Council hereby affirms it adoption of the provisions of Elections Code Section 11 9285(a) with regard to rebuttal arguments. 12 13 Section 7. Impartial Analysis. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy 14 of the Measure to the City Attorney of the City, who is hereby directed to prepare the impartial 15 analysis of the Measure pursuant to Elections Code Section 9280. The City Attorney shall 16 cause the Impartial Analysis to be filed with the City Clerk no later than March 26, 2007. 17 18 Section 8. Notice of Election. Notice of the election shall be given by publication 19 of this ordinance in a newspaper published at least six days per week in the City, once a day for 20 at least seven days prior to the holding of the election, and the City Clerk is hereby ordered and 21 directed to cause this ordinance to be so published. No other notice of the election need be 22 given. 23 24 Section 9. Filing with Registrar of Voters. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and 25 directed to file a certified true and correct copy of this Ordinance with the Registrar of Voters as 26 soon as practicable after the adoption hereof, and in any event no later than March 9, 2007. 27 28 Section 10. Effective Date. A two-thirds vote of all of the members of the Council is 1/16/2007 5 I required for approval of this ordinance. Being an ordinance calling and ordering an election, 2 this ordinance shall take effect from and after its final passage and approval. 3 4 Mayor 5 6 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 7 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16`h 8 day of January, 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 9 the day of , 2007, by the following vote of at least four-fifths of its 10 members: 11 12 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 13 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 15 16 City Clerk 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1/16/2007 6 ACITY ob STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8a tico9 ao MTG. g0*ATEC JUNE 6' DATE 2/21/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY M4-- DATE: February 12,2007 APPROVED FROM: Central County Fire Department BY SUBJECT: REVISION TO BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE §17.04.030 Recommendation: Consider introduction of ordinance modifying Burlingame Municipal Code §17.04.030 to clarify the original intent of the Retrofit Sprinkler Ordinance for Commercial Buildings as follows: A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Background: Burlingame Municipal Code §17.04.030, specifically where it recognizes the retrofit installation of fire sprinklers in commercial buildings, was amended and became effective January 2005. At that time, the intent of the changes to this particular section was to change the threshold requirements from a "financial qualifier"to a "square footage of remodel qualifier". The result of this package maintained the same sprinkler force and effect as the sprinkler ordinance that was originally adopted in 1992 and previously amended in 2001. With the threshold change in 2001 from buildings in excess of 5,000 sq. ft. to buildings in excess of 2,000 sq. ft. a significant number of buildings have been required to come into-compliance with the commercial retrofit requirements. In keeping with the original intent of the fire department, and the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, to increase the number of sprinklered buildings in the downtown area and protect the economic value and infrastructure, the application of this section has come into question with multi-tenant buildings. The proposed modification to Burlingame Municipal Code §17.04.030 clarifies the intent of this section to ensure buildings that meet the threshold requirements, regardless of the number of different tenant changes, are retrofitted with fire sprinklers. Budget Impact: No impacts identified. Attachments: Expressed Terms and Text of Burlingame Municipal Code §17.04.030 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 17.04.030 (ADDING SUBSECTIONS 1003.2.1.2 TO THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE)TO CLARIFY 3 SPRINKLER RETROFITTING REQUIREMENTS 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. Chapter 17.04 currently provides standards for the installation of sprinkler fire 9 extinguishing systems in commercial and residential buildings. This ordinance is intended to clarify 10 the point at which such systems will be required to eliminate reference to a"premises," and instead 11 make clear that the measurements apply to an entire building. 12 13 Section 2. Subsections 1003.2.1.2(6) and(7) of the Uniform Fire Code as contained in 14 Section 17.04.030 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 15 6. When hi the event fl building is partially retrofitted with an approved automatic 16 sprinkler fire extinguishing system pursuant to this section,the building shall complete the fire 17 extinguishing system retrofit throughout the unprotected building interior areas within six (6) years 18 from completing the initial partial retrofit. 19 7. The size or cost of additions and alterations used in calculating the size or replacement 20 cost value formula shall not be cumulative with regard to individual additions or alterations in a 21 building unless either of the following two circumstances apply: 22 (a) Where more than one(1) addition or alteration for which building permits are required 23 are made within a two (2)year period=d said additions or alterations are inade to the pmmises 0 24 the same ocenpwit. In such circumstances,the sum of the size or costs of these additions or . 25 alterations during this two (2)year period shall be aggregated for the purpose of calculating the size 26 or replacement cost value formula; or 27 (b)Where more than one(1) addition or alteration for which building permits have been 28 issued have not yet received final Building Department approval. In such circumstances, the sum of 2/2/2007 1 1 these issued but not yet finalized building additions' or alterations' sizes or construction costs shall be 2 aggregated for the purpose of calculation of the size or replacement cost value formula. 3 EXCEPTIONS: The cost of additions and alterations used in calculating the replacement 4 cost value formula shall be exclusive of the cost to design and install an automatic fire sprinkler 5 extinguishing system pursuant to this section; building roof repair/replacement; building heating 6 and/or cooling unit repair/replacement; and any other federal, state and local construction code 7 upgrade requirements including but not limited to the American Disability Act architectural barrier 8 removal requirements, Title 24 handicap compliance requirements, seismic retrofit requirements, 9 asbestos and other hazardous material abatement. 10 11 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 12 13 14 Mayor 15 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 16 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 17 , 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 18 , 2007, by the following vote: 19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 23 24 City Clerk U:\FILES\ORDINANC\ufc2OO7-I.bld.wpd 25 26 27 28 2/2/2007 2 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 8b ITEM# a�oq 900 MTG. ORATEOJUNE6 DATE 2/21/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY .._1 DATE: February 21, 2007 APPROVED FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance and Resolution of Intention to Amend the Contract for Miscellaneous Employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and the City of Burlingame RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System to provide Section 21548 (Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit) for local miscellaneous members. Staff also recommends that the Council introduce the proposed Ordinance to amend the City of Burlingame's contract with the California Public Employees' Retirement System(CaIPERS) for same. Pursuant to CaIPERS requirements, the City Council must adopt the Resolution of Intention and introduce the proposed ordinance to amend the CaIPERS agreement as follows: 1. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. 2. Waive further reading of the ordinance. 3. Introduce the proposed ordinance. 4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before the proposed adoption. The ordinance would then come back for adoption on the March 19 agenda. BACKGROUND: This contract amendment will provide improved survivor benefits to miscellaneous employees who die and are eligible to retire. Currently, if a miscellaneous employee dies and is eligible to retire (age 50 or over with at least 5 years of PERS service),the employee's surviving spouse or domestic partner is eligible to receive 50%of the monthly retirement allowance the employee would have received if he/she had retired on the date of death. The Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit is a PERS contract option that provides a monthly allowance in an amount calculated as though the employee had retired on the date of death and selected the option that gives the highest amount to a survivor. The Police Safety and Fire Safety plans already have this contract option in place, as it is a mandatory benefit for plans that have less than 100 members and are therefore pooled. The miscellaneous plan is not pooled, and requires a contract amendment to implement this option. To do so would provide peace of mind to retirement- eligible employees, and parity with the Fire and Police safety plans. BUDGET IMPACT: The change in the present value of benefits that the Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit represents is $282,769. The change in the accrued liability is $194,172. The change in the total employer rate is 0.246%. There is sufficient funding in the 2006-2007 budget to cover this small rate increase. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Intention Ordinance to Amend Agreement Exhibit—Amendment to Contract RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF BURLINGAME WHEREAS,the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees'Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law;and WHEREAS,one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract;and WHEREAS,the following is a statement of the proposed change: To provide Section 21548(Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit)for local miscellaneous members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing body of the above agency does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto,as an"Exhibit"and by this reference made a part hereof. By: Presiding Officer Title Date adopted and approved (Amendment) CON-302(Rev.4/96) I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND 3 THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) TO PROVIDE PRE-RETIREMENT OPTIONAL SETTLEMENT 2 DEATH BENEFIT 4 TO MISCELLANEOUS MEMBERS 5 6 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 7 Section 1 . Pursuant to the California Government Code and the Contract between the City 8 of Burlingame and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), the City has 9 recognized that its miscellaneous members are being treated differently than its safety members in 10 that safety members are automatically provided a pre-retirement death benefit for survivors, and 11 that the failure to provide this benefit could deprive a member's survivors of the retirement benefit 12 that an eligible member has earned over years of service, simply because the member did not file 13 for retirement before a sudden death. On , 2007, the City Council adopted a 14 Resolution of Intention to consider this amendment at a duly noticed public hearing, and notice of 15 that public hearing has been properly provided. Written comments and oral testimony of all 16 interested persons have been considered. 17 Section 2. The Amendment to the Contract between the City of Burlingame and the Board 18 of Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy 19 of this amendment is attached to this ordinance, marked Exhibit A. and by such reference is made 20 a part hereof as though herein set out in full. The amendment shall be effective on 21 2007. 22 Section 3. The Mayor of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized, empowered, and 23 directed to execute this amendment for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 24 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty 25 days after its adoption. 26 27 28 Mayor 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 2 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 3 of ,2007,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4 day of , 2007, by the following vote: 5 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8 9 City Clerk 10 U:\FILES\ORDINANOcalpersemnT per.wpd 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CaIPERS EXHIBIT California Public Employees' Retirement System AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees ' Retirement System and the City Council City of Burlingame The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1, 1942, and witnessed July 6, 1942, and as amended effective February 1, 1954, July 1, 1956, April 1 , 1963, March 1, 1964, April 1, 1965, March 16, 1967, November 1, 1968, September 1, 1970, April 1, 1973, May 1, 1974, November 1, 1974, February 20, 1975, March 16, 1975, July 1, 1976, August 16, 1976, May 1, 1979, December 1, 1985, December 1, 1987, December 6, 1989, November 15, 1990, May 26, 1997, December 12, 2000, November 1, 2001, December 30, 2001, July 15, 2002, June 5, 2003, July 12, 2004 and June 26, 2006 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective June 26, 2006, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members, age 55 for local fire members and age 50 for local police members. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLf" 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after July 1, 1942 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof,apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters(herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers(herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law,the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. PLAYGROUND LEADERS WHO ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY BASIS;POLICE CADETS,AND LIBRARY PAGES HIRED ON OR AFTER MARCH 16,1967;AND b. FIRE CADETS AND CROSSING GUARDS HIRED ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 1974. 5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2%at age 55 Full). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local police member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362.2 of said Retirement Law (3%at age 50 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local fire member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21363.1 of said Retirement Law (3%at age 55 Full). FL LASE L/ lJ NOT f4 +' (( C'qi ; S a �P'R,°.�'.. t "{ j °9 8. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only. b. Section 20425 ("Local Police Officer" shall include employees of a police department who were employed to perform identification or communication duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local safety members). C. Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1970). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1 , 1980. d. Section 21222.2 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1971 ). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1 , 1980. e. Sections 21624, 21626 and 21628 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance). f. Section 21319 (One-Time 15% Increase for Local Miscellaneous Members Who Retired or Died Prior to July 1 , 1971 ). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1 , 2002. g. Section 20614, Statutes of 1978, (Reduction of Normal Member Contribution Rate). From May 1 , 1979 and until December 1 , 1985, the normal local miscellaneous member contribution rate shall be 3.5% and local safety member contribution rate shall be 4.5%. Legislation repealed said Section effective September 29, 1980. h. Section 20690, Statutes of 1980, (To Prospectively Revoke Section 20614, Statutes of 1978). i. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation). j. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only. k. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave) for local miscellaneous members and local fire members only. I. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service). M. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit). -PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY , n. Section 21037 (Cancellation of Payment for Optional Service Credit Upon Retirement for Industrial Disability). o. Section 21548 (Pre-Retirement Optional Settlement 2 Death Benefit) for local miscellaneous members only. 9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on August 16, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent. remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions reg4ired of any employee may be made by direct payments between the m°.pfoyee and the Board. ,<� B. This amendment shall be,e�f ctive on the day of , BOARD OF ADMINISTRAI�� CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' -IREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF BURLINGAME BY BY LORI MCGAR—TE"AND, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOY ERVICES DIVISION PUBLIOX IPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM ;af ro .6 Witness Date ` Attest: U� s C�rd w AMENDMENT ER#18 PERS-CON-702A(Rev. 10\05) CITY 0 BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 8c ITEM # ,q loo m MTG. M JUNE"' DATE 2.21.07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY OC12;VA—Af DATE: JANUARY 31, 2007 APPROV �% Cl FROM: CITY PLANNER BY AP Contact No.: (650)558-7250 Z SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO EST LISH NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS, RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SITE MAINTENANCE. INTRODUCTION: City Council should review the proposed ordinance to amend the Municipal Code building provisions to specify requirements for extension to building permits, renewal of building permits and to require construction site maintenance. A public hearing is not required at introduction. Council should review the provisions of the draft Ordinance attached and direct staff. Introduction of the proposed ordinance requires the following Council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If the direction in the proposed ordinance clear, this item should be set for a second reading, public hearing and action at the Council meeting of March 5, 2007. CEQA Compliance: Categorically Exempt: C.S. 15321 Enforcement Actions by regulatory Agencies. Class 21 (a) Actions by regulatory agencies to enforce or revoke a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement for use issued, adopted or prescribed by the regulatory agency or enforcement of a law, general rule, standard of objective, administered or adopted by the regulatory agency. General Plan Compliance: The General Plan is implemented by the zoning code and the building and fire codes. Because the California Building Code and California Fire Codes are based on protection of life and public safety, they are determined to be consistent with the city's development policy and therefore the city's General Plan. These code amendments clarify the intended protection of life and the public's safety in the City of Burlingame. Further the provisions of this ordinance clarify the administration of the zoning code regulations regarding the term of planning approvals which are based on the duration of building permits. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEWREQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS,RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SITE MAINTENANCE. February 21,2007 Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on January 8, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended to City Council proposed changes to the Burlingame amendments to the California Building Code which include requirements for extending building permits, renewing building permits and for construction site maintenance during building. The Commissioners voted 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent) to recommend the amendments to the City Council for adoption. In their discussion the commissioners noted that in the provision addressing construction site maintenance it was not clear that the term `litter' included construction debris; and in their action they amended the language of this provision. (See attached Ordinance draft CS 8.17.015). In the discussion it was noted that this provision was being recommended because currently there is no code section which can be used to require builders who create a neighborhood nuisance during their construction to clean up the site. This provision would address that problem. Enforcement would be employed either if the city determines that the condition of the site is a public safety nuisance or if someone complains about construction site maintenance, and their complaint is substantiated after a site inspection. It should be noted that in this same action, the Planning Commission adopted a Planning Commission Resolution which created an additional inspection during construction of projects which require design review. This new step is a framing certification by an architect or residential designer that confirms that the framing of the structure is consistent with the approved design. This certification must be submitted before a final framing inspection will be scheduled by the Building Division. Since this direction related to process and Planning Commission standard conditions, it does not require City Council action and was not included for consideration in this staff report. BACKGROUND: When the Planning Commission reviewed the Municipal Code provisions for demolition permits and the penalties for doing work without a building permit, Commission also recognized that there was a related planning/building issue which had not been addressed, permit extensions and renewals. Permit extensions are a concern to the Planning Commission because once a planning approval is granted, the planning approval continues until work under the building permit is completed or the building permit expires. It has always been assumed that builders have strong economic incentive to complete a project as quickly as possible so extensions are not a problem. However, occasionally we encounter a builder who sits on a project. Because a planning approval can be extended only once, and for no more than a year, after that developers generally get their building permit (which holds the planning approvals) and then sit inactive paying for consecutive building permit extensions. Currently a building permit can be renewed an unlimited number of times by simply paying the same fee the first time and double the building permit fee for any number of subsequent renewals. There is a second problem related to building permit extensions. On occasion a contractor will remodel a house or build a new one without getting a final inspection. Sometimes the new owner is unaware that a final inspection was not made; or, on a remodel, the homeowner was under the mistaken assumption that the county assessor does not reassess a property until the final inspection has been made. This is not so; often today the issuance of the building permit triggers reassessment. But old notions die hard. So not infrequently the Building Division is approached years later by a homeowner who now wants to sell their house, only to discover that they cannot because they cannot document that a final inspection of the earlier improvements was done and any required corrections completed. 2 AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS,RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SITE MAINTENANCE. February 21,2007 Finally, as the subcommittee continued to work, another related issue arose: should the City have a construction site maintenance requirement e.g. litter and debris control. There have been numerous complaints from neighbors on blocks where houses are under construction that the construction sites are an eyesore, with litter blowing all over or littering the ground; fences down with landscaping ignored and dying; and no containers provided to fix these problems or effort made to maintain the site. The City's Code Enforcement officer has pointed out that there is no provision in the Burlingame Municipal Code that she can use to enforce construction site maintenance unless it becomes a fire hazard or can be declared a public nuisance. These problems were the focus of the Permit Processing Subcommittee's discussion. The solutions proposed by the Subcommittee, as amended by the Planning Commission, are summarized below. Attached is an annotated set of the proposed regulations which explains the reasoning behind each of the proposed changes. Summary of Proposed Municipal Code Amendments: CS 18.07.070 Section 303.4- Expiration o No change is proposed to the duration of the initial building permit. The duration of building permits is based on valuation with the shortest time being 6 months for $10,000 or less valuation and 36 months for $10,000,000 or more in valuation. o The changes to the current regulations are based on the permit extensions provisions and include: o Request for an extension must be submitted before the original permit expires. o A permit may be extended only twice. o If a permit is extended the work must be active, the applicant must call for a major inspection every 120 days or the extension and permit will expire. o At the end of two extensions, the building permit will expire, with the subsequent loss of both Planning approvals and any exemptions obtained from compliance with the earlier building code requirements. o Regardless of the extension provisions, if a project requiring a planning approval has been issued a building permit and there has been no construction action on the building permit, the planning approval shall be voided. CS 18.07.075 Short time extension to a building permit. o Building official shall have the authority to issue one `short term' extension to a building permit if the following criteria are met; o No other extensions have been previously granted. o The request for the extension is received in writing. o The applicant can provide a copy of the original construction plans that were approved by the city. o There is a record that all inspections have been passed except the final inspection. o A fee equal to two hours of inspection is paid at the time the extension is issued. o The project shall be inspected based on the building code requirements in effect at the time the original work being inspected was done. o The work identified in the final inspection must be completed within 30 days. CS 18.07.080 Section 304.2 amended—Permit fees. o Fees for permit extensions will increase with each extension: the first extension will be two times the original building permit fee; the fee for the second extension, which is the last extension, shall be three times the original building permit fee. 3 AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS,RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION SITE MAINTENANCE. February 21,2007 CS 8.17.025 Construction Site Maintenance o Focus is on personal litter and construction debris generated by workers, employees, contractors and others who may be on the site during construction. o Property owner or contractor is required to provide covered litter containers on site during construction, in sufficient number to hold all the litter generated, and clean up construction debris. o Litter on site shall be placed in the containers at the end of each working day, construction materials should be covered. EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 Attachment B: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 18.07 to Specify Requirements for Issuance of a Demolition Permit and to Clarify Civil Penalties for Work without Construction Permits. Attachment C: Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2007. BUDGET IMPACT: None. These regulations will be administered and enforced by existing staff in the Building Division, Planning Department and, where appropriate, by the City's Code Enforcement Officer. U:ACCStaffRepts\CCSR 2007\lntro Bldg Permit Ext Construct maintne 2.21.07.doc 4 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENSIONS TO PERMIT AND AMENDING 3 CHAPTER 8.17 TO REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION SITE MAINTENANCE 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. Current provisions of the Municipal Code do not provide clear timelines for 9 completion of building construction, and projects can drag on for years without significant incentives 10 or penalties for a failure to complete the construction. This adversely affects neighborhoods and 11 makes the ultimate construction outdated with regard to health and safety codes. This ordinance will 12 set timelines and incentives to complete construction in a reasonable fashion. It also establishes a 13 basic community standard for maintaining a construction site. 14 15 Section 2. Section 18.07.070 is amended to read as follows: 16 18.07.070 Section 303.4 amended—Permit expiration—Failure to complete. 17 Section 303.4 is amended to read as follows: 18 303.4 Expiration. All work to be performed under a building permit shall be completed 19 within the maximum time allowed for the construction as follows: 20 Total Estimated Cost Total Time Allowed 21 $10,000 or less........................................................... 6 months 22 Over$10,000 to and including$50,000..................... 12 months 23 Over$50,000 to and including$1,000,000................ 18 months 24 Over$1,000,000 to and including$2,000,000........... 24 months 25 Over$2,000,000 to and including$10.000,000........ 30 months 26 Over$10,000,000...................................................... 36 months 27 set fbrth her . Failure to complete the work within the time allowed, unless an extension of time 28 has been specifically approved by the building official will cause the permit for such work to become 21112007 1 I null and void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees 2 shall be required to recommence work. The request for an extension of time must be submitted in 3 writing prior to the expiration of the time allowed. 4 The time limit allowed to complete the work and obtain a building final,for any permit that 5 has been extended shall be one year from the date of the extension. Failure to complete the work 6 within the time allowed by a first permit extension will cause the permit for such work to become 7 null and void, unless a second extension has been specifically approved by the building official. A 8 new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to 9 recommence work. Prior to expiration of a fir st extension of a building permit, an owner may apply 10 ,for a second extension. The request for a second extension of time must be submitted in writing 11 prior to the expiration of the time allowed under the first extension. 12 Every permit extension issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the technical 13 codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such 14 permit extension is not recommenced within 120 days from the date ofsuch permit extension, or if 15 the building or work authorized by such permit extension is suspended or abandoned at any time 16 after the work is recommenced for a period of 120 days. The building or work shall be considered 17 suspended or abandoned if a substantial inspection has not been conducted The following are 18 considered substantial inspections when all corrections have been pe7formed and that portion of the 19 work has been signed off by a city inspector: 20 1. Foundation; 21 2. Underground plumbing; electrical, and mechanical; 22 3. Underfloor framing,plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 23 4. Shear walls, hold downs, roof diaphragm, and connectors; 24 5. Rough framing,plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 25 6. Insulation; 26 7. Sheetrock; and 27 8. Final 28 After suspension or abandonment and before such work can be recommenced, a new permit 2/112007 2 I shall be first obtained and the fee therefore shall be the anaount required for the original permit. 2 The expiration of a building permit without an extension pursuant to this section or at the 3 end of the second extension shall result in the expiration of any approvals under Chapter 25 4 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, including local 5 amendments. 6 The fees for the first extension shall be the amount required for the original permit. If no 7 changes in plans or specifications have been made,no additional plan checking fees will be required. 8 The fee for the second and subsequent extensions shall be double the original permit fee or $500. 9 vdiichever is greater. The fee for the second extension shall be two (2) times the original building 10 permit fee. 11 There shall be no extensions of a building permit after the second extension. 12 Total Estimat , et _ Total Time AffoWed 13 $10,000 or less...................................................... 6 months 12 Mo 14 Over $f 0,000 to and including $50,000................. 15 ............. 18 moi 16 ........ 24 moi 17 ..... 30 mon 18Over $H,000,000 ................................................... 36 mon 19 Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a building permit was issued for part 20 or all of a project or building which was required to obtain a special permit, variance or traffic 21 allocation, the building permit shall expire and such special permit, variance or traffic allocation 22 shall be null and void if substantial progress has not occurred within one year from the issuance of 23 the building permit. Substantial progress shall be when the total foundation has been formed, 24 inspected and poured. The Council may grant an extension of a permit upon the showing by the 25 permittee of hardship or unforeseen circumstances. 26 27 Section 3. A new Section 18.07.075 is added to read as follows: 28 18.07.075 Short time extension to a building permit. 2/112007 3 1 (a) The building official shall have the authority to issue a single short time extension of a 2 building permit if all of the following conditions are met: 3 (1) No other extensions for the project have been previously granted; and 4 (2) The request for a short time extension is received in writing; and 5 (3) The person requesting a short time extension must present the original or a copy of the 6 original construction plans that were approved by the city; and 7 (4) There is a record showing that the project has passed all required inspections, except for 8 the final inspection; and 9 (5) A fee generally equal to two hourly inspections as set by city council resolution is paid at 10 the time the short time extension is issued. 11 (b) The short time extension shall expire thirty(30) days after issuance. Failure to complete 12 the work within the time allowed by the short time extension will cause the permit for such work to 13 become null and void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all 14 fees shall be required to recommence work. 15 16 Section 4. A new Section 8.17.015 is added to read as follows: 17 8.17.025 Construction site maintenance. 18 Any property owner or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter 19 containers for construction litter, including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from 20 construction and related activities shall be picked up and placed in these covered containers at the 21 end of each working day. Waste matter or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on 22 the construction site to receive construction debris, personal litter, and any other waste matter 23 generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons using the site. 24 25 26 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 27 28 Mayor 21112007 4 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 2 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 3 , 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 4 , 2007, by the following vote: 5 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8 9 City Clerk 10 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\uac2007-1.bld.wpd 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21112007 5 Draft: Base draft December 11, 2006 Including December 8, 2006 Permit Processing Subcommittee Meeting comments and Planning Commission January 8, 2007 amendments. Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 & 8 specify requirements for extensions to permit and amending Chapter 8.17 to require construction site maintenance Section 2. Section 18.07.070 is amended to read as follows: 18.07.070 Section 303.4 amended—Permit expiration—Failure to complete. Section 303.4 is amended to read as follows: 303.4 Expiration. All work to be performed under a building permit shall be completed within the maximum time allowed for the construction as follows: Total Estimated Cost Total Time Allowed $101 000 or less 6 months Over $10,000 to and including$50,000 12 months Over $50,000 to and including$1,000,000 18 months Over $1,000,000 to and including$2,000,000 24 months Over $2,000,000 to and including$10,000,000 30 months Over $10,000,000 36 months set forth hero; Failure to complete the work within the time allowed, unless an extension of time has been specifically approved by the building official will cause the permit for such work to become null and void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to recommence work. The request for an extension of time must be submitted in writing prior to the expiration of the time allowed. The time limit allowed to complete the work and obtain a building final for any permit that has been extended shall be one year from the date of the extension. Failure to complete the work within the time allowed by a first permit extension will cause the permit for such work to become null and void, unless a second extension has been specifically approved by the building official. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to recommence work. Prior to expiration of a first extension of a building permit, an owner may apply for a second extension. The request for a second extension of time must be submitted in writing prior to the expiration of the time allowed under the first extension. Every permit extension issued by the Building Official under the provisions of the technical codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void, if the building or work authorized by such permit extension is not recommenced within 120 days from the date of such permit extension, or if the building or work authorized by such permit extension is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is recommenced for a period of 120 days. The building or work shall be considered suspended or abandoned if a substantial inspection has not been conducted. The following are considered substantial inspections when all corrections have been performed and that portion of the work has been signed off by a city inspector.- .l. nspector:1. Foundation; 2. Underground plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 3. Underfloor framing,plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 4. Shear walls, hold downs, roof diaphragm, and connectors; S. Rough framing,plumbing, electrical, and mechanical; 6. Insulation; 7. Sheetrock; and 8. Final After suspension or abandonment and before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained and the fee therefore shall be the amount required for the original permit. The expiration of a building permit without an extension pursuant to this section or at the end of the second extension shall result in the expiration of any approvals under Chapter 25 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code and the California Fire Code, including local amendments. Annotation: At the subcommittee meeting it was noted that permit extensions should be limited to one year. The request for a second extension must be submitted before the first extension expires because failure to complete the work within the allowed time voids the permit. The subcommittee agreed that during the extension period the person holding the permit should be required to call for a substantial inspection every 12o days or the extension and the building permit should become void. There are two requirements for expiration: 1) lack of continued construction progress based on regular inspections as measured by having at least one substantial inspection every 12o days; and 2) exceeding the maximum time limit on a building permit which is based on the value of construction. The fees for the first extension shall be the amount required for the original permit. If no changes in plans or specifications have been made, no additional plan checking fees will be required. The fee for the seeenrl and subsequentextensions shall double bl t -- original -- _ i. fee er $500.00, ..,hiel,o„o_is ,.,.,,,.te The fee for the second extension shall be two (2) times the original building permit fee. There shall be no extensions of a building permit after the second extension. Total Estimated Cost r' eta! Time Allowe S110z00 or-less 6 menths. QN,er- $10,000 to and ineluding $5-0,000 12 inantlis Over-$50,000 to and ineluding $1,000,000 18 months Over $1,000,000 to and ineluding $2,000,000 24 inenths Over-$2,000,000 to and ineluding $10,000,000 30 months Over- $10,000,000 36 months Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if a building permit was issued for part or all of a project or building which was required to obtain a special permit, variance or traffic allocation, the building permit shall expire and such special permit, variance or traffic allocation shall be null and void if substantial progress has not occurred within one year from the issuance of the building permit. Substantial progress shall be when the total foundation has been formed, inspected and poured. The Council may grant an extension of a permit upon the showing by the permittee of hardship or unforeseen circumstances. Annotation: Fees for building permit renewals should be based on the Fee Extension Table in the current Municipal Code, but should escalate geometrically e.g. first renewal, same fee as original; second renewal, double original fee. Applicants should be allowed no more than two renewals of their building permit. After the second renewal the applicant should have to reapply for both Planning and Building permits and pay whatever fees are in effect at the time. (City Planning and Building fees are evaluated annually.) With extensions a project valued at up to $1,000,000 would be allowed up to 72 months to be completed. Moreover, with expiration of the building permit, any Planning approvals would also expire. The applicant will be required to go through the planning review process again and make any changes to the project required by any changes to the Zoning Ordinance, Building Code, or Fire Code. Then the applicant will be required to resubmit for a building permit, go through building plan check again, and get a new building permit. These provisions include the requirement that if, after a building permit is issued, there is no work on the project, the Planning approvals shall expire even if the building permit has a longer life. The property owner would then need to return to the Planning Commission for a new action. Section 3. A new Section 18.07.075 is added to read as follows: 18.07.075 Short time extension to a building permit. (a) The building official shall have the authority to issue a single short time extension of a building permit if all of the following conditions are met: (1) No other extensions for the project have been previously granted; and (2) The request for a short time extension is received in writing; and (3) The person requesting a short time extension must present the original or a copy of the original construction plans that were approved by the city; and (4) There is a record showing that the project has passed all required inspections, except for the final inspection; and (5) A fee generally equal to two hourly inspections as set by city council resolution is paid at the time the short time extension is issued. (b) The short time extension shall expire thirty(30) days after issuance. Failure to complete the work within the time allowed by the short time extension will cause the permit for such work to become null and void. A new permit requiring compliance with all current codes and payment of all fees shall be required to recommence work. Annotation: The Subcommittee thought that it would be beneficial to allow the Building Official the authority to grant a 'short extension' to a building permit so that if someone's permit had just recently expired, or a contractor had failed to get a final inspection in the past, additional time can be allowed to obtain the final inspection on the project. Currently the applicant must purchase a new permit. The `short time extension'would allow the contactor 3o days to schedule the final inspection and complete the identified work. The smaller fee should be based on the cost of the inspections ($8o to $loo per hour.) A'short time extension' should be allowed only once at the end of the expiration of the initial building permit. It should not be allowed if the building permit has already been extended one or more times. It should be noted that it is the property owner's responsibility to document that work done previously was inspected as required by the City up to the final inspection. This documentation might include an original copy of the job plans bearing the `Approved' stamp of the Burlingame Building Division. Permits extended under the `short time extension' shall expire after thirty (3o) days. `Short time extensions' may not be renewed. If a short term permit expires the property owner must apply for a building permit and comply with the current code requirements. Section 4. A new Section 8.17.015 is added to read as follows: 8.17.025 Construction site maintenance. Any property owner or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter containers for construction litter including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from construction and related activities shall be picked up and placed in these covered containers at the end of each working day. Waste matter or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on the construction site to receive construction debris,personal litter, or any waste matter generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons using the site. Annotation: The issue of maintenance of a construction site is a code enforcement issue. Currently there are provisions in the Burlingame Municipal Code to address surface water runoff during construction. But there are no provisions to address litter, weed abatement or even maintenance of vegetation which is not a protected tree. The Subcommittee recommended that a provision should be added to the code to address maintenance of the site during construction. It was suggested that we borrow the language currently used, and time-tested, from the City of Millbrae. On January 8, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended that the Ordinance should be taken forward for City Council action. The Planning Commission amended the language of this section to make it clear that`construction debris' was clearly included with `litter.' They felt that this would facilitate the use of this provision in code enforcement. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 9. AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE: REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTENDING BUILDING PERMITS, RENEWING BUILDING PERMITS AND ADOPTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY ON FRAMING CERTIFICATION(NOTICE IN SAN MATEO TIMES)PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 8, 2009, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has been working with the Chief Building Official,City Planner and City Attorney to address three issues: building permit extension times which also affect Planning approval extensions;fees for building permit extensions; construction site maintenance;and certification of framing for design review projects. The first three are amendments/changes to the Municipal Code are also recommendations to the City Council for action. The framing certification is a Planning Commission policy and should be adopted by Planning Commission Resolution. CBO Joe Cyr joined CP in responding to Commissioners questions. Why should the city not hire a qualified inspector for certification of the framing? If the City certifies the framing then the city becomes liable for whatever goes wrong in the building in the future, especially since this is not a life/safety issue; city does not want the exposure. Would not like to see this certification as a profit center for the City. What kind of litter does the construction site maintenance provision refer to? CP noted paper and other waste.CA noted that `litter' also includes demolition debris scattered on the lawn or around the site for extended periods of time. Commissioner noted that responsible builders have dumpster on site,but the streets are so narrow that these can block traffic and cause a parking problem,not want them in the street any longer than necessary,this encourages dumpsters. Committee member noted that dumpsters were discussed,and it was noted that dumpsters are so expensive that they are not kept throughout construction, daily removal in a smaller truck is now more common. CA noted that litter includes all discarded material. Commissioner noted that stacked building materials would not be a problem. CP noted certainly not if they were covered. Commissioner noted that this does not seem to read that drywall and other debris would need to be removed from the site every night. CBO noted that currently there is no construction site maintenance ordinance,and thus no way to regulate serious abuse or address neighbor's legitimate complaints. Commissioner noted he supported the framing certification being done by an architect or residential designer because too frequently the architect is not engaged in the project after it has been approved by the Planning Commission and the building permit has been issued. Commissioner noted that he had done several framing certifications since the Commission directed that a condition be added to residential design review projects,think it works well and is a great idea. Self certification rarely works. Architect would be certifying what he can see at framing, there will still be a design review inspection as a part of the final inspection to address details added after framing. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. The definition of litter notwithstanding,Commission should approve this amendment;regarding framing certification would also like to see a notice of completion filed with the County Recorder, so everyone would know up front if a project had not called for a final inspection,this should be required for all substantial remodels and all new construction. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: All agree on the permit extension and framing certification,think the construction site regulation is a dramatic change,would prefer to see a condition requiring site maintenance added to the Planning Commission's action on each project. Don't have a problem covering materials stored on the site or refuse and dumpsters at night,would have the benefit of keeping the neighbors from tossing their things into the dumpster; concerned about trash receptacle on site, when full should pick up, ok if it must be covered went they drive away; practically this is a code enforcement issue. 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes January 8, 2007 C. Cauchi, noted that the construction site maintenance issue is practically a code enforcement issue and moved to adopt the planning commission resolution establishing architectural certification of the framing for all projects subject to design review prior to calling for a final framing inspection and recommendation to the City Council for approval of the changes to the municipal code for permit extensions, short term extensions,permit extension fees and construction site maintenance with amendment to the text(in italics) to include: "Any property owner or person in charge of a construction site shall furnish covered litter containers for construction litter, including construction debris. All waste matter or litter from construction and related activities shall be picked up and placed in covered containers at the end of each working day. Waste matter or litter receptacles of a sufficient number must be located on the construction site to receive personal litter, construction debris, or any waste matter generated by the employees, workers, invitees, or other persons using the site." The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Commission resolution for architectural certification of the framing before the final framing inspection and to recommend to the City Council amendments to the municipal code for permit extension, short term permit extensions, permit extension fees and the amended construction site maintenance provisions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(MR.AND MRS.BERNARD CORRY,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Auran noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and will recuse himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that two letters were submitted by neighbors sharing concerns about the project. There were no questions of staff. Commissioner noted that he met with the applicant on the site to discuss the details of the project. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, and Bernard Corry,property owner, noted that this is a difficult site to work with because of the upward slope, there is a difference of 12 feet from front to rear, they are proposing to maintain the finished floor of the house as it exists because the sewer main is located in the easement to the rear of the property;detached garage is at the rear of the lot and therefore had to adjust the slope of the driveway to make it easier to back onto the street,otherwise driveway would be very steep. Public comment continued: Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, noting that there are a lot of neighborhoods in Burlingame with the sewer line at the rear;however,there may also be a sewer line in the street at the front of the house,should check with Public Works; should consider planting a Jacaranda tree in front yard,would be appropriate for Craftsman style house;chimney along left side of house is too high and massive; should consider shifting the house six inches to the right to provide a wider driveway,would make it easier for vehicles to enter and exit the site; concerned that the design of the proposed door is being used on a lot of houses, should consider using a craftsman style door with divided lites, ledge and recessed 18 Agenda 9a Item # Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Fuary 2 220 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY �� TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 8, 2007 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SKYLINE WATER SERVICE LATERALS, CITY PROJECT NO. 81230 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the construction of the Skyline Water Service Laterals Project in the amount of $102,114. BACKGROUND: A recent inspection of the water main that serves six homes in the County indicated that the pipe is undersized and more than 50 years old. Because of it's condition, the main needed to be replaced. As this main was very close to existing septic tank leach lines, staff obtained approval from the Town of Hillsborough to connect these homes to the existing Hillsborough main in Skyline Boulevard. Upon completion of this work, these six homes became customers of the Town of Hillsborough. DISCUSSION: On October 16, 2006, the project was awarded to Stoloski & Gonzalez, Inc. in the amount of $109,538. The final cost of $102,114 is less than the awarded amount because of a smaller quantity of copper pipe required during construction. The project was completed in conformance with the plans and specifications and staff recommends acceptance of these improvements. BUDGET IMPACT: Construction $102,114 Design & Construction management 27,000 Staff administration and inspection 13,000 Total $142,114 There are sufficient funds available in the CIP budget to cover this work. EXHIBITS: Resolution c: City Clerk, City Attorney, Erler & Kalinowski, Stoloski & Gonzalez, Inc. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81230 Skyline water laterals-Acceptance.doc RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - SKYLINE LATERALS PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 81230 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 STOLOSKI AND GONZALEZ, under the terms of its contract with the City dated October 16, 2006, has been completed 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. 81230. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor 1,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2007, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Joanne Louie\RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE.wpd , c1TY o� STAFF REPORT BURLIMGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9b MTG. W _ 900 oQ AATED JUNE6 DATE February 21,2007 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI TE BY DATE: February 21,2007 AP OVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer SUBJECT: Resolution Delegating Authority to Impose and Collect Liquidated Damages to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) Recommendation: That the City Council approve a Resolution delegating authority to impose and collect liquidated damages to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority. Background: Section 11.03 of the Franchise agreement sets service performance standards for Allied Waste and liquidated damages amounts for failure to meet those standards. The SBWMA conducts the annual performance assessment of the company and determines the level of compliance and non-compliance with the performance standards as outlined in the franchise. The SBWMA staff also monitors on-going performance and identifies areas of non-compliance. This resolution authorizes the SBWMA to assess and collect liquidated damages on behalf of the City of Burlingame in instances of non-compliance. Liquidated damages amounts collected by SBWMA(if any) belong to the City of Burlingame and will be paid to the City's account. The resolution formalizes the current practice of allowing the SBWMA to administer the City's franchise agreement with Allied Waste. Discussion: The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA) and has an exclusive franchise agreement with Allied Waste Services for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling and residential green waste (brush & yard clippings). All 12 SBWMA member jurisdictions have a uniform franchise agreement with Allied Waste. Fiscal Impact: Any liquidated damages assessed the company is City of Burlingame revenue. Attachments: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Delegating Authority to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority to Impose and Collect Liquidated Damages for Failure to Perform and Non- Compliance with the Performance Standards Contained in the Franchise Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and Allied Waste Inc. ti RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE SOUTH BAYSIDE WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE AND COLLECT LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ALLIED WASTE INC. RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, Allied Waste, as successor to Browning-Ferris Industries, holds a franchise with the City of Burlingame to collect and dispose of refuse and various recyclables within the City; and WHEREAS, Section 11.03 of the Franchise agreement sets service performance standards for Allied Waste and liquidated damage amounts for failure to meet those standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement and relies on the appointed staff of the Authority for the administration of the franchise agreement; and WHEREAS, the South Bayside Waste Management Authority is empowered to review and ascertain Allied Waste's compliance with the service performance standards of the franchise agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame; and WHEREAS, delegation of authority to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority to assess and collect liquidated damages for failure to meet these standards would provide an efficient, more effective, and more uniform system for enforcement by the City and the other members of the Authority, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Council hereby delegates authority to impose and collect liquidated damages for non-compliance with the service performance standards provisions of the franchise between the City of Burlingame and Allied Waste to the South Bayside Waste Management Authority. 2. Any and all liquidated damage amounts assessed and collected on behalf of the City of Burlingame is revenue of the City of Burlingame. 1 3. This delegation of authority is subject to withdrawal or suspension at any time by further action of the City Council. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on day of , 2007, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 CITY o^ STAFF REPORT BURLJNGAME AGENDA <. 9. ITEM# w°O9, m°0 MTG. °A,n°JUNE° DATE 2/21/07 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED r. BY DATE: February 7, 2007 APPROVED �. / FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By /vj/ 650-558-7203 1, SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt the Revised 2007 City Council Calendar RECOMMENDATION: To review, make changes if necessary and approve the Revised 2007 Burlingame City Council Calendar adding the Joint Council and Chamber of Commerce Meeting on April 2, 2007, the Budget Study Session on May 30, 2007, and the Joint Council and Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting on June 4, 2007. EXHIBITS: Revised 2007 Burlingame City Council Calendar REVISED 2007 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR City Council meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month. When Monday is a holiday,the meeting is usually held on Tuesday or Wednesday. Study meetings are held as scheduled. Meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,and are open to the public. Regular Council meetings are televised live via Burlingame's Cable Channel 26 for RCN subscribers and Channel 27 for Comcast subscribers. For more information,please view the City's website at www.burlingame.org or call the City Clerk at 650-558-7203. REGULAR MEETINGS Tuesday, January 2 Monday, July 2 (tentative) Tuesday, January 16 Monday, July 16 Monday, February 5 Monday, August 6 (tentative) Wednesday, February 21 Monday, August 20 Monday, March 5 Tuesday, September 4 Monday, March 19 Monday, September 17 Monday, April 2 Monday, October 1 Monday, April 16 Monday, October 15 Monday, May 7 Monday, November 5 Monday, May 21 Monday, November 19 Monday, June 4 Monday, December 3 Monday, June 18 Monday, December 17 (tentative) STUDY MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES Saturday, January 27 2007/08 Goals Session, 9 a.m., Recreation Center Wednesday, February 28 2007/08 Budget Session, 6 p.m., Lane Room, Main Library Friday, March 9 Commissioner's Dinner Saturday, March 24 Joint meeting with Planning Commission, 9 a.m. Monday, April 2 Joint meeting with Chamber of Commerce, 6 p.m. Wednesday, May 30 Budget Study Session, 6 p.m., Lane Room, Main Library Monday, June 4 Joint meeting with Parks &Recreation Commission, 6 p.m. Wednesday, June 13 City Manager's fiscal year-end review, 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, December 5 City Manager's fiscal mid-year review, 5:30 p.m. 2/7/2007 8:34 AM OWKNjCITY G AGENDA 9d qf,'MIE ^ ITEM# STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 2/21/2007 9 BMs uu[6 4 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED_ BY DATE: February 2, 2007 APPROV BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2007 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution adopting three amendments to the expense reimbursement of the City's Purchasing and Contracting Procedures. DISCUSSION: In 2003, the Council adopted an Expense Reimbursement Procedure. This procedure was revised and incorporated in the City's Purchasing and Contracting Procedures in February 2005 and amended in February 2006 in response to State law change on travel rates and lodging at conferences. In using the procedures, staff has found a couple of the provisions need clarification or strengthening. First, it should be clear in the procedures that the lowest responsible quote or bid is the preferable choice unless some important considerations require an alternate choice. This is clarified on pages I-2 and I-3. Second, the use of petty cash checks is limited to specific purposes. The amendment at page VI-1 explains that this limitation is to ensure proper tax reporting and monitoring of a vendor's purchase order limit. The policy further prohibits splitting a purchase so that petty cash can be used. Third, the City has long had an unwritten policy that out-of-state travel by City officers or employees has to be approved in advance. This amendment puts that policy into writing, with the exception of travel to Nevada. Many training conferences for California organizations are routinely held at Lake Tahoe and Reno, so this amendment would allow the Finance Director to pre-approve that limited out-of-state travel for City officers and employees. Page X-2. The amended procedures would also renumber the pages to make reprinting of changing easier. Attachment Resolution adopting Amendments to the Reimbursement of Expenses Portion of Purchasing & Contracting Procedures (Attached Purchasing and Contracting Procedures) Distribution: Finance Director RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,in 2003,the City Council adopted Resolution 28-2003 establishing procedures for the reimbursement of expenses; and WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council adopted Resolution 10-2005 incorporating and revising procedures for reimbursement of expenses in the City's Purchasing and Contracting Procedures; and WHEREAS, in 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution 9-2006 to revise per diem standards in response to State law changes; and WHEREAS, clarification of petty cash procedures, use of the quote system for purchasing, and out-of-state travel to Nevada is needed, NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The amended Purchasing and Contracting Procedures contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2007,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL.MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES TABLE OF CONTENTS Resolution10-2005 ...............................................................................................................v Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 1 I. Procedure to Use/Contracting Procedures ....................................................................... 1-1 A. Introduction ......................................................................................................... I-1 B. Exceptions to bidding/quotation requirements .................................................. I-2 C. Business License ................................................................................................ I-3 D. Contractor's License .......................................................................................... I-3 E. Contract Forms ................................................................................................... I-3 F. Insurance ............................................................................................................. I-4 G. Bonds ................................................................................................................. 1-4 H. Signatures ........................................................................................................... 1-6 11. Purchase Orders ............................................................................................................. II-1 A. Introduction ....................................................................................................... II-1 B. Procedure ........................................................................................................... II-1 C. Obtaining a purchase order number .................................................................. II-1 D. Copies and Payment .......................................................................................... II-1 III. Check Request.............................................................................................................. III-1 A. Introduction ....................................................................................................... 111-1 B. Procedure ........................................................................................................... III-1 C. In case of urgency .............................................................................................. III-1 IV. Open Purchase Orders ................................................................................................. IV-1 A. Introduction ...................................................................................................... IV-1 B. Limitations ........................................................................................................ IV-1 C. Listing ................................................................................................................ IV-1 D. Submitting invoices for payment ...................................................................... IV-1 V. Procurement Card Procedures ........................................................................................ V-1 A. Purpose .............................................................................................................. V-1 B. General information ........................................................................................... V-1 C. Procurement card authorization ......................................................................... V-1 D. Card restrictions ................................................................................................. V-3 E. Purchasing procedures ........................................................................................ V-3 F. Telephone mail order or internet procedures ..................................................... V-4 G. Statement processing procedures after purchase ............................................... V-4 Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 i Amended—1 12007 H. Disputes ............................................................................................................. V-6 I. Lost or stolen cards .............................................................................................. V-6 J. Changes to cardholder information and request for additional cards ................. V-6 VI. Petty Cash .................................................................................................................... VI-I A. Introduction ....................................................................................................... VI-I B. Procedure ........................................................................................................... VI-1 C. Maximum Amount ............................................................................................ VI-I VII. Bidding Procedures ..................................................................................................... VII-1 A. Solicitation of Written Quotations .................................................................... VII-1 B. Informal Bidding ............................................................................................... VII-1 C. Formal Bidding .................................................................................................. VII-2 D. Processing of Bids ............................................................................................. VII-2 VIII. Emergency Procedures ............................................................................................... VIII-I IX. Capital Asset Accounting ............................................................................................. IX-1 A. Policy ................................................................................................................. IX-1 B. Purpose ............................................................................................................... IX-1 C. Definitions .......................................................................................................... IX-1 D. Procedures ......................................................................................................... IX-1 X. Expense Reimbursement Procedures ............................................................................ X-1 A. Purpose .............................................................................................................. X-1 B. General Policy Statement ................................................................................... X-1 C. Travel Expenses ................................................................................................. X-2 D. Entertainment ..................................................................................................... X-6 E. Other expenses .................................................................................................... X-7 F. Documentation .................................................................................................... X-7 G. Time for submittal .............................................................................................. X-8 H. Prohibited reimbursements ................................................................................ X-8 Footnotes .................................................................................................................. Footnotes-I Appendices A. Purchasing Forms Purchase Order Check Request Petty Cash Voucher Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 ii Amended—I 12007 B. Contract Forms Short Form Contract Consultant Form Contract Long Term Provision of Services Form Contract Materials Form Contract Request for Proposals Form Special Provisions Contract Checklist C. Bond Forms (see also Contract Forms) Bidder's Bond Labor and Materials Bond Performance Bond D. Standard Insurance Requirements (see also Contract Forms) E. Reimbursement Forms Travel Expense Report Lost Receipt Form Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 in Amended—I 12007 PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES Purpose: This procedure describes the City's requirements for purchasing or contracting for services and materials. This Administrative Procedure contains the following: I. Procedure to Use/Contracting Procedures II. Purchase Orders III. Check Requests IV. Open Purchase Orders V. Procurement Card Procedures VI. Petty Cash VII. Bidding Procedures VIII. Emergency Procedures IX. Capital Asset Accounting X. Expense Reimbursement Appendix Purchasing Forms Contract Forms Bond Forms Standard Insurance Requirements Travel Reimbursement Forms Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 Introduction-i Amended—I 12007 I. PROCEDURE TO USE/CONTRACTING PROCEDURES A. Introduction. In determining which procedure to use, the person authorized to make the purchase should determine; 1)which procedure is legally required by State or local law; and then 2) whether a more formal procedure would provide more benefit to the City. For example, while only verbal quotations may be legally required, written quotations might ensure a better evaluation. Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 2.28 adopts the State Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act established by Public Contract Code Sections 22030 and following. This means that the City may use differing levels of contract cost to determine when formal bidding is required; however, use of that system also means that City officers and employees are obligated to scrutinize spending obligations and ensure that the City's money is properly accounted for. 1. Under$1,000: Departmental discretion. Purchase order is required if requested by vendor. 2. $1,000 to $2,999: Two (2) or more verbal quotations are required. Purchase order required. Use telephone quotation form and submit with purchase order to Finance Department. 3. $3,000 to $25,000: Three (3) or more written quotations and purchase orders are required. Note: $25,000 or less: May be performed by City employees, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order after three (3) or more written quotations. However, this is a unusual occurrence and both the City Attorney and the Finance Director should be consulted on pursuing this alternative. 4. $25,001 TO $75,000: Awarded by informal bidding procedures pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 (See Section VII(B)below) or formal bidding procedures (See Section VII(C)below). 5. $75,001 to $100,000: Awarded by formal bidding procedures (See Section VII(C) below), unless the City Manager specifically authorizes in writing the use of informal procedures (See Section VII(B)below) for that project. 6. Over$100,000: Awarded by formal bidding procedures (See Section VII(C) below). Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 I-1 Amended—1 12007 In selecting the vendor or contractor to which to award the purchase or contract, it is expected that the award will be made to the responsible vendor or contractor that submits the lowest responsive quote or bid. In certain detailed quotes or bids, a request for proposal process, or in an extraordinary circumstance, a vendor or contractor who does not submit the lowest quote or bid may be awarded the purchase or contract. However, any such determination that is not based on a request for proposal process must be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the applicable department head. B. Exceptions to bidding/quotation requirements are listed below. However, the same rules with regard to approval apply, i.e. the Council approves any contract or purchase over$100,000; the City Manager approves any contract or purchase over$75,000: 1. Where a sole source of supply or standardization is determined to be beneficial to the needs of the City. Pre-approval by the Finance Director and the City Attorney in writing is required, and additional approval by the City Manager or the City Council may be required as determined by the City Attorney. 2. Where an emergency as defined in the State Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act requires the purchase without following the bidding procedures. Pre-approval by the Finance Director or the Director's designee, and the City Attorney, if available, is required, and additional approval by the City Manager or the City Council may be required as determined by the Finance Director or City Attorney. 3. Specialized professional or recreational services.' 4. Insurance. 5. Where the calling for bids on a competitive basis is impractical or impossible. Pre-approval by the City Manager and the City Attorney is required, and additional approval by the City Council may be required as determined by the City Attorney. 6. Open purchase order. However, if the total purchases from a vendor or contractor for the fiscal year exceeds $10,000, the purchasing shall be reviewed annually for competitiveness by the Finance Director. If purchases exceed $25,000 in a fiscal year under an open purchase order, the purchasing or contracting shall be subject to the bidding procedures described above and the open purchase order process does not apply until purchases drop below $25,000 in a fiscal year. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 1-2 Amended—I 12007 It is the general policy of the City that open purchase orders should be re- evaluated on no less than a 3 to 5 -year basis to ensure that the vendor is still providing a competitive price and quality product or service. 7. Purchase of equipment or software that are evaluated under a request for proposals process. C. Business License. Any vendor or contractor doing business in Burlingame must obtain a current City business license before award of purchase or contract is made. D. Contractor's License. Any call for a bid for a construction project of any kind must specify the level of State contractor's license required to perform the work. E. Contract Forms 1. Considerations. If the minimal information provided on a purchase order will do, then a purchase order signed by the vendor or contractor is a contract. However, remember that the writing on that purchase order is probably all that can be relied on. If there is no date of delivery given or no quality description, then don't be surprised if things don't work out. Without a contract, a vendor or contractor may argue that there were some oral agreements that were different from what the purchaser understood. Very often, the lack of a more formal contract means that the understandings with the vendor or contractor may not be enforceable. 2. A contract is necessary if insurance or a bond is to be required. If there is aM question of importance, use a contract. 3. Attached are different forms of contract for use: a. Short Form Contract. This is intended for use when a vendor or contractor is going to perform limited work on City property, such as installing a piece of equipment. b. Material Contract. This is intended for use when equipment or supplies are going to be provided with little or no work to occur on City property. For example, a supplier is going to deliver and set up a copy machine. C. Consultant Contract. This is a form for alteration when retaining a consultant or other professional. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 I-3 Amended—1 12007 d. Standard Request for Bids. This is for use when requesting bids; it is in a formal bid format, but can be redone to use in an informal bid process. Generally, it will be used with the Standard Special Provisions described in subsection (E). It also includes a standard agreement for use in awarding the bid. e. Standard Special Provisions. These are the standard provisions to be included in project specifications. F. Insurance. If a vendor or contractor is going to spend any extended period of time on City property, insurance is required. The standard insurance requirements are provided in Appendix D. However, if there are high risks involved in a project or if the potential damage would be extensive, then these limits should be increased. Approval of the City Attorney is required for any variation in insurance. A checklist for insurance is provided in Appendix B. G. Bonds 1. Type of bonds. In many projects, there are 4 bond types that are generally required. As described below, some of these bonds are required as a matter of State law. In other cases, their use should be considered to best meet the public and City interest. a. Labor&Materials (or Payment) Bond. This bond seeks to protect the rights of subcontractors, laborers, and material suppliers to a public contract. This is the most important bond under State law and should be required whenever there is any labor involved of any substantial nature. i. For any project or contract that involves labor or installation of materials/products and will cost more than $25,000, a labor& materials bond must be required and provided.' ii. The amount must be equal to the amount of the contract. iii. The bond must be in California form. For example, the AIA Form (a national form) is not acceptable. A form labor&materials bond is provided in Appendix C. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 I-4 Amended—1 12007 iv. Failure to obtain this bond exposes the City and City employees to direct liability for unpaid labor, subcontractors, and materials providers. b. Performance Bond. There is no statutory requirement that performance bonds be provided. However, a performance bond provides reasonable assurance that if the contractor defaults on the project, a bonding company will either provide or pay for another contractor to complete the work. Therefore, it is good practice to require a performance bond. A performance bond shall be required on all contracts over$75,000. i. The amount is equal to the amount of the contract. ii. A sample performance bond is provided in Appendix C. It is vital that the bond provide that any changes in the amount of the contract or the specifications will be covered by the bond. C. Maintenance Bond. As with performance bonds, there is no statutory requirement for a maintenance bond. However, it is good practice in many instances. It should be based on expected test and evaluation periods and can be for varying periods and amounts. Often, the performance bond may roll into a maintenance bond, and the submittal of an acceptable maintenance bond is a precondition to substantial completion of a project. d. Bidder's Bond. Whenever a project valued at $5,000 or more is put out for formal or informal bids, a bidder's bond must be required and provided.' The amount is 10% of the value of the bid, and ensures that the bonding company will pay the difference between the low bid and the bid actually awarded, should the low bidder fail to execute the contract for the project. It is a penalty bond. 2. Submittal and Review. When each bond is submitted, the City is required to verify through the State Insurance Commissioner's website that the bonding company is allowed to do business in the State. The webpage showing that information must be printed out and attached to the bond for filing. Failure to perform this step means that the City may be liable should the bonding company not perform its obligations under the bond.' Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 1-5 Amended—1 12007 H. Signatures/Execution. 1. Contracts. Except for exceptional situations, only the Director of Public Works and the Finance Director have explicit authority under the Municipal Code to execute contracts that bind the City. Authority for others to sign must come from Council action or when others are acting as the Director of Public Works or the Finance Director in their absence. Contracts must also be approved by the City Attorney as to form and by the City Clerk to attest. If an unauthorized City employee signs a contract that attempts to bind the City, that employee may be personally responsible to pay for the contract. 2. Purchase Orders. Purchase order signature authority is conferred by individual department heads. Finance will require written notification of individuals authorized to sign purchase orders. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 I-6 Amended—1 12007 H. PURCHASE ORDERS A. Introduction. Purchase orders are the way in which a verbal quotation or a written agreement is translated into a fiscal commitment and properly appropriated under the City budget. As soon as agreement with a vendor is reached, a purchase order must be prepared. All purchases capital equipment (see Section IX(Q) and contracts require a purchase order. Also refer to the earlier discussion in Section I(E) about having a contract accompany the purchase order. B. Procedure. A purchase order requisition is prepared as soon as agreement with the vendor is reached. A copy of the written quotation, telephone quotation, or agreement must be forwarded to Finance. If the agreement is being submitted to the City Council for approval, a purchase order requisition must be prepared the day after Council approval, and a copy of the vendor agreement sent to Finance. C. Obtaining a purchase order number. 1. To obtain a purchase order number until the implementation of the electronic purchase order requisition system, call the Finance Department at extension 215. Send the completed purchase order to the Finance Department. 2. To obtain a purchase order number upon implementation of the electronic purchase order requisition system, enter a purchase order requisition in the electronic purchase order requisition system. After the purchase order requisition is approved by the requestor's supervisor, department head, and the Finance Department, a purchase order number is assigned by the electronic financial system. In an emergency situation, Finance can provide an emergency purchase order number. This number will then be entered into the electronic purchase order system. D. Copies and Payment. A department and a receiving copy will be returned to you. When the order is received, initial the "receive"copy, indicate receive date and quantity, and forward it to Finance for payment. If you receive only a portion of an order, make a copy of the receive copy, write "partial"in the description, note the amount to be paid, and forward the partial to Finance for payment. When Finance receives the invoice from the vendor, payment will be made based on the returned purchase order copy. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 II-1 Amended—1 12007 III. CHECK REQUEST A. Introduction. For purchases of equipment that is not capitalized (see Section IX(C) for definition of capital assets) and for non-contractual services, check requests are the normal way of making payment to vendors. B. Procedure. Complete the check request form and obtain authorizing signatures. For first-time use of a vendor, fill in complete vendor information. The City is required to issue Form 1099's for payments to vendors, so if a payee is an individual, the City must obtain the individual's social security number for reporting to the IRS; the department making the purchase is responsible for obtaining the social security number, not Finance Department. C. In case of urgency, the Finance Department can quickly prepare checks, but this should be used only sparingly. Contact the Financial Services Manager directly when such instances arise. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 III-1 Amended—I 12007 IV. OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS A. Introduction. Open Purchase Orders are a method in which established vendors are listed for ease of use for repeatedly purchased supplies. If an item sought by a department is available from a vendor that is listed under an open purchase order, a department can choose to make the purchase from that vendor without using the more lengthy procedures outlined above for purchasing. B. Limitations. If the volume of business with a vendor exceeds $25,000 during a year, then the procedures for bidding set forth above are required for use. In case of questions, contact the Finance Director. A single purchase under the open purchase order procedure cannot exceed $5,000. C. Listing. Finance Department provides a list of open purchase order vendors and current purchase order numbers by July 1 of each year. Departments are invited to submit the names and descriptions of vendors to Finance Department that they believe should be added to the list. D. Submitting invoices for payment. Departments must note current open purchase order numbers (see the current list of vendors), account number, and authorization for payment on each invoice before submitting to accounts payable for payment. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 IV-1 Amended—I 12007 V. PROCUREMENT CARD PROCEDURES A. Purpose. To provide instructions on the proper use of the City of Burlingame procurement card for purchases of supplies, materials and equipment not to exceed limits established by a department's Approving Official. B. General information. 1. The VISA procurement card will have the employee's name and City of Burlingame seal embossed on the card. Authorization to use this card is restricted to an employee individually. It may not delegated. No member of staff, an employee's family, an employee's supervisor, or anyone else may use this card. It has been specially designed to avoid confusion with an employee's personal credit cards. The card is to be used for OFFICIAL CITY BUSINESS ONLY and MAY NOT BE USED FOR PERSONAL PURCHASES. The bank has no individual cardholder information other than the cardholder's work address. No credit records, social security numbers, etc. are maintained. 2. Prior to receiving a procurement card, an employee will receive a copy of the Cardholder Agreement, which indicates the maximum dollar amount for each single purchase and a total for all purchases made with the procurement card within a given month. C. Procurement card authorization. 1. Additional authorization controls have been added to protect the City. When a merchant seeks authorization for a purchase from the bank, the system will check each individual cardholder's single purchase limit, the cardholder's 30-day limit, the Approving Official's limit, and the type of merchant where the cardholder is making a purchase before the transaction is authorized. All this is done at the time the card is scanned. • Single Purchase Limit: Each single purchase is limited and must comply with the City of Burlingame's Purchasing Procedures. • Cardholder's 30-Day Limit: Each cardholder has been given a maximum limit per month. This amount has been determined by the employee's Department Head. The cardholder's 30-Day limit is located at the bottom of the form included with the procurement card. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 V-1 Amended—I 12007 • Approving Official's Limit: Each cardholder has an Approving Official (in most cases it is the Department Head). The Approving Official's office limit is based on the monthly limits established for each card under their control. For instance an Approving Official with 5 employees each having a$1,000 30-day limit would have an office limit of$5,000. 2. Type of Merchant: Each Department Head has determined which type of merchants a cardholder is authorized to use with the card. See the following section regarding restricted uses. The procurement card is a supplement to the procurement process. As with other procurement methods the following conditions must be met when using the procurement card: • Each single purchase may be comprised of multiple items, but the total including tax cannot exceed the single purchase dollar limit on the procurement card. • If a purchase will exceed the limit established by the cardholder's Approving Official or the City, normal-purchasing procedures must be followed. • Cardholders must ensure that sufficient funds are available in the budget prior to making any purchases. The cardholder's Approving Official can assist in verifying available funds. 3. The issuance of a procurement card in an employee's name does not allow the procurement card company to do any credit check on a cardholder's personal credit. The company will not request any personal information from the cardholder, nor should any personal information be furnished. 4. Use of the procurement card is not intended to replace effective procurement planning that enables volume discounts. 5. Purchases shall not be split to circumvent procurement regulations. 6. If a purchase made with a procurement card is questioned, a cardholder must be able to explain the nature of the purchase. If a cardholder cannot substantiate that the purchase was necessary and for official use, the cardholder's department will address this situation in accordance with City policy. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 V-2 Amended—1 12007 7. Questions regarding a cardholder account should be directed to the procurement card Company, US Bank, at 1-800-227-6736. D. Card restrictions. The procurement card can be used like any other credit card to purchase supplies, materials, and equipment which are authorized and that do not exceed the single transaction limit or are restricted. The procurement card shall not be used for the following: 1. Cash advances 2. Personal services 3. Entertainment 4. Purchase of items carried in inventory unless out of stock 5. Alcoholic beverages 6. Medical drugs, narcotic drugs 7. Tobacco products 8. Splitting of purchase to circumvent the single transaction limitation A cardholder's Approving Official may apply other restrictions. E. Purchasing procedures. A cardholder's Approving Official will notify the cardholder when the procurement card has been received. Use of the procurement card is voluntary and a privilege. Accordingly, a cardholder will be required to sign the cardholder agreement and procurement card receipt prior to receiving your card. Within the types of merchants authorized by the Approving Official, a cardholder may use the procurement card at any merchant that accepts VISA cards for payment of purchases. Upon selecting purchases, present them and the card to the merchant. The merchant will complete a sales draft, which includes the following information: • Card number, expiration date, and cardholder's name. • Date and amount of purchase. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 V-3 Amended—I 12007 • Brief description of item(s)purchased. • Merchant name and identification. The merchant will obtain authorization for the transaction via either a telephone call or direct telecommunication link to the VISA authorization network. The merchant will obtain an authorization number as long as the purchase is within the limits established for that card. Before signing the sales draft, verify that the amount is correct and that sales tax has been added. A purchaser will receive one copy of the signed sales draft. RETAIN THIS COPY in order to attach to the cardholder's monthly statement of account. F. Telephone-mail order or internet procedures A cardholder can be authorized by an Approving Official to make telephone orders or internet orders with a procurement card. Any telephone or internet order must be documented. If no external documentation is available a for telephone order, a log of telephone orders must be maintained for the same length of time as the billing cycle for the procurement card. When a Statement of Account statement is received that has telephone orders included, attach the log to the statement in lieu of a packing slip/receipt if no receipt is sent confirming the order. When an order is placed on the internet,print a copy of the order and receipt to attach to the statement in which the charge appears. If an order is placed through the mail, maintain a copy of the order form. Attach the order form and sales receipt, if available, to the statement in which the charge appears. G. Statement processing procedures after purchase At the close of each billing cycle, each employee who made purchases during the billing cycle will receive a Statement of Account from US Bank. The statement will itemize each transaction that was charged to the procurement card account. Upon receipt of the statement, complete each of the steps below within five (5)working days: • Review the statement for accuracy Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 V-4 Amended—1 12007 • Indicate the appropriate general ledger account code by each transaction, if appropriate. • Attach all sales receipts, copies of telephone logs for phone orders and requisition forms to the statement in the order they appear on the statement. • Sign the certification block and forward the reconciled statement and attachments to the Approving Official within five (5)working days of receipt. If an item that was purchased has been returned, attach the credit voucher to the statement on which the credit appears. If an item is charged incorrectly, provide a complete explanation of the error on the form, "Cardholder Statement of Questioned Item." Send this form directly to US Bank and forward a copy to the Approving Official. This is the cardholder's responsibility. The Approving Official will forward the copy to the Finance Department who will follow-up with US Bank regarding any adjustments necessary. Any item that is on a Statement of Account that is questioned must be submitted to Purchasing within five (5) working days from receipt of the statement. If a cardholder is not available to review the cardholder's Statement of Account within the five (5) day period, have all paperwork including receipts forwarded to the Approving Official to process in the cardholder's absence. The Approving Official will be responsible for processing statements for those on vacation or other leave. Upon the cardholder's return, the cardholder will still be required to sign the original Statement of Account. If a cardholder had no purchase activity during a particular billing cycle, no statement will be generated. At the same time, US Bank will forward a composite/summary statement to each Approving Official listing the totals for all the individuals with card activity during the last billing cycle. The Approving Official will review the summary statement and will match all the individual statements packet to the Approving Official Summary. The Approving Official will sign the voucher, attach all back-up, and obtain Department Head Approval (if the Approving Official is not the department head) and forward the entire packet to Finance for payment within fifteen (15) working days of the summary statement date. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 V-5 Amended—1 12007 H. Disputes If items purchased with a procurement card are found to be defective, the cardholder has the responsibility to return the item(s) to the merchant for replacement or to receive a credit on the purchase. If the merchant refuses to replace or correct the faulty items, then the purchase of this item will be considered to be in dispute and will not be paid until resolved. A disputed item must be noted on the cardholder's Statement of Account so it will not be paid until the problem is resolved. To process a dispute, notify US Bank in writing, using the Cardholder Statement of Questioned Item form within sixty(60) days after the date of the first statement on which the disputed charged occurred. Be sure to provide a copy to the Finance Department. US Bank will research the disputed charge and make any necessary adjustments. I. Lost or stolen cards If a card is lost or stolen, Immediately notify the Approving Official and US Bank. US Bank Customer Service can be reached at: 1-800-227-6736 Provide the following information to the Approving Official: Cardholder's complete name; card number; the date reported to police, if stolen; date US Bank was notified; and any purchases made on the day the card was lost or stolen. A new card will be mailed to the cardholder after the loss or theft has been reported to US Bank. A new account number will be assigned to the new card. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT US BANK AND THE APPROVING OFFICIAL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY OF THE LOSS OR THEFT OF A CARD. J. Changes to cardholder information and request for additional cards Changes to a cardholder's name, address, and organization should be immediately reported to the Approving Official who will forward the information to the Finance Department. Upon a cardholder's leaving City employment or transferring to another department, the card shall be returned to the Approving Official by the cardholder, and the Approving Official will forward the card to the Finance Department. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 V-6 Amended—I 12007 All requests for new cardholders must be done in writing addressed to the Finance Department. For any questions on the appropriate use of a procurement card, contact the Approving Official or the Finance Department. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 V-7 Amended—1 12007 VI. PETTY CASH A. Introduction. The use of petty cash for purchasing is not a favored alternative. Petty cash should only be used to reimburse City employees for purchases that they have made pursuant to the reimbursement procedures found elsewhere in these administrative procedures. In an emergency,petty cash may also be used if a check request is not available,but only with the approval of the Finance Director. Petty cash use is expressly limited by this policy because the petty cash process creates difficulty in ensuring that tax reporting requirements are met and preventing an overage on a particular vendor's limit. B. Procedure. Complete petty cash voucher and attach back-up materials, such as invoices, statements, receipts. An authorizing signature is required. An individual cannot approve a petty cash payment for or to him or herself. An account number must be assigned to the payment request. C. Maximum Amount. Except for the Police Department and the Parks &Recreation Department, petty cash will only be used for payments under$300. For the Police Department and Parks &Recreation Department,petty cash will only be used for payments under $500. Purchases shall not be split to circumvent these petty cash maximum payment limits. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 VI-I Amended—I 12007 VII. BIDDING PROCEDURES As described above, these Purchasing Procedures require informal and formal bidding on certain contracts involving the City. Of course, more formal bidding may used at any time that a department head, the City Manager, or the City Council determines that would better serve the public interest. Informal bidding provides more flexibility on project timing: notice requirements are not quite as lengthy and Council approval is not required. However, a department head may determine that longer notice is appropriate or a project should go to Council for award and nothing in these procedures is intended to inhibit such a decision. A. Solicitation of Written Quotations 1. Ensure that quotations are sought from a changing list of contractors. Do not direct the request to the same contractors every time. 2. Ensure that the request for quotation and the specifications are clear. 3. Clearly document the quotations that are received and file in the project file. B. Informal Bidding' 1. The City maintains a list in the Public Works Department of qualified contractors according to categories of work. 2. Notice of the informal bid request is mailed to the construction journals identified for San Mateo County by the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Commission. Currently, those journals are Construction Bidboard, Inc and McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; and two from the following list: Marin Builders Association; San Francisco Builders Exchange; Builders Exchange of Alameda County; Peninsula Builders Exchange; Builders Exchange of Santa Clara County. See http://www.sco.ca.,gov/ard/local/cuccac/cuccac man.pdf 3. All mailings have to be completed at least 10 days before the date that bids are due. 4. If a project is estimated to cost more than $75,000 but not more than$100,000, written authorization from the City Manager is required before the informal bid process can be used. If the bids received are more than $100,000 in spite of the Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 VII-1 Amended—1 12007 estimate, contact the City Attorney to determine what the next steps in the bidding process must be. C. Formal Bidding' 1. Notice of the formal bid request is published in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City at least 14 days before the bids are to be received an opened. 2. Notice of the formal bid request is mailed to the construction journals identified by the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Commission for San Mateo County. Currently, those journals are Construction Bidboard, Inc and McGraw-Hill Construction Dodge; and two from the following list: Marin Builders Association; San Francisco Builders Exchange; Builders Exchange of Alameda County; Peninsula Builders Exchange; Builders Exchange of Santa Clara County. See http://www.sco.ca.gov/ard/local/cuccac/cuccac man.pdf 3. All mailings have to be completed at least 30 days before the date that bids are due. D. Processing of Bids Bids shall remain sealed until all bids are opened in public at the same time. If there are any questions regarding specific bids, rejection of bids, clerical errors, or otherwise, contact the City Attorney immediately. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 VII-2 Amended—I 12007 VIII. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES A. In case of emergencies, State law allows the City to take steps to shorten or waive certain purchasing and bidding procedures. Finance Department personnel are trained in quick processing of purchase orders, and the City Attorney can prepare the necessary paperwork for Manager or Council action. The EOC manual provides additional information on these procedures. B. Consult both the Finance Director and the City Attorney. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 VIII-I Amended—I 12007 IX. CAPITAL ASSET ACCOUNTING A. Policy. Each department head is ultimately responsible for the control of the assets within the department head's department. B. Purpose. To establish a system for capitalizing assets under the GASB 34 pronouncement. C. Definitions. The City capitalizes equipment that costs at least $5,000 and has estimated useful life in excess of one year. Structures and improvements and infrastructure with a value of at least $250,000 are capitalized. All capital assets are valued at historical cost or estimated historical cost if actual historical cost is not available. Contributed capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation. D. Procedures. The Finance Department builds the Capital Assets Inventory based upon historical costs and capital outlay purchases. Once each year, the Finance Department will provide each department with a listing of its capital assets for review, edit, correction, and return to Finance. Any changes to existing asset listings must be reviewed and signed by the applicable department head. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 IX-1 Amended—1 12007 X. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES A. Purpose: The City of Burlingame is obligated to ensure that expenditures made by the City are for clearly public purposes and the City is accountable to taxpayers and citizens of the City to be prudent and wise in making those expenditures. The purpose of these procedures is to provide the process by which a City officer or employee may seek reimbursement for expenses that the officer or employee has incurred in the conduct of City business as authorized by the employee's supervisor or manager or other action. All such reimbursements are to be made in accordance with the budget for that expense. Officers and employees should ensure that their proposed expenses are reimbursable before incurring the expenses. Either the officer or employee seeking the reimbursement and the person approving the reimbursement are personally responsible for the integrity of the reimbursement process.' B. General Policy Statement. Reimbursement for expenses are made in order to advance the public, corporate purposes of the City of Burlingame. The California Constitution, the Government Code, the Burlingame Municipal Code, and the administrative procedures of the City govern the expenses that can be lawfully incurred and reimbursed on behalf of the City. City Council pre-approval for travel outside the State of California is required. Expenses cannot be used for personal benefit to the officer or employee. All expenses claimed for reimbursement are subject to audit.' Before making a personal expenditure that will result in a claim for reimbursement, officers and employees should consider the use of a purchase order or prepayment by the City. While this will not always be possible given time constraints or the nature of the vendor, direct payment by the City will often result in cost savings to the City and avoid the necessary delay involved in any reimbursement. ' "Officers and employees" as used in these procedures include all volunteers. "Department head" as used in these procedures with regard to reimbursement payable to a department head means the City Manager. "Department head" as used in these procedures with regard to a board member or commissioner means the department head liaison to that board or commission. "Department head" as used in these procedures with regard to a Councilmember means the City Manager. "Department head"with regard to the City Manager means the Finance Director. ' An officer or employee may also be audited by the Internal Revenue Service and should ensure that the officer or employee keeps any necessary personal records, such as unreimbursed business expenses for a sufficient period of time. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-1 Amended—1 12007 C. Travel Expenses Travel expenses incurred while on City business or at the direction or authorization of the City are subject to reimbursement as follows: 1. Length and location of travel. a. Unless the travel is either an emergency that precludes pre-approval or to the State of Nevada, out-of-state travel must be pre-approved by the City Council. Travel to another State in an emergency or to Nevada must be pre-approved by the Finance Director. b. No reimbursement for meals will be made for any travel/business totaling less than six (6)hours. Meals are often included as an integral part of a seminar or conference, and the included meal(s) will be reimbursed as part of the seminar or conference registration fee. If a meal is not included as part of a single-day conference, seminar, or training, an employee may be reimbursed for the cost of a meal. C. Unless expressly authorized in advance in writing by the City Manager based on exceptional travel circumstances, no reimbursement for lodging will be made for any of the following trips: i. A single-day conference, training, or business that is less than 180 miles road distance, one-way, from Burlingame and that ends or is over by 6:00 p.m. However, if the single-day conference, training, or business is 100 miles or more road distance, one-way, from Burlingame and begins at 9:00 a.m. or before, reimbursement for lodging for the evening before the conference can be approved even though the conference, training, or business may end before 6:00 p.m. ii. Any multiple day conference, training, or business that is less than 65 miles road distance, one-way, from Burlingame. 2. Transportation/Transit a. The maximum reimbursement for transportation expenses, such as vehicle mileage, airfare, or train fare, will be at the lesser of the following: 1) the vehicle standard mileage rate allowed by the Internal Revenue Service or Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-2 Amended—1 12007 2) the group airfare rate for League of California Cities travel, if available. http://www.ofa.dgs.ca.gov/Travel+Programs/AirFares_CityPairs.htm . b. If the travel is to a location that is more than 200 miles road distance, one- way, from Burlingame, the City will reimburse that employee for either the lowest commercial fare to that location based on the proposed itinerary or the vehicle standard mileage rate, whichever is less. C. The City will not reimburse an official or employee for any travel insurance of any kind. d. In addition to reimbursement at an airfare or mileage rate, the City will reimburse an officer or employee for the actual costs of any tolls for bridges or roadways actually paid. e. If an officer or employee believes that the limitations imposed by this subsection will actually cost the City more because of the travel time that may be involved, the officer or employee may seek the written approval of the City Manager for alternate travel. 3. Parking a. Parking fees incurred at either a hotel or at a parking facility are reimbursable. However, unless the official or employee can demonstrate that no other reasonable alternative existed, valet parking costs will not be reimbursed beyond that incurred for a normal parking fee. b. Parking fees incurred at an airport parking lot during the time that the officer or employee is on travel are reimbursable to the extent that the total cost of the travel is within the limits established in subsection B(1) and (2) above, and do not exceed the cost of reasonable transportation to and from the airport. 4. Other Transportation a. Transportation to and from an airport, train station, or other transit facility is reimbursable. Public officials and employees are encouraged to use public transit whenever feasible, and determination of the reasonableness of the transportation used will be based on the availability, usability, and itinerary. As with parking fees, the total cost of travel is subject to the maximum amounts set forth in Subsection B(1) and (2) above. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-3 Amended—I 12007 b. Transportation while at a conference, training, or business event is judged on a reasonableness standard. Unless the rental car and taxi expenses are within the total amount allowed under Subsection B(1) and (2) above, rental car, taxi or other transportation expenses will only be approved when the official or employee demonstrates that there was no reasonable alternative to the use of that mode of transportation at the location involved or the mode was required by the nature of the trip or event. Rental car expense will be approved if the rental car is being used to transport other City employees or public employees and the financial benefit from the sharing of transportation results in an actual reduction in the net cost to the City. 5. Lodging a. Officers and employees are expected to use the most cost effective lodging reasonably available. Government lodging rates are almost always available and should be sought. Conference hotel rates are usually negotiated by the organizations hosting the conference and may be used even though other lodging might be less expensive. The City will provide a transient occupancy tax exemption certificate if the host city permits such an exemption and requires back-up as Burlingame does. b. Lodging reimbursement approval will be based on no more than the maximum lodging rate allowed by the U.S. General Services Administration for that location. The current rates are available on the GSA Website at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentld=17943&contentType=GSA_BASIC If government facilities are made available at a cost-effective rate, the official or employee is expected to make use of those facilities. However, if the lodging is in connection with a conference, training, or other education activity, lodging reimbursement shall not exceed the maximum group rate published by the conference, training, or activity sponsor, provided that lodging at the group rate is available at the time of booking. If the group rate is not available, the GSA per diem rate will govern. 6. Meals and incidental expenses a. Daily meal allowance and allowance for incidental expenses, such as laundry, tips, and similar expenses, are based on the maximum Meal and Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-4 Amended—1 12007 Incidental Expense Rate established by the U.S. General Services Administration for that location. The current rates are available on the GSA Website at http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentld=l 7943&contentType=GSA_BASIC Partial meal and incidental expense allowances can be paid for multiple day conferences, seminars, and business that require partial day travel. b. No meal allowance will be provided if meals are included in the conference or training package; if only some meals are included, the following deductions from the daily rate will be made for included meals: $7 for breakfast; $14 for lunch; and $20 for dinner. 7. Telephones a. Telephone usage for City business purposes while away from the City is reimbursed on the reasonable costs of such calls. Cellular phones are often more cost-effective than using hotel phones directly. Collect calls should be avoided. 8. Conference/Training Registration a. It is expected that most conference, seminar, or training registration will be done in advance. This avoids the need for reimbursement claims for this expense. It also tends to insure the best rates, which are often given for advance registration. The City may disallow reimbursement for the additional costs incurred when advance registration is not used, unless the officer or employee can demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances or City needs compelled the late registration. 9. Advances a. The City recognizes that officers and employees may not be able to use their own funds or credit to pay for necessary expenses. An officer or employee may request an advance to pay for transportation, lodging, and meals if a written check request accompanied by a copy of the registration confirmation is filed with the Finance Department no later than ten (10) days before the travel is to commence. In an emergency situation, this time requirement may be waived by the Finance Director. b. In order to be eligible for approval of an advance, the Advance Request form attached to these procedures shall be completed and approved by the Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-5 Amended—I 12007 officer or employee's department head. A written estimate of the lodging expense and reservation shall be provided. The applicant shall also provide a statement as to the form of transportation to be used and a copy of the transportation reservation, if any. C. Advances shall be made by check payable to the officer or employee. d. Within five (5) days of the completion of travel, the officer or employee shall file documentation as required for reimbursements below that demonstrate the expenses incurred. If overpayment has been made by the advance, the officer or employee shall repay the City for the overpayment within ten (10) days of the determination by the Finance Director that an overpayment has occurred under the these procedures. D. Entertainment Payment of any expenses for hosting of non-City officers or employees is generally not done on an individualized, reimbursement basis, but rather as a department expense. This type of expense is to be approved by the City Manager in advance. When a City officer or employee entertains on behalf of the City, the entertainment activity must be directly related to City business and should not personally benefit the host or other officers or employees. Elected officials of the City are currently barred by California Attorney General opinion from reimbursement for entertainment costs incurred with regard to persons who are not officers or employees of the City. 1. Administrative meetings. Reimbursement for the cost of light refreshments served during an administrative meeting if the meeting is directly related to City business can be reimbursed. The cost of a meal can be reimbursed if the meal is an integral and scheduled part of the meeting, such as a working lunch. Note: When two or more officers and employees choose to dine together in order to continue business, reimbursement for the meal is not allowable. 2. Host to official guest(s) of the City. The cost of light refreshments or meals incurred when acting as a host to official guests of the City can be reimbursed. Examples of such guests are: Visitors from other governments, government agencies or organizations Members of the community Prospective employees Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-6 Amended—1 12007 Meetings of an organization of which the City is a member or for which the City sponsors membership of an officer or employee, such as the League of California Cities 3. Receptions/Luncheons. The cost of light refreshments and food served as part of a reception or luncheon. Receptions may be held in conjunction with conferences (receptions that are not included in the registration fee), meetings of an organization of which the City is a member or for which the City sponsors membership of an officer or employees; employee recognition; length-of-service awards or retirement presentations; employee, staff, or volunteer picnics; rotation of officers. Employee birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, or farewell gatherings (other than retirement) are not considered official entertainment. E. Other expenses 1. Officers and employees may find that some day-to-day expenses require purchasing directly without using normal purchasing procedures or petty cash. These should be used very sparingly and only when they have been authorized by a department head. If they are not authorized in advance, the claim for reimbursement may not be honored. F. Documentation 1. A claim for reimbursement is submitted through the appropriate department approval process to the Finance Department. 2. Original receipts are required for all of the following: –Conferences and seminars –Lodging –Rental Cars –Parking and tolls –Other transportation –Other purchases Credit card receipts are generally acceptable. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-7 Amended—I 12007 3. Original receipts are not required for telephone bills for use of personal telephones, such as cell phones. Copies of the applicable charge sheets may be substituted. 4. Original receipts are not required for meals if the officer or employee is only seeking reimbursement within the meal and incidental expense rate described in Travel Subsection F above. 5. The required travel expense report for claiming reimbursement for travel expenses is attached. For reimbursement of other expenses, the claim form attached shall be used. 6. If an original receipt has been lost, the officer or employee may submit a declaration in the form attached seeking approval of the affected expense. G. Time for submittal 1. Any claim for reimbursement for non-travel expenses must be submitted within ninety(90) days of the purchase for which the reimbursement is sought. A claim filed after the ninety(90) day period will not be paid except in case of an intervening emergency or catastrophe that has prevented the submittal from being timely. H. Prohibited reimbursements 1. No reimbursement for expenses incurred pursuant to this policy will be made for the following expenditures: a. Alcohol, except with the express approval of the City Council for a particular event. b. Tobacco products or illegal substances of any kind. C. Expenses incurred by or because of a spouse or companion, who is not on City business (72 California Attorney General Opinion 20 (1992)) unless approved as part of a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 X-8 Amended—1 12007 FOOTNOTES 1. Gov't Code § 4526. 2. Civil Code §§ 3247, 3248. 3. Public Contract Code § 20170. Cash, cashier's check, or certified check can also be used as security. 4. Code of Civil Procedure § 995.311. 5. Public Contract Code § 22034. 6. Public Contract Code § 22037. Adopted 2/7/2005 Amended 2/22/2006 Footnotes-1 Amended—1 12007 i I i $3,889,245.80 Ck. No. 23264 - 23935 Excludes Library cks 23403- 23431 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Payroll for January 2007 $2,362,892.46 Ck No. 167623 - 167886 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS & ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION C n CD acx � o Ca- CD v 3 D N ,) N i tt S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS CITY OF BURLINGAME 02-09-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 89,395.58 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 1,288.06 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 6,642.47 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 193,919.24 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 281,577.60 WATER FUND 526 14,333.64 SEWER FUND 527 7,125.10 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 5,509.88 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 2,540.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 10,928.11 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1;256.10 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 3,406.51 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 330.00 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 2,558.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 .1,074.68 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $621,884.97 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 23828 THROUGH 23935 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $621,884.97, 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 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23929 MERCEDES M AUDIGIER 27267 151.00 MISCELLANEOUS 151.00 101 36330 000 1660 23930 MARYANNE CARBONI 27268 127.00 MISCELLANEOUS 127.00 101 36330 000 1660 23931 LUCILE CHEN 27269 127.00 MISCELLANEOUS 127.00 101 36330 000 1660 23932 JENNY POOH 27270 68.00 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 101 36330 000 1660 23933 MARTINA STEIN 27271 127.00 MISCELLANEOUS 127.00 101 36330 000 1660 23934 EDELMIRA ANTEZANA 27272 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 23935 EDWARD EISENMAN 27273 290.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 290.00 130 20060 TOTAL - 8621,884.97 CITY OF BURLINGAME W AR R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23913 LINGULAR WIRELESS 26897 742.57 COMMUNICATIONS 742.57 201 65200 160 23914 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26899 66.92 MISC. SUPPLIES 66.92 101 64150 120 23915 MCNAMARA AND SMALLMAN CONSTRUCTI 26911 281,577.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 281,577.60 327 81500 220 23916 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27019 1,074.68 UTILITY EXPENSE 1,074.68 896 20281 23917 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 540.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 540.00 101 64420 262 23918 UC REGENTS 27256 99.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 99.00 101 66100 250 23919 DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE 27257 2,558.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,558.00 731 22554 23920 BULLSEYE GLASS REPAIR 27258 150.00 SUPPLIES 150.00 620 15000 23921 SMITH & ASSOCIATES 27259 655.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 655.00 101 64420 210 23922 ALICIA CAMPANA 27260 34.00 MISCELLANEOUS 34.00 101 36330 000 1644 23923 MR/MRS CERRA 27261 145.00 MISCELLANEOUS 145.00 101 36330 000 1644 23924 STACEY GRAY 27262 152.00 MISCELLANEOUS 152.00 101 36330 000 1644 23925 SUSAN PELODUIN 27263 120.00 MISCELLANEOUS 120.00 101 36330 000 1422 23926 MRS. O-RIORDAN 27264 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1646 23927 ASHELY STILES TUREK 27265 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1646 23928 CATHY D. GUDENBERG 27266 52.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1646 CITY OFBURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23898 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 160.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 527 66520 190 23899 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 23900 RONALD SIDDONS 26064 92.00 MISCELLANEOUS 92.00 101 36330 000 1644 23901 USPS-HASLER 26134 5,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000.00 101 15500 23902 PFSA 26197 30.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 30.00 620 66700 240 23903 LINCOLN DADS CLUB 26298 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 101 22593 23904 GORDON MURRAY 26324 4,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,000.00 101 22546 23905 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26373 69.51 COMMUNICATIONS 69.51 101 65100 160 23906 CHEESE PLEASE 26635 302.12 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 302.12 101 64420 121 23907 UNITED COMFORT SOLUTIONS INC 26639 725.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 725.00 619 64460 210 5130 23908 PIPE USERS GROUP 26791 95.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 95.00 101 66100 250 23909 ALL CHEMICAL DISPOSAL INC 26806 200.00 SUPPLIES 200.00 201 65200 112 23910 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 390.97 OFFICE EXPENSE 17.27 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.04 101 66210 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 123.10 526 69020 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 207.56 526 69020 120 23911 BUREAU VERITAS 26854 39,486.76 MISCELLANEOUS 39,486.76 101 22515 23912 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26896 106.84 COMMUNICATIONS 106.84 201 65200 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23886 COMPUCOM 24467 2, 169.87 MISCELLANEOUS 2, 169.87 621 64450 400 23887 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092 23888 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY 24535 852.35 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 633.85 619 64460 210 5130 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 218.50 620 66700 200 23889 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 353.00 MISCELLANEOUS 353.00 618 64520 234 23890 CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AGENCY 24561 1 , 196.00 INSURANCE PREMIUMS 1 ,196.00 618 64520 602 23891 I .M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 861 .25 OFFICE EXPENSE 58.32 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 110.30 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.43 201 65200 120 SMALL TOOLS 387.79 201 65200 130 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 32.15 201 65200 190 GAS, OIL & GREASE 75.00 201 65200 201 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 170.27 201 65200 203 TRAVEL & MEETINGS -452.90 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 292.89 201 65200 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 95.00 201 65500 260 23892 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 222.55 MISC. SUPPLIES 91 .08 527 66520 120 SMALL TOOLS 131 .47 527 66520 130 23893 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 179.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 179.92 201 65200 220 23894 KMS SYSTEMS, INC. 25060 700.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 700.00 621 64450 220 23895 DALE ROYAL 25082 17.96 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 17.96 130 20060 23896 MADDAUS WATER MANAGEMENT 25098 6,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,000.00 526 69020 210 23897 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 207.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 207.99 201 65200 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23873 OFFICE MAX 23306 724.70 OFFICE EXPENSE 280.21 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 338.81 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 105.68 101 68010 110 1101 23874 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 512.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 128.21 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 384.18 619 64460 120 5170 23875 HOME DEPOT 23384 146.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 146.14 619 64460 120 5110 23876 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 110.41 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 110.41 101 66210 226 23877 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 774.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 774.75 619 64460 120 5250 23878 AT&T 23661 24.18 COMMUNICATIONS 24.18 621 64450 160 23879 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 896.51 TRAINING EXPENSE 298.83 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 298.84 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 298.84 527 66520 260 23880 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 4,150.00 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 4,150.00 528 66600 210 23881 SFPUC WATER QUALITY BUREAU 23846 4,840.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,840.00 526 69020 233 23882 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 60.46 MISC. SUPPLIES 60.46 619 64460 120 23883 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 48.76 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 48.76 619 64460 220 5240 23884 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 2,100.00 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 2,100.00 526 69020 290 23885 LCC PENINSULA DIVISION 24407 70.00 TRAVEL &MEETINGS 35.00 101 64100 250 - TRAVEL&MEETINGS 35.00 101 64150 250 • CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT •� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23858 KLEINFELDER, INC 18684 1,359.88 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,359.88 528 66600 210 23859 BAY ALARM 18854 1,556.88 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,556.88 619 64460 210 23860 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 114.50 MISCELLANEOUS 114.50 526 69020 233 23861 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 339.22 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 339.22 201 65200 220 23862 SYSTEMS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY 19066 1,025.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,025.00 201 65200 260 23863 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 .23864 PENINSULA HOSPITAL 20346 991.00 MISCELLANEOUS 991.00 618 64520 234 23865 PHIL SCOTT 20550 165.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 165.00 527 66520 250 23866 CEB 21210 96.10 MISC. SUPPLIES 96.10 101 64350 120 23867 ADI 21362 603.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 603.68 619 64460 120 5270 23868 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 1,850.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,850.00 101 64420 210 23869 INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING 21790 192,765.09 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 192,765.09 320 81550 220 23870 KEITH TAYLOR 22874 686.00 MISCELLANEOUS 686.00 101 22546 23871 MIKE COFFEY 23009 659.50 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 659.50 130 20060 23872 GRAPHIC CONTROLS 23023 305.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 305.08 526 69020 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23848 CAL-STEAM 10557 933.45 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 351.66 101 68020 190 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 35.69 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 530.50 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.60 619 64460 120 23849 CHIEF DON DORNELL 11568 2,751.32 MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 201 22585 MISCELLANEOUS 80.00 -201 35220 000 7150 OFFICE EXPENSE 257.36 201 65200 110 SUPPLIES 50.00 201 65200 112 MISC. SUPPLIES 65.00 201 65200 120 GAS, OIL & GREASE 10.00 201 65200 201 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 10.50 201 65200 203 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 420.00 201 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 275.00 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,543.46 201 65200 260 23850 FORTE PRESS CORP. 13759 48.71 MISC. SUPPLIES 48.71 101 65100 120 23851 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 2,428.56 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 315.00 619 64460 210 5250 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 538.25 619 64460 210 5170 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 260.00 619 64460 210 5110 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 315.00 619 64460 210 5170 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,000.31 619 64460 210 5150 23852 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,264.30 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,264.30 101 65100 220 23853 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 26.69 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.97 101 65100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.72 101 68020 120 2200 23854 VALLEY OIL CO. - 15764 464.99 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 464.99 527 66520 230 23855 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 43.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.68 526 69020 120 23856 GOLDEN NURSERY 17128 994.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 982.52 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 11.98 526 69020 120 23857 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 644.80 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 644.80 101 64420 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23840 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 61.76 TRAINING EXPENSE 61.76 101 65100 260 23841 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 14,402.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14,402.00 101 68020 220 2300 23842 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 4,109.19 MISC. SUPPLIES 13.00 101 68010 120 1787 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.96 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 54.62 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.00 101 68010 120 1286 MISC. SUPPLIES 581.35 101 68010 120 1100 MISC. SUPPLIES 98.51 101 68010 120 1422 MISC. SUPPLIES 495.52 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 16.41 101 68010 120 1330 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 185.00 101 68010 220 1645 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 834.82 101 68010 220 1349 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8.00 101 68010 220 1641 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 160.00 101 68010 220 1521 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 212.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17.00 101 68010 220 1346 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 414.00 101 68010 240 1100 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 546.00 101 68010 240 1101 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 10.00 101 68020 240 2100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 72.00 101 68020 250 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 330.00 730 69533 220 23843 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 102.84 MISC. SUPPLIES 102.84 101 64350 120 23844 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 99.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 2.51 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 1.49 619 64460 120 5170 MISC. SUPPLIES 95.20 619 64460 120 5240 23845 CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 09461 1,154.15 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,154.15 320 81090 210 23846 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 1,287.79 SMALL TOOLS 837.84 101 68020 130 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 111.81 101 68020 200 2300 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 338.14 101 68020 200 2200 23847 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC 09790 816.04 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 257.47 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 558.57 527 66520 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 02/09/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT . Denotes Hand Written Checks 23828 * COUNTY CLERK SAN MATEO COUNTY 22558 1,850.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,850.00 101 64400 120 23829 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 14.06 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.06 619 64460 120 5110 23830 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 42.10 SUPPLIES 42.10 620 15000 23831 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,441.66 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,441.66 101 64560 220 23832 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 21.65 OFFICE EXPENSE 21.65 101 66100 110 23833 VEOLIA WATER 02110 4,724.65 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 4,674.51 527 66530 190 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 50.14 527 66530 210 23834 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 378.52 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 308.73 101 68020 190 2200 MISCELLANEOUS 69.79 101 68020 192 2200 23835 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 1,016.06 MISC. SUPPLIES -143.21 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 187.06 619 64460 120 5150 MISC. SUPPLIES 625.08 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.40 619 64460 120 5240 SMALL TOOLS 227.73 619 64460 130 23836 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 3,036.99 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 509.86 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 2,527.13 101 66210 226 23837 PENINSULA BATTERIES 02625 826.33 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.83 619 64460 120 5130 SUPPLIES 815.50 620 15000 23838 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 2.281.89 MISC. SUPPLIES 168.17 619 64460 120 5150 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,113.72 619 64460 120 5250 23839 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 504.58 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 34.83 101 68020 190 2200 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 216.54 101 66210 219 MISC. SUPPLIES 253.21 526 69020 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME 02-01-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 78,568.71 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 19,156.94 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 5,603.79 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 16,973.78 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 43,331.57 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 1,800.00 WATER FUND 526 198,905.31 SEWER FUND 527 54,166.58 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,188.66 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1,173.83 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 153.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 129.13 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,285.98 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,494.38 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 742.60 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,632.31 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 8,974.45 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 8437,281.02 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 9 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 23714 THROUGH 23827 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF 8437,281.02, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME - W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23812 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26900 49.28 COMMUNICATIONS 49.28 101 64250 160 23813 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26901 138.56 COMMUNICATIONS 138.56 101 65300 160 23814 AT&T LONG DISTANCE 26977 117.70 UTILITY EXPENSE 117.70 896 20281 23815 SWINERTON BUILDERS 27241 12,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 12,000.00 101 22546 23816 PG&E 27244 534.06 MISCELLANEOUS 534.06 526 22502 23817 PUTNAM CHEVROLET CADILLAC HUMMER 27245 18.71 VEHICLE MAINT. 18.71 201 65200 202 23818 PHIL SAGLIMBENI 27246 1,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 22546 23819 BRUCE BOSLEY 27247 2,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,250.00 101 22546 23820 MR/MRS. SHEYNBLAT 27248 78.00 MISCELLANEOUS 78.00 101 36330 000 1646 23821 DOXIE MALEK 27249 112.00 MISCELLANEOUS 112.00 101 36330 000 1660 23822 PAUL ROBINSON 27250 52.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1647 23823 SALMA SALIMI 27251 52.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1647 23824 DONNA DOURAGHY 27252 52.00 MISCELLANEOUS 52.00 101 36330 000 1647 23825 DIANE STARRETT 27253 95.00 MISCELLANEOUS 95.00 101 36330 000 1372 23826 PETE FENA 27254 113.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 13.00 101 36330 000 1213 23827 CHURCH OF GOD 27255 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 101 22593 TOTAL 8437,281.02^`O CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23799 DE LADE LANDEN 25057 438.02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23.08 101 65150 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 414.94 101 65100 220 23800 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 86.79 OFFICE EXPENSE 86.79 101 65100 110 23801 TOM HAMILTON 25740 2,400.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,400.00 101 22546 23802 CINGULAR WIRELESS 25775 47.39 COMMUNICATIONS 47.39 101 65100 160 23803 EDMOND'S PLAZA FLORIST 26041 63.33 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.33 101 65100 120 23804 PRISTINE AUTO DETAIL 26046 50.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 50.00 101 65100 200 23805 DATABANK IMX 26176 4,885.56 MISCELLANEOUS 4,885.56 101 22515 23806 BETHEL CHURCH CALIFORNIA 26374 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 23807 NEAL MARTIN & ASSOCIATES 26660 90.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 90.00 530 65400 210 23808 ICC PENINSULA CHAPTER 26732 560.00 MISCELLANEOUS 560.00 101 22515 23809 BRIAN KANE 26751 325.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 325.00 101 68010 220 1781 23810 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 445.72 OFFICE EXPENSE 10.43 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 10.43 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 44.78 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 159.97 101 65300 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 10.42 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 156.60 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 35.82 101 65300 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.27 526 69020 120 23811 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26898 33.30 COMMUNICATIONS 33.30 101 64100 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23784 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 1,051.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,051.00 101 23620 23785 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 39.65 MISC. SUPPLIES 39.65 101 68010 120 1111 23786 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 218.56 OFFICE EXPENSE 218.56 101 64250 110 23787 OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS 24445 43,331.57 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 43,331.57 326 80910 210 23788 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 4,370.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,370.00 130 20016 23789 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 48.00 UNION DUES 48.00 130 21080 23790 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024 23791 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 600.00 MISCELLANEOUS 600.00 130 20024 23792 C.L.E.A. 24523 604.50 MISCELLANEOUS 604.50 130 20026 23793 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 420.00 UNION DUES 420.00 130 21091 23794 O-NEIL PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT INC. 24675 735.51 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 735.51 530 65400 200 23795 AETNA 24760 3,738.88 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,375.88 130 20022 MISCELLANEOUS 363.00 130 20028 23796 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 3,826.74 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,826.74 130 20014 23797 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 5,368.82 MISCELLANEOUS - 1,257.35 130 20025 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,111.47 -130 20021 23798 THE LIGHTHOUSE 24840 40.76 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 40.76 201 65200 203 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23772 T. RANDOLPH GRANGE 23112 400.00 MISCELLANEOUS - 400.00 731 22525 23773 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 170.16 OFFICE EXPENSE 170.16 101 68010 110 1101 23774 JIM BROWN 23260 500.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 250.00 101 64420 250 MISC. SUPPLIES 250.00 526 69020 120 23775 T.T. TECHNOLOGIES 23279 393.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 393.25 526 69020 120 23776 OFFICE MAX 23306 205.18 OFFICE EXPENSE 205.18 101 68010 110 1101 23777 DATASAFE 23410 396.50 OFFICE EXPENSE 85.36 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 39.95 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 39.95 101 64200 110 BANKING SERVICE FEES 141.30 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 89.94 101 64350 120 23778 PACIFIC PARKING SYSTEMS, INC. 23462 348.32 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 348.32 530 65400 200 23779 MILLS PENINSULA EMERGENCY MED,IN 23548 153.00 MISCELLANEOUS 153.00 618 64520 234 23780 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 5,640.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,640.00 101 68010 220 1331 23781 AT&T/MCI 23728 8,875.82 COMMUNICATIONS 19.07 101 68020 160 2200 UTILITY EXPENSE 8,856.75 896 20281 23782 KEITH MARTIN 23788 143.23 MISC. SUPPLIES 26.97 101 66210 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 26.00 101 66210 140 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.32 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 28.44 527 66520 120 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 19.50 527 66520 240 TRAINING EXPENSE 3.00 527 66520 260 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 29.00 620 66700 250 23783 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 2,688.00 RAT CONTROL PROGRAM 2,688.00 101 66210 218 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23757 SPRINT PCS 20724 707.56 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 707.56 101 65100 220 23758 CERTIFIED LABORATORIES 20771 171.03 SUPPLIES 171.03 620 15000 23759 JEFF DOWD 20779 171.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171.00 101 68010 220 1785 23760 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 391.04 OFFICE EXPENSE 376.04 201 65200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 15.00 526 69020 110 23761 YAT-CHEONG AU 21906 2,205.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,205.00 101 22546 23762 TOM LEYDEN 21940 400.00 MISCELLANEOUS 400.00 101 22525 23763 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 220.95 MISC. SUPPLIES 220.95 526 69020 120 23764 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 750.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 350.00 620 66700 190 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 400.00 620 66700 210 23765 BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER 22582 608.88 GAS & ELECTRIC 608.88 101 68010 170 1286 23766 WEST COAST WILDLANDS 22622 9,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,500.00 527 66520 220 23767 MAXIMUS, INC 22746 2,750.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,750.00 101 64560 210 23768 BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL 22773 109.98 MISC. SUPPLIES 109.98 101 65100 120 23769 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 32.31 MISCELLANEOUS 32.31 731 22554 23770 A&B TRAILER HITCH CO. 22998 27.01 SUPPLIES 27.01 620 15000 23771 GRAPHIC CONTROLS 23023 332.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 332.00 526 69020 110 C C � CITY OF BURLINGAME - W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23745 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 1,473.95 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 312.52 101 66210 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 435.20 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 312.48 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 21.82 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 129.13 619 64460 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 262.80 620 66700 140 23746 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 74.33 OFFICE EXPENSE 6.77 101 64200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.77 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.77 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.77 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 47.25 620 66700 120 23747 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 25.82 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 25.82 201 65200 203 23748 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 1,166.84 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,166.84 528 66600 210 23749 CLEARLITE TROPHIES 19679 728.52 TRAINING EXPENSE 728.52 101 68020 260 2200 23750 CAL-LINE EQUIPMENT INC 19697 138.39 SUPPLIES 138.39 620 15000 23751 CANTERBURY INTERNATIONAL 19721 1,909.06 - MISC. SUPPLIES 1,909.06 101 66210 120 23752 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,066.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,033.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 2,033.00 527 66520 180 23753 GE CAPITAL 20216 379.75 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1101 23754 CLAUDE ARRIOLA 20435 60.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00 101 68010 220 1789 23755 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 1,800.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,800.00 327 75170 210 23756 EIP ASSOCIATES 20526 471.50 DEPOSIT REFUND 471.50 101 22590 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '*' Denotes Hand Written Checks 23730 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 798.66 SMALL TOOLS 798.66 527 66520 130 23731 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 13689 469.30 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 469.30 625 65213 203 23732 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 1,881.94 COMMUNICATIONS 209.71 101 65100 160 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 27.99 101 65100 200 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,644.24 101 65100 260 23733 NORTH VALLEY OIL 13815 92.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.00 620 66700 120. 23734 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 3,152.15 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 3,152.15 526 69020 230 23735 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 3,123.81 GAS, OIL & GREASE 3,123.81 201 65200 201 23736 SUPERIOR ALUMINUM BODY CORP. 16229 2,025.08 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 2,025.08 625 65213 203 23737 BROADWAY BUSINESS 16849 1,200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,200.00 731 22555 23738 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 183.98 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 183.98 101 65100 200 23739 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 296.92 OFFICE EXPENSE 296.92 101 64250 110 23740 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 18011 26687 EQUIPMENT MAINT. - 266.87 101 65100 200 23741 TOOLS EXPRESS 18027 308.70 TRAINING EXPENSE 308.70 101 68020 260 2300 23742 STADAM & ASSOCIATES 18275 2,178.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,178.00 101 68010 220 1781 23743 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 18565 22,524.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 22,524.25 101 64540 220 23744 VALLEY CREST TREE COMPANY 18713 742.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 742.60 730 69560 120 2300 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 02/01/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23714 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 183.58 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 183.58 201 65200 203 23715 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 126.65 MISCELLANEOUS 126.65 101 68020 192 2200 23716 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 38.97 TRAINING EXPENSE 38.97 526 69020 260 23717 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 1,196.48 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,196.48 101 66210 226 23718 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. 02599 203.51 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 203.51 101 65100 210 23719 PENINSULA BATTERIES 02625 732.96 SUPPLIES 732.96 620 15000 23720 AT&T 03080 77.85 COMMUNICATIONS 77.85 101 65100 160 23721 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT 03271 16,130.51 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16,130.51 320 81790 220 23722 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 191,473.14 WATER PURCHASES 191,473.14 526 69020 171 23723 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 03483 41,471.50 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 41,471.50 527 66530 270 23724 LIFE ASSIST 09392 95.05 SUPPLIES 95.05 201 65200 112 23725 SAN MATED COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 1,070.00 PRISONER EXPENSE 1,070.00 101 65100 291 23726 CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 09461 843.27 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 843.27 320 80190 210 23727 OLE'S 09626 1,434.85 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,399.31 201 65200 203 SUPPLIES 35.54 620 15000 23728 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 340.71 MISC. SUPPLIES 340.71 201 65200 111 23729 CAMINO REAL PET CLINIC 11577 71.94 MISC. SUPPLIES 71.94 101 65100 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME 01-26.2007 WARRANT REG 1 ST ER PAGE 13 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 108,062.84 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 1,593.99 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 18,459.79 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 172,478.78 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 26,349.59 WATER FUND 526 2,865.70 SEWER FUND 527 160,316.32 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 19,820.44 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 4,453.14 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 704,897.14 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 10,355.90 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 85.63 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 2,216.64 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 299,299.43 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 24,302.60 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 44,154.86 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,599,712.79 vo 11, �JI3.IS� Za'�� 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 23547 THROUGH 23713 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,599,712.79, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23707 PATRICK O' FLAHERTY CONSTRUCTION 27236 1 ,440.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,440.00 101 22546 23708 WILLIE CHAN 27237 1 ,007.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,007.00 101 22546 23709 LOUIS LARRAZABAL 27238 350.00 MISCELLANEOUS 350.00 101 36630 23710 NICK BOVIS 27239 2,250.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 2,250.00 101 22520 23711 PIERCE MANUFACTURING INC 27240 699,647.09 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 699,647.09 620 66700 800 23712 JULIUS KAUFMAN 27242 240.20 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 240.20 130 20015 23713 JOSEPH BUNNELL 27243 395.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 395.00 130 20060 TOTAL $1 ,599,712.79 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23691 ERIN LAGER 27220 203.00 MISCELLANEOUS 203.00 101 36330 000 1331 23692 JEAN YI JINN CHIANG 27221 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1330 23693 CLARA NG 27222 110.00 MISCELLANEOUS 110.00 101 36330 000 1330 23694 CALPERS 27223 1,152.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,152.00 101 65100 031 23695 JUNE HEE 27224 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1330 23696 FATIMA S ONO KUNIY 27225 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23697 MR/MRS CAI 27226 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23698 MICHAEL'S TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 27227 1,974.43 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,974.43 101 68010 120 1423 23699 MR/MRS. MAJUNDAR 27228 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23700 RITA HOWARD 27229 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1349 23701 MICHELLE GOLLER 27230 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1349 23702 JUDY SEVERNS 27231 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1349 23703 STEWART THOMPSON 27232 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1349 23704 RAYMON KLIEWER 27233 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 23705 HIROKAZU ITO 27234 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23706 SOUTH BAY CONSTRUCTION 27235 3,300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,300.00 101 22546 CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG 1 ST ER PAGE 10 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23676 CINGU LAR WIRELESS 26900 51.40 COMMUNICATIONS 51.40 101 64250 160 23677 ANA RECINOS MBA 26956 1,010.10 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,010.10 101 64420 210 23678 OLIVIA HEFFERNAN 26972 145.00 MISCELLANEOUS 145.00 101 36330 000 1349 23679 PEACE OF MIND EO 26983 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 23680 AVERY ASSOCIATES 27007 1,510.88 PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 1,510.68 101 64420 210 23681 DANIEL BERTERRETCHE 27026 66.00 MISCELLANEOUS 66.00 101 36330 000 1646 23682 SANDEEP SCHROFF 27050 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23683 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 85.50 TRAINING EXPENSE 85.50 101 64420 262 23684 BAKER&TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 27091 470.33 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 166.40 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 303.93 101 67500 125 23685 OFFICE DEPOT 27185 67.04 OFFICE EXPENSE 67.04 101 64400 110 23686 KELLY STERN 27214 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 23687 ROBERT DONG 27215 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 23688 ELIO DURZO 27216 98.00 MISCELLANEOUS 98.00 101 22593 23689 OLIVIA E. LEVITT 27217 348.00 MISCELLANEOUS 170.00 101 36330 000 1646 MISCELLANEOUS 178.00 101 36330 000 1762 23690 IVAN NENOV 27218 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 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23663 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 26274 409.24 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 89.60 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 319.64 101 67500 125 23664 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 26275 301.39 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 83.20 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 218.19 101 67500 125 23665 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26276 1,751.68 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 473.26 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 1,278.42 101 67500 129 23666 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26375 468.42 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 90.82 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 377.60 101 67500 129 23667 CEMEX 26506 34.11 MISC. SUPPLIES 34.11 101 66210 120 23668 ALEX CHAN 26524 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23669 BAKER & TAYLOR BOOKS #510486 26530 256.13 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 50.70 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 205.43 101 67500 129 23670 ROCKY POINT LLC 26733 728.07 COMMUNICATIONS 728.07 101 65100 160 23671 DANIEL BOYLE 26737 973.48 TRAINING EXPENSE 973.48 201 65200 260 23672 MCNABB CONSTRUCTION 26807 165,072.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 165,072.60 320 81090 220 23673 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26824 17.33 COMMUNICATIONS 17.33 101 66100 160 23674 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 522.38 OFFICE EXPENSE 29.76 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 225.31 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 20.31 101 64150 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 125.41 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.59 526 69020 120 23675 UTILITY INSIGHT INC. 26895 154,496.83 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 154,496.83 527 66520 800 C C C CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23647 MICHAEL VONADA 25235 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 23648 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 319.62 OFFICE EXPENSE 319.62 101 65100 110 23649 MELISSA BURKE 25514 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23650 AMY RUNDLE 25536 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23651 DAVID PARRY 25585 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1330 23652 NICHOLAS BELLAFATTO 25625 770.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 770.00 101 68010 220 1331 23653 KERRY BITNER 25685 960.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 960.00 101 22520 23654 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 98.26 RENTS & LEASES 98.26 526 69020 180 23655 ED BARTON 25850 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 23656 YOUMON TSANG 25856 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1349 23657 SAN JOSE BLUE 25886 338.11 MISC. SUPPLIES 338.11 326 80950 120 23658 FEDEX KINKO'S 26021 16.32 MISCELLANEOUS 16.32 619 64460 804 23659 GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 26096 747.85 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 747.85 201 65200 203 23660 KIRSTEN GAREN 26169 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 23661 MR GOODROW 26259 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1349 23662 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 26273 702.37 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 211.20 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 491.17 101 67500 125 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23632 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 1,827.71 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,827.71 326 81470 210 23633 XEROX CORPORATION 24635 484.94 LIBRARY EXPENSES 484.94 731 22531 23634 DHS OCP 24639 140.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 140.00 526 69020 260 23635 BRIAN MCKAGUE 24778 378.79 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 378.79 130 20060 23636 CWEA SFBS 24794 200.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 200.00 527 66520 260 23637 CAROLINE LEE 24799 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546 23638 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 89.55 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 89.55 201 65200 220 23639 CAPORICCI & LARSON 24920 7,345.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,345.00 101 64560 210 23640 DON'S MOBILE GLASS, INC. 24956 125.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 125.00 101 68020 200 2300 23641 BRAYER CONSTRUCTION 24981 795.00 MISCELLANEOUS 795.00 101 22546 23642 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS 25020 1,275.30 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 956.48 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 318.82 101 65150 220 23643 ALINE BIER 25089 7,935.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3,560.00 101 22520 MISCELLANEOUS 4,375.00 101 22546 23644 GINA BALDRIDGE 25092 420.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 420.00 730 69583 120 23645 ADVANCED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 25198 11876.59 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,876.59 620 66700 800 23646 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 295.24 OFFICE EXPENSE 295.24 201 65200 110 C CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23618 MILLS PENINSULA EMERGENCY MED,IN 23548 991.00 MISCELLANEOUS 991.00 618 64520 234 23619 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 329.47 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 329.47 619 64460 210 5120 23620 BRIAN ROCHE 23865 2,150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,150.00 101 22546 23621 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 95.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.00 619 64460 220 5210 23622 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 160.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 160.00 101 64420 210 23623 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 23624 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 1,325.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 322.39 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 325.05 101 68010 120 1111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 68.87 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 352.82 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 256.00 619 64460 220 5210 23625 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 36.42 COMMUNICATIONS 36.42 101 65300 160 23626 MUSIC SYSTEMS 23956 550.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 550.00 730 69533 220 23627 GARDENS OF THE BAY 24139 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 23628 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 461.39 OFFICE EXPENSE 461.39 101 65100 110 23629 FASTLANE TEK INC. 24304 2,200.00 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 2,200.00 526 69020 290 23630 A&G SERVICES 24400 8,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,100.00 101 66210 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,300.00 320 81720 220 23631 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 24465 184.96 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 51.20 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 133.76 101 67500 125 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23603 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 123.58 SUPPLIES 123.58 620 15000 23604 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 239.23 MISC. SUPPLIES 239.23 526 69020 120 23605 YEV PHILOPOVITCH 22217 7,250.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,250.00 326 81230 210 23606 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 22,633.42 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,312.25 736 64572 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15,321.17 736 64571 220 23607 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. 22632 197.07 SMALL TOOLS 197.07 201 65200 130 23608 SAN MATED REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 735.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 731 22554 UTILITY EXPENSE 435.00 896 20281 23609 JONES AND MAYER 22818 32.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 32.00 101 64350 210 23610 ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 22851 10,476.00 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 10,476.00 618 64520 225 23611 GREG HURLEY 22922 110.00 MISCELLANEOUS 110.00 101 36330 000 1781 23612 OFFICE MAX 23306 313.07 OFFICE EXPENSE 258.74 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 54.33 101 66100 110 23613 MIMI SIEN 23349 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546 23614 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 23382 1,185.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,185.00 619 64460 210 5250 23615 RECALL- TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT 23411 109.19 MISCELLANEOUS 109.19 101 22518 23616 TAMMY MAX 23445 75.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 75.00 130 20015 23617 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 16,933.77 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 16,933.77 326 81690 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23588 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 316.45 OFFICE EXPENSE 23.58 101 64250 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 246.29 201 65200 111 OFFICE EXPENSE 46.58 621 64450 110 23589 COLUMBELL CONSTRUCTION 19496 1,020.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,020.00 101 22546 23590 REDWOOD CITY-SAN MATEO COUNTY 19698 990.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 990.00 101 64100 250 23591 WESTERN STAR NURSERIES 19865 571.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 571.34 730 69560 120 2300 23592 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,669.18 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,669.18 736 64570 220 23593 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 1,478.68 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,106.18 320 81710 800 COMMUNICATIONS 372.50 621 64450 160 23594 ROBERT BARRY 20369 305.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 305.00 130 20060 23595 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 257.36 OFFICE EXPENSE 257.36 101 64420 110 23596 J. SNELL & CO., INC. 20571 326.83 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 326.83 101 68010 220 1101 23597 CHANNING L. BETE CO., INC. 20761 386.97 MISCELLANEOUS 386.97 731 22554 23598 ROYCE ROLLS RINGER CO. 20875 120.62 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 120.62 101 68020 190 2200 23599 MELANIE MARANI 21132 630.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 630.00 101 68010 220 1331 23600 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 21439 1,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 32100 23601 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 392.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 392.20 101 68020 120 2200 23602 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 5,924.66 MISCELLANEOUS 5,924.66 101 37010 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23573 RADIDSHACK CORPORATION 11749 16.23 MISC. SUPPLIES 16.23 619 64460 120 5130 23574 BOETHING TREELAND FARMS, INC. 13743 675.30 MISC. SUPPLIES 675.30 730 69560 120 2300 23575 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 306.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 306.25 619 64460 120 5250 23576 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 181.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 181.35 101 65100 220 23577 LINDA HOECK 16390 1,309.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,309.00 101 68010 220 1349 23578 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 16919 1,231.02 SUPPLIES 1,231.02 620 15000 23579 COLORPRINT 17497 630.56 OFFICE EXPENSE 630.56 101 64400 110 23580 KELLEHER & ASSOCIATES 18239 8,353.44 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 8,353.44 618 64520 210 23581 BAKER AND TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 18420 1,847.76 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 326.40 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 1,521.36 101 67500 125 - 23582 LANIER WORLDWIDE INC 18555 1,740.13 OFFICE EXPENSE 12.45 621 64450 110 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,727.68 621 64450 200 23583 PENINSULA CONFLICT 18633 7,779.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,779.50 101 64560 220 23584 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 1,070.53 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 66.62 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 1,003.91 619 64460 140 23585 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 202.40 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 202.40 101 64420 121 23586 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 389.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 389.00 101 64350 210 23587 SARAH LUCAS 19243 133.00 MISCELLANEOUS 133.00 101 36330 000 1349 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 23559 AT&T 03080 156.48 COMMUNICATIONS 156.48 101 67500 160 23560 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,962.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,962.75 101 65150 220 23561 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 231,351.11 MISCELLANEOUS 231,351.11 731 22587 23562 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 26,011.65 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 26,011.65 731 22562 23563 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 64250 114 23564 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 461.92 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 461.92 101 64350 210 23565 STATE OF CA/CONSERVATION DEPT 09073 1,623.42 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,623.42 731 22520 23566 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 3,287.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 135.00 101 64100 250 23567 STERICYCLE, INC. 09439 232.98 PRISONER EXPENSE 232.98 101 65100 291 23568 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 491.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 491.00 201 65200 220 23569 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 626.88 MISC. SUPPLIES 626.88 201 65200 111 23570 PIP PRINTING 10620 433.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 433.00 101 64420 150 23571 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 5,619.49 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,619.49 527 66520 800 23572 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 11707 223.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 9.00 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 89.00 101 67500 120 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 67.00 101 67500 125 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 38.00 101 67500 129 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 14.00 101 67500 190 MISCELLANEOUS 6.00 101 67500 235 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 01/26/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23547 BAKER AND TAYLOR, INC. 01190 5,994.37 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 162.59 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 5,831.78 101 67500 129 23548 BAUER COMPRESSORS 01309 14,289.00 MISCELLANEOUS 14,289.00 201 65200 400 23549 BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. 01500 39,141.34 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 39,141.34 731 22563 23550 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 2,629.52 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.47 101 68020 120 2200 SMALL TOOLS 503.43 201 65200 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.13 619 64460 120 5150 SUPPLIES 1,880.91 620 15000 EOUIPMENT MAINT. 137.95 620 66700 200 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 85.63 625 65213 203 23551 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 01745 9,256.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 9,256.00 101 64560 240 23552 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 1,370.20 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,370.20 101 68020 190 2100 23553 NATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 1,477.92 MISCELLANEOUS 1,477.92 896 20282 23554 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 440.52 MISC. SUPPLIES 23.51 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES -74.21 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 143.21 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 55.73 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 292.28 619 64460 120 5150 23555 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 291.74 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE - 291.74 101 66210 226 23556 HEWLETT PACKARD 02457 8,196.69 MISCELLANEOUS 8,196.69 621 64450 400 23557 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 367.62 MISC. SUPPLIES 367.62 619 64460 120 5250 23558 P. G. & E. 03054 43,702.63 GAS & ELECTRIC 1,460.69 101 68010 170 1286 UTILITY EXPENSE 42,241.94 896 20280 C CITY OF BURLINGAME 01 -18-2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 92,943.50 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 16,731 .64 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 13, 188.31 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 543,518.00 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 23,414.58 WATER FUND 526 40,773.44 SEWER FUND 527 211 ,539.69 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 3,384.70 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 459.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 2,285.66 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 25,906.55 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 36,600.62 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 35.70 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 2,441 .77 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 6,785.72 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 87.50 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 203.54 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1 ,020,299.92 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 23432 THROUGH 23546 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1 ,020,299.92, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./- . . FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . . COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W ARRAN T REG I ST ER PAGE 10 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT _ Denotes Hand Written Checks 23539 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 212.32 OFFICE EXPENSE -5.86 101 66210 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 17.27 101 65300 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 83.36 101 66210 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 12.98 526 69020 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 104.57 527 66520 110 23540 CALBO 26933 395.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 395.00 101 65300 220 23541 CINGULAR WIRELESS 27040 33.24 COMMUNICATIONS 33.24 101 65100 160 23542 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 27057 95.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 95.00 101 64420 262 23543 STOLOSKI AND GONZALEZ INC 27163 86,138.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 86,138.00 326 81230 220 23544 ADVANCE RECRUITMENT SOLUTIONS 27211 950.00 PUBLICATIONS&ADVERTISING 950.00 101 64420 150 23545 CALGIS CONFERENCE 27212 225.00 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 225.00 101 66100 250 23546 CTC SUPPLIES 27213 275.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 275.00 101 66210 120 TOTAL 81,020,299.92 �%O- A C CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23524 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 224.91 MISC. SUPPLIES 224.91 527 66520 120 23525 WESCO GRAPHICS INC 25007 5,823.71 MISCELLANEOUS 5,823.71 101 68010 115 1101 23526 DONALD CROSATTO 25050 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 23527 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 179.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 179.92 201 65200 220 23528 JAMES MURPHY 25080 1 ,367.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,367.50 101 68010 220 1661 23529 SCOTT 'S PPE RECON INC 25084 63.97 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 63.97 201 65200 140 23530 BAY CITIES DRIVING SCHOOL 25220 220.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 220.00 101 68010 220 1422 23531 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 230.01 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.65 201 65200 111 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 162.36 320 81710 800 23532 DISCOUNT PLUMBING 25248 150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 150.00 101 22520 23533 MERCY MARTIN 25270 675.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 675.00 101 68010 220 1661 23534 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153.22 RENTS & LEASES 153.22 526 69020 180 23535 IMPACT SCIENCES 26099 2,290.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 2,290.00 101 22590 23536 ALLIED OFFICE SUPPLIES 26138 45.98 OFFICE EXPENSE 45.98 101 64400 110 23537 GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL STRATEGIES 26417 6, 185.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 6, 185.00 320 80760 120 23538 LAKE TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS 26590 609. 14 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 609.14 101 66210 222 „SC. SUPPLIES 115.44 201 65200 1- SMALLTOOLS 1,134.15 201 65200 130 BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 2.70 201 65200 190 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT . 701.79 201 65200 203 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 76.40 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,027.73 201 65200 260 OFFICE EXPENSE 77.92 526 69020 110 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 118.60 527 66520 250 OFFICE EXPENSE 299.88 619 64460 110 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 43.28 620 66700 200 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 169.00 620 66700 210 MISC. SUPPLIES 66.00 730 69533 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 170.77 730 69583 120 MISCELLANEOUS 3,149.90 731 22553 MISCELLANEOUS 1,828.10 731 22554 C < CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23523 I .M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 25, 173.07 OFFICE EXPENSE 76.01 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 112.56 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 37. 12 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 59. 13 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.19 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.30 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 12.50 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 31 .56 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 35.96 101 65100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 , 125.77 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 90.63 101 68010 120 1422 MISC. SUPPLIES 437.34 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 31 .56 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.38 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 293.57 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 170.27 101 64100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 360.00 101 69537 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 177.96 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 27.12 101 68010 120 1780 MISC. SUPPLIES 64.93 101 68010 120 1100 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.31 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.27 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.85 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 330.08 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.85 101 68010 120 1780 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 , 179.60 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 10.25 101 68010 120 1780 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.70 101 68010 120 1286 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,329.40 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.34 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 640.65 101 68020 120 2300 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 729.64 101 64420 121 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 23.51 101 67500 129 COMMUNICATIONS 67.93 101 66100 160 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 199.00 101 67500 190 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 409.20 101 65100 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 880.00 101 68010 220 1422 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 855.50 101 68010 220 1370 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 68010 220 1212 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 217.50 101 68010 220 1422 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,820.50 101 68010 220 1423 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9.85 101 68010 220 1349 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 594.90 101 64250 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 89.95 101 64150 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 210.70 101 69537 250 STAFF & MEETINGS 19.90 101 67500 252 TRAINING EXPENSE 195.00 101 67500 260 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 248.93 101 65100 292 OFFICE EXPENSE 95.46 201 65200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 144.99 201 65500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 55.79 201 65200 111 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23512 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 430.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5160 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 619 64460 220 5150 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70.00 619 64460 220 5120 23513 DUNBAR ARMORED 23925 2,835.05 BANKING SERVICE FEES 586.98 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,248.07 530 65400 120 23514 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 724.27 MISC. SUPPLIES 599.47 101 68010 120 1111 MISC. SUPPLIES 124.80 101 68010 120 1114 23515 QUILL 24090 295.52 OFFICE EXPENSE 295.52 621 64450 110 23516 KUMUDINI MURTHY 24210 1,026.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,026.00 101 68010 220 1644 23517 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 648.00 MISCELLANEOUS 648.00 526 69020 233 23518 SUSAN MCKEE 24442 394.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 394.50 101 68010 220 1661 23519 MONSTERTRAK 24594 120.00 PUBLICATIONS 8 ADVERTISING 120.00 101 64420 150 23520 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 24647 197.25 TRAINING EXPENSE 197.25 101 65300 260 23521 GOLDEN STATE FLOW MEASUREMENT IN 24696 23,052.97 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,953.75 526 69020 220 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 13,671.16 526 69020 801 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,428.06 526 69020 803 23522 THE POWER SOURCE 24718 1,136.63 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,136.63 530 65400 200 C C � CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23499 GARY ROBB 22101 2,938.19 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,938.19 101 64420 210 23500 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 359.61 SUPPLIES 359.61 620 15000 23501 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 558.16 MISC. SUPPLIES 558.16 527 66520 120 23502 ROBERTA RESTANI 22828 720.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 720.00 101 68010 220 1641 23503 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 224.58 OFFICE EXPENSE 224.58 101 68010 110 1101 23504 OFFICE MAX 23306 354.25 OFFICE EXPENSE 60.02 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 410.18 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE -12.87 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE -110.73 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 7.65 101 66100 110 23505 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 71.67 MISC. SUPPLIES 71.67 619 64460 120 5150 23506 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC. 23428 130.48 TRAINING EXPENSE 130.48 527 66520 260 23507 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 166.12 MISC. SUPPLIES 166.12 619 64460 120 5250 23508 CALIFORNIA EMS ACADEMY 23612 545.00 MISCELLANEOUS 545.00 731 22554 23509 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 23,286.58 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 23,286.58 327 81500 210 23510 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 13.54 TRAINING EXPENSE 13.54 526 69020 260 23511 KAREN LIU 23823 252.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 252.00 101 68010 220 1645 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23484 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 128.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 128.00 327 81500 120 23485 GE CAPITAL 20216 379.75 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1100 23486 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 1,055.00 COMMUNICATIONS 1,055.00 621 64450 160 23487 PENINSULA HOSPITAL 20346 459.00 MISCELLANEOUS 459.00 618 64520 234 23488 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 1,444.26 SUPPLIES 1,444.26 620 15000 23489 SPRINT PCS 20724 337.33 . MISCELLANEOUS 337.33 731 22554 23490 AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & 20798 337.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 250.00 101 64420 210 MISC. SUPPLIES 87.50 738 64580 120 23491 DELL MARKETING L.P. 20900 1,176.92 MISCELLANEOUS 1,176.92 101 68020 400 2200 23492 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 246.45 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 246.45 619 64460 220 5130 23493 COW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 174.60 OFFICE EXPENSE 174.60 526 69020 110 23494 IMSA CERTIFICATION 21579 70.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 70.00 101 66210 240 23495 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 2,500.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 833.33 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 833.34 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 833.33 527 66520 260 23496 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. 21680 1,207.43 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 1,207.43 101 66210 222 23497 IEDA 21981 2,688.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,688.25 101 64420 210 23498 EXPRESS PLUMBING 22092 150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 150.00 101 22520 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23469 SYDNEY MALK0O 16347 81.17 SMALL TOOLS 81.17 620 66700 130 23470 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 680.80 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 680.80 101 68020 140 2300 23471 GOLDEN NURSERY 17128 25.72 MISC. SUPPLIES 25.72 526 69020 120 23472 CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS 17141 9,487.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,487.50 101 68020 220 2200 23473 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 872.05 OFFICE EXPENSE 299.65 101 64250 110 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 572.40 101 64250 200 23474 SHAW PIPELINE INC 17959 457,380.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 457,380.00 326 80950 220 23475 STADAM & ASSOCIATES 18275 3,432.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,432.00 101 68010 120 1781 23476 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 450.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 450.00 527 66520 120 23477 NU-ART LIGHTING& 18865 1,918.35 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,918.35 101 66210 120 23478 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 1,428.10 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 351.97 101 66210 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 1,076.13 527 66520 140 23479 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 106.76 MISC. SUPPLIES 106.76 101 64400 120 23480 LASHER AUTO CENTER 19364 23,319.31 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 23,319.31 620 66700 800 23481 MCCUNE AUDIO/VISUAL/VIDEO 19621 2,205.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,205.00 730 69547 120 23482 KATHY KARAS 19812 72.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 72.00 101 68010 220 1644 23483 MONICA OLSEN 19832 179.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 179.20 101 68010 220 1661 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT �•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 23456 CAL-STEAM. 10557 1,248.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 313.93 101 66210 120 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 113.94 201 65200 203 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.26 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 522.73 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 94.32 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 84.48 619 64460 120 5190 SMALL TOOLS 16.41 619 64460 130 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 35.70 625 65213 203 23457 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 907.17 MISC. SUPPLIES 117.81 101 65100 120 COMMUNICATIONS 79.30 101 65100 160 TRAINING EXPENSE 710.06 101 65100 260 23458 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 13753 9,576.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 9,576.00 101 64420 262 23459 FORTE PRESS CORP. 13759 49.80 MISC. SUPPLIES 49.80 101 65100 120 23460 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 572.00 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 572.00 526 69020 230 23461 THE PAIGE COMPANY, INC. 14138 327.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 327.08 101 64200 110 23462 SAY AREA AIR QUALITY 14358 149.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 149.58 620 66700 120 23463 RECHARGE-EM 14523 75.78 OFFICE EXPENSE 75.78 201 65200 110 23464 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 129.22 MISC. SUPPLIES 129.22 619 64460 120 5250 23465 LAERDAL MEDICAL CORP. 15055 925.39 MISCELLANEOUS 925.39 731 22554 23466 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 99.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 99.25 101 68010 220 1787 23467 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 340.34 SUPPLIES 340.34 620 15000 23468 TEAM CLEAN 15827 199.32 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.32 201 65200 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23445 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT 03271 84.21 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 84.21 101 68020 190 2200 23446 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY 03361 14,728.50 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 14,728.50 526 69020 240 23447 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 12,806.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,806.00 101 68020 220 2300 23448 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 350.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 350.00 101 65100 260 23449 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 160.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 160.00 621 64450 110 23450 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 6,831 .25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,831 .25 320 81550 210 23451 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF 'S OFC. 09433 1 , 109.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1 , 109.00 101 65100 200 23452 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 489.45 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 323.67 101 68020 140 2300 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 165.78 101 68020 200 2200 23453 MARGARET KRAMER 09612 1 , 192.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 , 192.50 101 68010 220 1661 23454 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 1 ,530.31 OFFICE EXPENSE 53.95 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 96.90 101 68020 120 2200 SMALL TOOLS 258.08 101 68020 130 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 79.82 101 68020 190 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 150. 16 201 65200 190 OFFICE EXPENSE 122.83 526 69020 110 SMALL TOOLS 290.56 526 69020 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 135. 13 527 66520 120 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 32.42 527 66520 230 MISC. SUPPLIES 310.46 619 64460 120 23455 LEONA MORIARTY 09979 1 ,890.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,890.00 101 68010 220 1644 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G IS T E R PAGE 1 01/18/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23432 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 60.00 TRAVEL&MEETINGS 60.00 101 64150 250 23433 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 121.61 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.61 101 68020 120 2200 23434 CALIFORNIA PARK&RECREATION 01726 130.00 DUES&SUBSCRIPTIONS 130.00 101 68010 240 1100 23435 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 34,002.00 COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 33,702.00 621 64450 220 23436 COMPUTER TECHNICIANS, INC., 01987 1,088.10 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,088.10 621 64450 200 23437 L. N. CURTIS&SONS 02027 12,185.06 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 12,185.06 201 65200 140 23438 D&M TOWING, INC. 02029 50.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 50.00 101 65100 200 23439 VEOLIA WATER 02110 207,343.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 207,343.00 527 66530 220 23440 FEDEX 02160 27.43 OFFICE EXPENSE 9.70 320 80790 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 17.73 619 64460 110 23441 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 97.49 MISC. SUPPLIES -485.59 101 68020 120 2200 SMALL TOOLS 164.16 201 65200 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 202.91 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.21 619 64460 120 5150 SMALL TOOLS .94.80 619 64460 130 23442 P. G. &E. 03054 187.46 GAS&ELECTRIC 177.23 201 65200 170 GAS&ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170 23443 AT&T 03080 203.54 UTILITY EXPENSE 203.54 896 20281 23444 SANDRA POBE 03175 2,545.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 540.00 10168010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES / 2,005.50 101 68010 220 1521 CITY OF BURLINGAME 01 -11 -2007 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 72,315.50 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 2,333.04 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 7,276.63 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 25, 138.22 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 31 ,598.92 WATER FUND 526 8,616.75 SEWER FUND 527 7,395.76 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1 ,500.00 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 25,219.68 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 3,429.89 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 18,208.90 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 763.07 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 4, 143.56 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 440.33 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1 ,900.00 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $210,280.25 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 23264 THROUGH 23402 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $210,280.25, 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 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 10 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23389 DONOVAN BOYLE 27196 120.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1780 23390 MR/MRS VERRICO 27198 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1349 23391 EVA MONISTERI 27199 200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 101 36330 000 1349 23392 LISA MARTINELLI 27200 200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 101 36330 000 1349 23393 DORIS CHUN 27201 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1349 23394 DIANE ABBEY 27202 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1349 23395 MR/MRS KUWAHARA 27203 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1349 23396 ERICA CHESNEY 27204 191.00 MISCELLANEOUS 191.00 101 36330 000 1331 23397 ELIZABETH MCDONNELL 27205 185.00 MISCELLANEOUS 185.00 101 36330 000 1891 23398 MARILOUISE HUGHES 27206 33.00 MISCELLANEOUS 33.00 101 36330 000 1521 23399 LESBYA REYES 27207 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 23400 CONRAD DACANAY 27208 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 23401 MARCI MARTINUCCI 27209 110.00 MISCELLANEOUS 110.00 101 36330 000 1781 23402 CWEA SANTA CLARA VALLEY SECTION 27210 320.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 320.00 527 66520 250 l TOTAL $210,280.25 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23374 LANCE BAYER 26156 562.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 562.00 101 64350 210 23375 APPIAN ENGINEERING 26186 85.00 MISCELLANEOUS 85.00 526 22502 23376 RICHARD HOLTZ 26208 122.94 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 122.94 101 64420 210 23377 OLIVIER GINDRAUX 26343 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 23378 QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING 26420 2,009.35 OFFICE EXPENSE 2,009.35 101 64200 110 23379 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26519 150.35 COMMUNICATIONS 150.35 201 65200 160 23380 H.S.B.C. BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 26564 314.69 MISCELLANEOUS -23.92 201 23611 SMALL TOOLS 338.61 201 65200 130 23381 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 63.57 COMMUNICATIONS 21.19 101 66210 160 COMMUNICATIONS 21.19 526 69020 160 COMMUNICATIONS 21.19 527 66520 160 23382 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 187.34 OFFICE EXPENSE 174.91 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 12.43 101 65300 110 23383 KAREN MYHRE 26986 25.00 MISCELLANEOUS 25.00 101 22593 23384 J WILKINSON 27130 85.00 MISCELLANEOUS 85.00 526 22502 23385 HERMAN BARAHONA 27169 351.81 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 351.81 201 65200 140 23386 R&L DIESEL 27190 487.62 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 487.62 201 65200 203 23387 JOE KERN 27194 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 101 22546 23388 JANA NISBET 27195 1,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 101 68010 220 1781 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hard Written Checks 23359 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 2,333.04 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,333.04 130 20014 23360 THE LIGHTHOUSE 24840 4.02 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 4.02 201 65200 203 23361 S AND S SUPPLIES 8 SOLUTIONS 24963 247.32 MISC. SUPPLIES 30.36 527 66520 120 TRAINING EXPENSE 216.96 619 64460 260 23362 MELISSA MIZEL 25048 - 700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 23363 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 438.02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23.08 101 65150 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 414.94 101 65100 220 23364 BAY CITIES DRIVING SCHOOL 25220 2,448.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,448.00 101 68010 120 1422 23365 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 202.73 OFFICE EXPENSE 202.73 101 65100 110 23366 MERCY MARTIN 25270 765.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 765.00 101 68010 220 1661 23367 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 160.00 BLDG. 8 GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 526 69020 190 23368 VIRGINIA THOMSON 25541 33.00 MISCELLANEOUS 33.00 101 36330 000 1521 23369 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 23370 SUSAN MCGARR 25888 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 36330 000 1349 23371 SUZANNE VARGAS 25903 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1349 23372 JENNIFER BESWICK 25932 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 36330 000 1349 23373 LIAM DANAGHER 25939 200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 101 36330 000 1349 C \ CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23345 GBA MASTER SERIES INC. 23693 12,838.45 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,838.45 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 4,000.00 526 69020 260 COMMUNICATIONS 4,000.00 527 66520 160 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,500.00 528 66600 120 TRAINING EXPENSE 500.00 619 64460 260 23346 AT&T/MCI 23728 26.48 COMMUNICATIONS 26.48 621 64450 160 23347 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 473.39 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 433.74 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 39.65 619 64460 220 5130 23348 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 473.40 COMMUNICATIONS 287.40 101 68020 160 2300 COMMUNICATIONS 186.00 619 64460 160 23349 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 207.65 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 207.65 326 80770 220 23350 BAVCO 24002 89.53 MISCELLANEOUS 89.53 526 69020 233 23351 RONALD AUGUST FAATZ 24004 1 ,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,400.00 101 68010 220 1781 23352 ABE KIRSCHENBAUM 24136 500.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 500.00 619 64460 250 23353 FLORA ROBELET 24167 50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 101 68010 220 1521 23354 ERIC GATTMAN 24169 444.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 444.00 101 68010 220 1521 23355 JOE DITO 24460 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 23356 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 6,245.40 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,245.40 326 80950 210 23357 BRYAN ROSENBERG 24631 315.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 315.00 101 68010 220 1780 23358 DIAMOND SECURITY SOLUTIONS 24659 75.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 75.00 619 64460 210 5121 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23330 MARK MEYERS 22051 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 23331 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 73.28 SUPPLIES 73.28 620 15000 23332 YEV PHILOPOVITCH 22217 6,800.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,800.00 326 81230 210 23333 JOHN KAMMEYER 22612 1,600.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,600.00 731 22554 23334 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 731 22554 23335 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTION 22803 135.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 135.00 101 65100 120 23336 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 561.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 561.13 101 66100 120 23337 CARL DEQUANT 22842 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 23338 OFFICE MAX 23306 384.44 OFFICE EXPENSE 232.38 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 152.06 621 64450 110 23339 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 23382 3,099.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,099.00 320 81660 220 23340 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 71.45 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 55.21 101 66210 226 MISC. SUPPLIES 16.24 527 66520 120 23341 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 18,345.87 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 18,345.87 326 81690 210 23342 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 131.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 131.20 619 64460 120 5250 23343 CLAIRE EVANS 23645 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 23344 AT&T 23661 23.14 COMMUNICATIONS 23.14 621 64450 160 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23315 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 23316 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 4,066.00 RENTS & LEASES 2,033.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 2,033.00 527 66520 180 23317 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 179.24 SUPPLIES 179.24 620 15000 23318 BRIDGE WIRELESS 20633 1,149.84 SUPPLIES 1,149.84 620 15000 23319 FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC. 20967 103.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 103.92 101 65100 220 23320 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 588.72 MISC. SUPPLIES 351.81 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 236.91 101 66210 219 23321 CEB 21210 205.19 MISC. SUPPLIES 205.19 101 64350 120 23322 OLEN SIMON 21477 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1781 23323 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 48.93 OFFICE EXPENSE 48.93 621 64450 110 23324 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 2,281.25 TRAINING EXPENSE 760.42 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 760.41 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 760.42 527 66520 260 23325 MR. & MRS. MEDEGHINI 21671 200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 101 36330 000 1349 23326 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. 21680 2,869.50 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 2,869.50 101 66210 222 23327 HILLSIDE DRILLING 21840 21,149.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 21,149.00 320 81720 210 23328 ALL PETROLEUM RECOVERY SERVICE, 22008 95.00 GAS, OIL & GREASE 95.00 201 65200 201 23329 JIM STOCKWELL 22048 1,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 101 68010 220 1781 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23300 CUMMINS WEST, INC. 16414 596.60 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 596.60 619 64460 210 5160 23301 COMMUNITY GATEPATH 16575 7,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 7,500.00 101 22546 23302 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 331.13 SUPPLIES 331.13 620 15000 23303 STEVE'S CHRISTMAS TREES 16767 603.45 MISCELLANEOUS 603.45 526 22502 23304 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE 17546 192.87 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 36.58 625 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 156.29 625 65213 203 23305 STEVE GOLDBERG 17577 700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 23306 SELF INSURANCE PLANS 18051 25,219.68 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 25,219.68 618 64520 225 23307 SIERRA MORENO MERCANTILE CO. 18357 336.17 SMALL TOOLS 336.17 101 68020 130 2300 23308 SAN MATEO RENTALS 18767 699.80 MISC. SUPPLIES 699.80 526 69020 120 23309 BAY ALARM 18854 294.38 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 15.38 619 64460 210 5180 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 111.00 619 64460 210 5230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 168.00 619 64460 210 5180 23310 PRIORITY 1 19239 1,474.82 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,474.82 625 65213 203 23311 GARY PARTEE 19249 4,550.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,550.00 101 22546 23312 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 39.94 MISC. SUPPLIES 39.94 620 66700 120 23313 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 2,228.32 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 738.36 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,489.96 625 65213 203 23314 THE MERCURY NEWS 19610 144.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 144.28 101 66100 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23286 OLE'S 09626 102.66 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 51.33 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 51.33 625 65213 203 23287 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC 09790 250.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 250.00 101 66210 120 23288 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 1,493.33 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,493.33 201 65200 203 23289 SHAFFER'S AUTO SERVICE CENTER 11324 934.58 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 934.58 625 65213 203 23290 SERGEANT DAWN CUTLER 11759 233.17 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 233.17 101 65100 140 23291 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 13689 528.74 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 528.74 201 65200 203 23292 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 2,753.95 OFFICE EXPENSE 150.00 101 65100 110 COMMUNICATIONS 125.95 101 65100 160 GAS, OIL & GREASE 119.00 101 65100 201 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 14.00 101 65100 240 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,225.00 101 65100 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 120.00 730 69530 120 23293 3M COMPANY 13848 655.34 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 655.34 101 66210 222 23294 ADAMSON POLICE PRODUCTS 14414 2,976.88 POLICE--SUPPLIES 2,976.88 101 65100 126 23295 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 9.74 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.74 619 64460 120 5250 23296 MICHAEL LENNON 15302 1,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 101 68010 220 1781 23297 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,082.95 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,082.95 101 65100 220 23298 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 18,514.19 GAS, OIL & GREASE 2,459.96 201 65200 201 SUPPLIES 16,054.23 620 15000 23299 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 59.55 TRAINING EXPENSE 59.55 527 66520 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 23278 MARGARET PRENDERGAST 03179 1,395.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,395.00 101 68010 120 1641 23279 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 155.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 155.00 527 66520 190 23280 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT 03271 890.22 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 890.22 320 81790 220 23281 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 5,750.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,750.00 101 66100 220 23282 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 6,373.82 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 MISC. SUPPLIES 46.57 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,828.83 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 246.82 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 90.00 101 68010 120 1286 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.56 101 68010 120 1520 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 221.88 101 68020 140 2200 RENTS & LEASES 600.00 101 68020 180 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 162.59 101 68010 190 1106 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 26.85 101 68020 190 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 312.00 101 68010 220 1349 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 420.00 101 68010 220 1422 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 274.00 101 68010 220 1645 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 420.00 101 68010 220 1331 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 360.00 101 68020 240 2200 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 48.10 101 68020 250 2100 TRAINING EXPENSE 225.00 101 68020 260 2200 TRAINING EXPENSE 19.29 101 68020 260 2100 MISC. SUPPLIES 320.33 730 69583 120 23283 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 1,215.88 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,215.88 101 64350 120 23284 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 318.32 MISC. SUPPLIES 110.74 619 64460 120 5160 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.40 619 64460 120 5170 MISC. SUPPLIES 157.18 619 64460 120 5130 23285 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 303.29 MISC. SUPPLIES 179.26 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 124.03 101 66210 219 1 ) ) CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 01/11/07 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 23264 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 193.43 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 75.56 101 68020 190 2200 MISCELLANEOUS 31.92 101 68020 192 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 24.85 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 61.10 619 64460 120 5180 23265 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 87.29 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 87.29 201 65200 203 23266 BAUER COMPRESSORS 01309 232.74 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 232.74 201 65200 200 23267 BRIDGES TIRE & WHEEL SERVICE 01403 65.00 SUPPLIES 65.00 620 15000 23268 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 70.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 70.00 101 64250 250 23269 WESTERN POWER AND EQUIPMENT 01857 88.94 SUPPLIES 88.94 620 15000 23270 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 10.92 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 10.92 201 65200 203 23271 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 3,159.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 64.91 101 68020 120 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 3,095.06 101 68020 190 2100 23272 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 317.46 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 317.46 101 66210 219 23273 CHARLES J. HAPP 02360 700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 700.00 101 68010 220 1781 23274 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. 02599 42.11 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 42.11 201 65200 140 23275 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 227.30 SUPPLIES 227.30 620 15000 23276 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 398.46 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 19.46 101 68020 190 2200 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 257.28 101 66210 219 MISC. SUPPLIES 79.37 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.35 619 64460 120 5130 23277 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 653.56 MISC. SUPPLIES 653.56 101 68020 120 2300 MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, January 11 , 2007 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Dittman at 7:03 pm at Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Ave, Burlingame. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Dittman, Muller, Hesselgren, Shanus, Larios, Castner-Paine, Comaroto Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz; Account Clerk Il Joleen Butler; Recreation Supervisor Stacey Poncia; Parks Superintendent Tim Richmond; Parks Supervisor Bob Disco Others Present: Roy Schnabel, 97 Ralston Ranch Rd. Belmont; Fiona & Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Ave. ; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater; Bobbi Benson, 550 ECR; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way MINUTES The Minutes of the November 16, 2006 regular meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Bobbi Benson expressed concern regarding the current employment of a part-time arborist by the City in addition to Bob Disco, currently the Parks Supervisor, who is also a certified Arborist. She suggested the City save money by utilizing Mr. Disco's abilities as an arborist eliminating the need for the part-time position. She also suggested that the money saved by eliminating the part-time arborist could be used to trim the pear trees on Broadway that were planted in 2002, were poorly trained, and are now in need of trimming as they causing problems for the merchants. It would cost the merchants about $8,000 to correct the problems. (Director Schwartz informed Ms. Benson that he would pass her concerns onto the Planning Department as the part-time arborist works with that department for new developments and remodels doing plan checks) OLD BUSINESS A. Capital Improvement Projects a. Bayside Restroom/Snack Shack -Director Schwartz presented a picture of the Snack Shack/Restroom to be installed at Bayside Park. The installation will begin within the next couple of weeks and should be completed in February. b. Bayside Park & Murray Field — Ray Schnable, a representative from Burlingame Soccer Club (BSC), proposed starting a fundraising effort in cooperation with the public and some private groups for converting Bayside & Murray Fields to all weather. He stated that with the increasing popularity of Soccer and Lacrosse in the area, field space/use is in high demand. He feels Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes January 11, 2007—Page 2 that public and non-profit groups would be able to assist in raising the funds necessary to accommodate the ever-increasing need of field space. Schwartz distributed an article forwarded from Schnable regarding field space from a local newspaper that illustrates the point Schnabel was making to the Commission. MOTION by Larios (seconded by Hesselgren): Recommend to Council that the City explore fundraising potential with local youth sports organizations to re-turf Bayside/Murray fields. Motion accepted 7-0. NEW BUSINESS Report on Washington Park— (This item was moved up on the agenda by Chairperson Dittman to accommodate the public in attendance) Parks Superintendent Richmond presented the attached report , Washington Park Assets, to the Commission. Commissioner Hesselgren noted that it appears from the time comparative reports that there are now more trees in the park than ever before. Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor, stated that the planting of more hardwoods has contributed to the canopy of the park over the last several years. Commissioner Castner-Paine asked Disco if it is a policy to use mostly native trees when planning the replant process. Disco said that this was not a policy just what he has been doing. Benson mentioned that the park is very popular amount bird watchers due to the variety of trees within the park. OLD BUSINESS (cont'd) B. Art in the Park — Stacey Poncia, Recreation Supervisor, reported that she would be in charge of the 2007 event and presented the attached report, Art in the Park 2007 Planning Meeting. She presented several ideas for the upcoming year that she is planning to implement such as a "Kids Corral" run by the Youth Advisory Committee and hopefully sponsored by a local business, having a permanent stage area with different music on each day of the event and also having a "kid friendly" artist booth area. REPORTS/HAND-OUTS A. Staff Reports 1. Monthly Report dated August 17, 2005 —attached 2. 2004-05 Revenue Report— attached 3. Director Schwartz reported that an article would be coming out in the newspapers tomorrow regarding the relationship between the City and Burlingame School District. Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes January 11, 2007—Page 3 B. Commissioners 1. Commissioner Larios and Shanus would like to have the Burlingame School District/City of Burlingame Agreement placed on the agenda for February. 2. Commissioner Comaroto would like to have the item of taping the Commission meetings placed on the agenda for February. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:29 pm. Respectfully submitted, Joleen Butler Burlingame Parks & Recreation Account Clerk III City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAM phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 A recreationkburlingame org �' o 1�f Date: January 7, 2007 To: Parks&Recreation Commissioners City Council From: Randy Schwartz Re: Monthly Report Parks Division 1. Sod installed at selected locations on Murray Field 2. New infield sod installation and drainage improvements at Washington Park Main baseball field. 3. Parks employees Rich Holtz and Mike Rancatore successfully tested for their Certification as Playground Inspectors. 4. Parks Division employees participated in NIMS training and driver training(simulator training arranged by HR). 5. All Fields are closed Dec3 —Feb 26 Recreation Division Preschool 1. 2nd Annual"Make a Gingerbread Night with Your Dad"(or other significant adult) at the Village. Over 20 preschoolers attended with their dad, grandfathers, and even a few moms. Teens/Youth Programs 2. The 4`h and 5`h Grade Basketball League began with 170 participants from Burlingame along with 16 teams from Hillsborough and 8 teams combined from Carey School and St. Mats. 3. 32 teens enrolled in Driver Training over winter break 4. 25 teens enrolled in Extreme Adventures, 70 plus K-5`h graders in Young Explorers&Discovery Camps Adult Programs 5. P Senior Citizens Programs 6. 60 people attended the first Senior special event, "Fall Fashion Frill", a luncheon and fashion show 7. Flu Shots were given to 240 seniors 8. Fall Film Festival and lunch had 25 participants 9. Trips included Gilroy Outlets/dinner(13 participants)and Beach Blanket Babylonibrunch at 11 Fomaio(34) 10. Lectures included"History of Vaudeville"(40)and Exercise&Your Heart(30) Classes 11. Class registration began for the Spring 2007 session of classes. UpcomingEvents vents 1. The City of Burlingame � BVRLINGAME California 94010-3997 www.burlinoame.oro TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes—Approved Thursday,January 11,2007 Commissioners Present: Victor James,Chair Dan Conway,Vice Chair Michael Bohnert J.Mark Noworolski Stephen Warden Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou,Traffic Engineer,Public Works Traffic Sergeant Dean Williams,Police Department Joanne Louie,Administrative Secretary,Public Works Visitors: Rudy Horak,1332 Edgehill Farris Horak,1332 Edgehill Pat Giorni,1445 Balboa Craig Horak,1332 Edgehill 1 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners Present Chair James took a moment to welcome and introduce Commissioner Noworolski the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. Chair James expressed his gratitude for the Commission nominating him as the Chair for this year. Chair James also acknowledged Augustine Chou, Joanne Louie, the Police Department and Mr. Horak for their contributions. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.1. ACTION ITEMS 4.1.1 Approval of Minutes for October 12, 2006, November 9, 2006 and September 21, 2006 Motion: To accept the October 12, 2006 minutes as submitted. M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 3/0/2 (James and Noworolski abstained) Motion: To accept the November 9, 2006 minutes as submitted. M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 4/0/1 (Noworolski abstained) Motion: To accept the September 21, 2006 minutes as submitted. -� M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 4/0/1 (Noworolski abstained) 5. CONSENT Mr. Chou explained that this was new to the agenda format. He said that items which needed no discussion but merely full consent from the Commission could be moved to this part of the agenda for action provided it was agreed upon by all Commissioners. No items from this agenda were moved to Consent. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Rudy Horak expressed the need for two pedestrian high-visibility posts for the Broadway/Chula Vista intersection. These posts needed to be at the bulb-outs on both sides of the street. He also mentioned that he recently saw a news article regarding Belmont's use of a plainclothes police officer that posed as a pedestrian for enforcement issues. He added that citations were given out. Mr. Horak said that during this test period, Belmont issued 80 citations, each ranging from $180 to$250. Farris Horak provided a copy of the Belmont news article for the Commission and stated that this"sting" operation had also been used in Millbrae. She felt that this news article was well worth reading. Pat Giorni congratulated Chair James in his new role. She agreed that the previously mentioned "sting" operation was a good idea. Ms. Giorni also wanted to publicly thank the individuals that wrote letters of support for the TDA grant applications. She suggested that the B/PAC Committee try to utilize the press to attract the public for involvement. 2 Ms. Giorni also commented on the Easton Tree issue. She said it is her recollection that the Traffic Study was requested, but never occurred. She suggested that the study be taken up as New Business. Finally, Ms. Giorni suggested that the Commission also offer a second public comment period to the agenda as City Council has recently done. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1. 1821 North Carolan Avenue— Designation of 2-hr parking spaces Mr. Chou advised the Commission that this was a request from the Public Works Corporation Yard to change the on-street parking time limits of certain spaces in front of the facility. He also noted that the address noted might be incorrect and needed to be verified. 8. CURRENT BUSINESS 8.1. Bicycle Safety Issues 8.1.1.Transportation Development Activities(TDA) project applications and letters of support Mr. Chou reported that three grant applications are being submitted for the January 12, 2007 TDA deadline. The grant applications were for three projects developed by the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC) and staff. Mr. Chou recommended that the Commission provide a formal letter of support for these projects. Motion: To move to action. M/S/C: Conway, Bohnert; 5/0/0 8.1.2.Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC)vacancy. Mr. Chou reported that there was a vacancy for the B/PAC. Chair James asked if Commissioner Noworolski would be interested in filling the vacancy based on his bicycling interests. Commissioner Noworolski agreed to fill the position left by former Commissioner Gene Condon. 8.2. Traffic and Parking Issues 8.2.1.Broadway/Paloma—Traffic safety measures Mr. Chou reported that one of the projects submitted for TDA grants was LED lighted crosswalks for the Broadway/Paloma intersection. Mr. Chou said he would also verify with the Maintenance Division on the availability of high-visibility pedestrian warning signs. He said that an installation timeframe was for within the next week or so. Mr. Chou also recommended that the sub-committee meet once more with the stakeholders for full agreement on the various installations in order to clarify the work and ensure that there would be no conflicts with future installations. Commissioner Bohnert agreed that meeting once more was a good idea and expressed the need for the sub-committee to continue to move forward by coming up with some formality with consistent follow-up. 3 Commissioner Warden inquired about a meeting between Chair James and some of the Broadway/Paloma merchants. Chair James said that this meeting was the result of a request by the merchants to meet him. Commissioner Warden expressed his concern over the meeting without the sub- committee. Commissioner Conway stated that there were two issues: 1) it was the right of the Chair to meet with whomever and whenever it was necessary, 2) good form and lesson learned from this experience. Mr. Chou stated that the merchants may not have known the proper channels to voice their concerns. He added that there were lessons learned as new roles were being assumed. Chair James reiterated that there was no intent to undermine the sub-committee; and, that he was invited to meet with the merchants because he was the new Chair. Commissioner Bohnert asked Mr. Chou whether a Commissioner could expedite installations for work. Mr. Chou said that staff was responsible for carrying out installations. It was the responsibility of the sub-committee to filter and form ideas to bring to the entire commission. He said that any delay of installation would be due to staff resources and not the sub-committee, or the Commission. Commissioner Noworolski asked for clarification of the process in terms of inquiries to the Commission. He asked if items go from sub-committee to commission, and then onto City Council. Mr. Chou explained that smaller issues could be handled fairly quickly, but costlier work had to go through staff and Council because they would impact the City's budget. 8.3. Staff Reports 8.3.1.Traffic Engineer's Report None. 8.3.2.Traffic Sergeant's Reports None. 9. ACTION Mr. Chou explained the Action area on this new agenda format. This area is for all items that are moved to"Action". As opposed to the Consent area, these items include discussion. Having all the Action items in one section should make the process more expedient. 9.1 Transportation Development Activities (TDA) project applications and letters of support Motion: The Commission supports the projects submitted for the TDA grants and will provide a formal letter as such. M/S/C; Conway, Warden; 5/5/0 10. OLD BUSINESS None. 4 11. COMMUNICATIONS 11.1 Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive—Council Meeting Mr. Chou informed the Commission about a Council meeting Tuesday, January 16, at 7PM to discuss the Easton Drive eucalyptus tree issue. He suggested that a TSPC commissioner should attend to provide representation for the commission if questions arose. Commissioner Warden stated that he would be attending that meeting. Commissioner Bohnert asked for clarification and updating on TSPC involvement over this matter. Commissioner Warden explained that he, staff, and former Commissioner Cohen had inspected the area, surveyed the tree locations, and brainstormed over various options. A Traffic Study was discussed, but was put on hold since it was decided that the Beautification Committee still needed to consider a reforestation plan. Mr. Chou added that there was an informal discussion with Randy Schwartz, Director of Parks & Recreation, regarding traffic volume counts and the need to wait for a reforestation program. Pat Giorni asked, and received permission to speak. She stated that at the recent City Council meeting, the Council decided to cut down the tree but Councilman Cohen asked Council to perform a Traffic Study. She said that despite this, it was still voted upon to cut down the tree. `— 11.2 Minor/Miscellaneous Commission Comments Commissioner Warden said that he agreed with the idea of a second public comment period at the end of the agenda. Commissioner Warden reported that the lawnmower shop on California Drive had closed, and that the 700 block is doing well with signage. Commissioner Warden also commented on the signage on westbound Oak Grove and Carolan,just north of Burlingame High School. He thought there was no sign indicating that on-coming traffic did not stop over the railroad tracks. Mr. Chou explained that there was a sign on the northwest corner of the intersection. Commissioner Bohnert thanked Chair James for proposing his ideas for the upcoming year, and expressed his appreciation for the enthusiasm. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 8:23 p.m. 5 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1, 2007 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5 :35 p.m. by Chairperson McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McQuaide, Carney, Ellis, Lahey (left at 7: 15), and O'Connor (left at 7:05) Absent: Commissioners Grandcolas and Wright Staff: Superintendent Richmond, Arborist Porter, and Secretary Harvey Guests: Christiane Chaney and Marc Filosa (2827 Arguello Avenue); Jean Silveira (2331 Poppy Drive); Fiona Hamilton (105 Crescent); and Rosalie McCloud (1528 S . El Camino Real, San Mateo) MINUTES — The Minutes of the January 11, 2007 Beautification Commission Meeting, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Memorandum from Commissioners Carney and Ellis reporting on the meeting with City staff, Beautification Commissioners, P.G& E. and Asplundh Tree Expert Company representatives, regarding pruning techniques in the City of Burlingame. Memorandum from Commissioners Lahey and Wright reporting on ideas to consider regarding reinstituting the landscape award. FROM THE FLOOR — None OLD BUSINESS Order of agenda was changed to accommodate the appellants who were present. Appeal of the Denial of One Private Spruce Tree at 2827 Arguello Drive Arborist Porter stated that he found the Spruce tree to be healthy and stable. He noted that the damage to the sidewalk was not uncommon or significant and roots could be pruned during sidewalk repair. Arborist Porter concluded that the reasons stated by the applicant did not meet the criteria used to justify removal of this tree. Commissioners discussed and commented. Commissioner Lahey asked Arborist Porter if the tree could be pruned, thinned, and raised. Arborist Porter stated yes, that the tree could be thinned, and the bottom fringe could be raised up. Commissioner Ellis noted that the roots go 8 feet toward the house and asked if root pruning of those roots could be done and root barriers placed. Arborist Porter responded that those roots could be pruned to the drip line of the tree, as well as those along the edge of the sidewalk, and root barriers could be placed. Commissioner Ellis asked about the damage to the telephone/cable box. Arborist Porter responded that excavation around the root at the box could be performed, the root could be cut, and the box could be rebuilt. Chairperson McQuaide asked if the appellants had any comments. Marc Filosa explained that the tree is quite large and originally was a live Christmas tree planted years ago. He stated that the roots are on the surface, have damaged the sidewalk, that relandscaping and retaining wall work is being planned, and that the overall plan is contingent on what can be done with the tree. Mr. Filosa stated that there are other trees on the property and the planting of a smaller size tree is planned. He concluded that they are requesting permission to remove the tree because, with all the expense for relandscaping and the necessary repairs to the sidewalk, the damage is only likely to occur in another 5 years. Mrs. Chaney added that the surface roots from this tree are all over the place. Chairperson McQuaide closed the hearing. 1 Appeal of the Denial of One Private Spruce Tree at 2827 Arguello Drive—(Contd.) Chairperson McQuaide stated that she noticed the sidewalk damage and the roots in the area. She noted that the neighborhood is without trees, this tree being the only tree in the area. She stated that this is a beautiful, specimen tree; that the shape and size of the tree is nice and the skirt could be raised if need be. Commissioner Ellis commented that she would like to see the roots pruned and root barriers placed rather than removal of the tree. Commissioner O'Connor agreed and stated she would like to see the tree saved,that it is a very healthy and beautiful tree. Commissioner Carney thought the fringe could be raised, root pruning performed, and root barriers placed. She asked Arborist Porter how long the root barriers might be effective. Arborist Porter responded that if root barriers are installed correctly, their effectiveness might last for 10-20 years. Superintendent Richmond asked Arborist Porter if they could circumscribe the entire tree with root barriers. Arborist Porter responded, yes,that roots could be pruned all the way around the tree at the drip line, and root barriers could be placed. Commissioner Lahey stated she would not approve removal, that there are very few large trees in the area, and that the tree is healthy and thriving. She stated the sidewalk damage is not uncommon and can be repaired as well as the damaged telephone/cable boxes. She concluded that there are creative landscaping options available and that, pruning the tree and roots, and the placement of root barriers can address the concerns of the applicant. Following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved to deny the appeal of the denial to remove the Spruce tree at 2827 Arguello Drive with the recommendation that the applicant consider root pruning and placement of root barriers to mitigate the problems with the roots; seconded, O'Connor. The motion carried 5-0-2 (absent/Grandcolas and Wright). _Appeal of the Denial of Two Redwood Trees at 2022 Trousdale Drive Arborist Porter reported that the applicant requests removal of two Redwood trees to open up light to their patio and open up the view from their upstairs bedroom;this is not a bay view tree issue. He stated that both trees are mid life and will get larger, and like most large trees, will continue to need regular maintenance. Arborist Porter concluded that the concerns expressed by the applicant do not meet the criteria used to justify removal of protected trees and so the application was denied. Commissioner Lahey stated that the trees are beautiful and asked if the trees could be pruned away from the building and the gutters. Arborist Porter responded, yes,that the trees can be trimmed back from the building and pruning for sunlight could also be done. He added that the trees proximity to the building is not a problem. The applicants were not present for comment. Commissioner Ellis noted that only one small window is totally blocked by the tree and removal of the tree would leave a huge expanse with no significant trees in the neighborhood. Commissioner Lahey agreed and noted that if the tree near the patio were pruned it would help with winter light. She asked Arborist Porter if the nearby Alder tree is leaning due to lack of light. Arborist Porter responded, yes, that trimming the Redwood could provide more sunlight but removal of the small Alder could be considered as well. Chairperson McQuaide stated that Redwood trees can be messy, but that they are gorgeous trees, and can be thinned and should stay as there are not many significant trees in the area. Commissioner O'Connor commented that the trees are beautiful and pruning should be considered first and would also be less expensive. Commissioner Carney agreed that both trees are beautiful and could be trimmed in order to address the concerns of the applicants. Following the comments from the Commission, Commissioner O'Connor moved to deny the appeal of the denial to remove two Redwood trees at 2022 Trousdale Drive with the recommendation that the applicants consider pruning and thinning of both trees to mitigate the concerns expressed; seconded, Lahey. The motion carried 5-0-2 (absent/Grandcolas and Wright). 2 P.G.&E.Pruning Practices in the City of Burlinzame Commissioner Carney and Ellis submitted a summary of the meeting held on January 26`' with P.G.& E. and Asplundh Tree Company representatives to discuss Line Clearance Pruning in the City of Burlingame. Commissioner Carney reviewed the following topics that were discussed: General Procedures • Western Environmental Consultants(WECI) inspect the circuits and determine which trees need to be trimmed. (Most are certified arborists—but not all.) • (WECI) contacts P.G.&E. and tells them which trees need to be trimmed. Asplundh then trims the trees. Inspection and trimming are usually performed in the first quarter of the year. • After the trees are trimmed, California Forestry Vegetation Management (CFVM) spot-checks trees to see if they have been trimmed properly. This has been done for the last 6 years. Notification of Trimming • PG&E uses a "Utility tree Trimming Notice" to notify customers that trees will be trimmed by Asplundh in 4-6 weeks. • PG&E has developed an automated message system that notifies customers when work will be done in their area. People who have a phone number listed in PG&E's database will be called. It is a new process and will be instituted this year on an experimental basis in Burlingame on circuits with 100 trees or more. • Carlos Zaragoza will contact Supervisor Disco by e-mail (or in person) and inform him when and where trees will be trimmed by Asplundh. This information will be sent to residents who subscribe to the City of Burlingame E-Newsletter at: enews ABurlingame.org . Topping • Only trees that grow straight up are topped (example: redwood trees). Liquid amber and other trees that have been previously topped or sycamores that have been pollarded are also topped. Complaints • If a private tree is being trimmed and the owner asks the trimmers to stop, they must stop trimming. This does not apply to street trees. • People who have complaints about the work done or improper clean-up can call the PG&E Call Center at 1-800-743-5000 and speak with a customer Representative. Those complaints will be logged and forwarded to Erin Parks. Undergrounding • Undergrounding of power lines was also discussed, but residential streets usually do not qualify for Rule 20 funds. Commissioner Carney concluded that generally P.G.&E. and Asplundh representatives were very interested in cooperating with the City. Chairperson McQuaide noted that Vegetation Manager, Erin Parks, is new but seems very interested and aware of the complaints. Commissioner Lahey stated it was good to have met and discussed the communities concerns; that they now are aware that people are watching and are concerned. Superintendent Richmond stated that the meeting was valuable and it helped to open lines of communication and that the Asplundh foreman will soon be meeting with Supervisor Disco to discuss this years pruning schedule in the City. Consideration of Reinstating of Landscape Award Commissioner Lahey reported that she and Commissioner Wright met to discuss the possibility of re- instituting the landscape award. She reported that they discussed the following: 1) Types of Award: Residential or Business or both. 2) Purpose: To promote the uniqueness of Burlingame Businesses and civic pride by acknowledging special businesses who contribute aesthetically to the City. 3 Consideration of Reinstating of Landscape Award (contd.) - 3) Award: Design an award with the City of Burlingame seal and perhaps include a Centennial slogan. 4) Award Schedule: Establish a bi-annual award to maintain momentum with the first award to be presented at the tree lighting ceremony in 2007. 5) Promotion: Meet with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss the Chamber's historical role and interest in co-sponsoring or underwriting some aspects of the award, perhaps through advertising (newsletter, email blasts,trolley) etc. 6) Nominations: Develop and establish a procedure and time line for nominations, i.e., committee appointment, promotion of award that would gain public/business interest. 7) Criteria: Develop standard criteria that would be monitored over a specific period of time leading up to the award,to assist committee members when selecting nominees. The criteria could be but is not limited to: Curb appeal, flowers/color/window boxes, cleanliness, and/or window display (if applicable). Commissioner Lahey concluded that she and Commissioner Wright will be meeting with Georgette Naylor on February 7, 2007 to discuss the Chambers interest/input regarding this project. Street Tree Reforestation Proiect Chairperson McQuaide stated that she and Commissioners Carney and Wright met as a committee to discuss with Fiona Hamilton the Street Tree Reforestation Project and the possibility of tying that project in with the Centennial. Chairperson McQuaide stated that Ms. Hamilton had some good ideas how to incorporate the two as well as suggesting some funding possibilities and exploring the use of volunteers. Some of the ideas discussed were: Incorporating the Centennial with the Street Tree Reforestation project or keeping them separate; Can trees be labeled with the donors name?; If a"Centennial"tree is planted, can it be protected?; If a grove of trees were planted, would they be protected?;Which areas could contain the planting of a grove? . . Downtown, near the maintenance lot on California Drive, or Trousdale Drive (with a new center island) planted with trees?;How much outside funding and how much from citizens? Fiona Hamilton stated that her vision would be to have a row or grove of trees planted for the Centennial so that they could be there for everyone to say, "Those are the trees that were planted for the Centennial. . .". She stated that she has experienced the difficulty of finding areas,realizing some possible areas are not owned by the City of Burlingame but belong to other agencies. She asked Superintendent Richmond about the area in Washington Park where the Bocci Ball courts once were. Superintendent Richmond stated that an Oak tree and a Maple tree were planted in the last several years that will someday become very large. McQuaide asked staff and Commission to try to identify areas i.e.Washington Park that might withstand such a grove of trees. She then asked the Commissioners to complete their research on their designated sections to determine areasiblocks without street trees, and submit their findings to her. Commissioner O'Connor excused herself from the meeting at 7:05 and Commissioner Lahey excused herself at 7:15 pm. Arbor Day —Monday, March 5th, 2007(a), 10:00 am—Cuernavaca Park Chairperson McQuaide reported that she would not be able to attend this year's ceremony and that Commissioner Grandcolas is putting together a presentation that he or someone else from the Commission can deliver promoting the Commission and the importance of the trees in our community. Green Trees for the Golden State 2006-2007 Grant Superintendent Richmond stated that the grant for the residential tree planting project on Rollins Road from Burlingame Avenue, North, to slightly beyond Oak Grove, has been submitted. He noted that there are limitations to the grant: the amount of funding and how the funds can be used; preferring projects with larger canopy trees; and, requiring an in-kind match of labor and/or money. 4 REPORTS Superintendent Richmond 1. Council will meet with the Commission on Monday, April 16 at 6 p.m. before the Council meeting. 2. 3 elms were planted on Oxford/Cambridge in cooperation with Daren Schofield. 3. Hearing on the Easton Library tree occurred. Council asked Staff to provide more information by May. At its Midwinter Meeting last weekend, Council established a goal for a Tree Masterplan on Easton Drive in the next year by an outside contractor. Council will need to confirm this goal in the next few weeks when establishing the budget for 07-08. It appears that the most helpful thing the Commission can do is to approve a criteria for Tree Removal on the street. Staff will present material for the suggested criteria and will base the suggested metric from a commonly accepted Hazard Tree evaluation document. 4. Parks Division is having great difficulty finding sources for the Eucalyptus tree species that were designated for the Easton planting list. Most growers are not providing eucalyptus tree varieties for this zone. Staff will check with additional vendors. Chairperson McQuaide Chairperson McQuaide reported that she attended a Tree Failure Conference at Filoli; that it was a very informational program led by Larry Costello. Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Ellis reported that ivy is growing on a City tree at 1051 Park Road. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 12, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the February 12, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Lisa Whitman; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 22, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were reviewed. Commissioner clarified for the Sisters of Mercy project on page 8, in condition 11 where `agency' is referred to it means an individual in the employ of the Sisters of Mercy or Mercy High School hired to oversee the event, not the leasee. Commissioners agreed to the clarification. Commissioner Osterling moved approval of the minutes. C. Terrones seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent) on a voice vote. TV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe introduced Lisa Whitman to the Commission. Lisa is the newest member of the Planning Staff and is covering her first Planning Commission meeting tonight. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, commented on the FYI items on tonight's agenda; there are 7 FYI's on the agenda, good to see builders taking the design requirements seriously, one even resulted from an architectural framing inspection; two requests are not minor: 1450 Bernal, which is a new spec house,not asking a minor change to fagade,had a similar request on a house at 2112 Easton last year and Commission made them install the trim, new houses are larger than old and need all the trim. 2209 Hillside, also a spec house, the house is very plain and changes are being requested to reduce the cost,trim is important to a simple house,the inclusion of copper gutters adds elegance,before at 110 Clarendon owner asked to change the garage door to save money and Commission said no. Asked about whether the story poles were installed at 1501 Los Montes. Commissioners noted that they had been installed. C. Osterling noted that after the Commission's action, he received a letter from the Sisters of Mercy at home this week which notified him of the contact numbers on their site for neighbors to use,and encouraging people to call if there is a problem. �— There were no further comments from the floor. This item concluded at 7:05 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 VI. STUDY ITEMS Chair Brownrigg noted that there were no Study Items this evening. He then asked the Commissioners if they had visited all the sites of projects on the calendar tonight. All Commissioners indicated that they had visited all the sites. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. la. 1592 COLUMBUS AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE ON-SITE PARKING(JAMES MCFALL,MCFALL ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREG AND LYNNE MCVEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN lb. 1538 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND REAR SETBACK FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION(TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NANCY BLACHMAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER .� 1C. 1501 LOS MONTES DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(TIFFANY AND GUS KINIRIS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar.There were no requests to remove an item from the audience or staff. C. Auran noted that there was a letter regarding item lc at their desk but he had spoken to these particular property owners today and wanted to share his information. Chair Brownrigg noted that,since he was required to recuse himself from item 1 a,he would divide the consent calendar into two actions. The first action would be on items lb, 1538 Burlingame Avenue and lc, 1501 Los Montes Drive. C. Osterling noted that the story poles were installed at 1501 Los Montes and none of the neighbors had commented that their views were affected,he then moved to approve items lb, 1538 Burlingame Avenue, and lc, 1501 Los Montes, on the consent calendar based on the facts in each staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chair Brownrigg then recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the property at 1592 Columbus Avenue, passed the gavel to Vice Chair Deal, stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 Vice Chair Deal asked if any Commissioner had a comment. C. Auran noted that he was at the site today and spoke to the neighbors who had written the letter asking to review plans. They discussed the driveway, �— window placement,hours of construction,and told him that because of their better understanding and review of the plans, and with the assurance that the project would be built to the plans submitted and to be approved, they would withdraw their objection. Vice Chair Deal called for a motion. C.Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report,commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-2(C. Brownrigg abstaining;Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. Chair Brownrigg returned to the dais and took his seat. Vice Chair Deal returned the gavel to Chair Brownrigg. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1221 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A BASEMENT AND DETACHED GARAGE (BRET AND SUZANNE BOTTARINI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS,MARK ROBERTSON,DESIGNER)(62 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. ZT Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen(17) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson,designer,918 E.Grant Place,San Mateo,and Brett Bottarini, property owner, presented the project and responded to questions from Commissioners, stating that: they did not know that 9'-0" was a maximum plate height;property owner wants heavy crown above windows and doors with space to ceiling;neighboring house has 9'plate heights upstairs and 10'plate heights downstairs; intended design of porch was to be plain, country/dollhouse style and not craftsman; porch was modeled after a similar design on Ralston. Comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Not unreasonable to bring plate height down; house is overbearingly large; extensive hardscape with nothing to soften the size of the house; a street tree should be required to help mitigate the size of the house, especially when adjacent to another maximum- sized house. Commissioner comments during the public hearing:the plate heights are still too high;head heights are also too high; style of columns on porch is not appropriate or aesthetically pleasing, lacks character; columns look oddly home-made; a more craftsman-style porch would enhance the design while the porch on the current plans does not;vertical columns on the porch could break the line and give it a more substantial feel; as proposed, the porch has a dollhouse feel with pickets; and the design of columns and guardrail on the porch could use more work to make it look more substantial. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commission commented: Disagreement regarding whether plate heights need to be lowered; something needs to be done with porch; the reason for establishing design review was that there was growing 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 community concern regarding the size of houses;design review allows property owners to maximize size of house but they have to show how they're going to design it to reduce massing,plate heights are a key factor: a desire for crown molding inside is not a good enough reason to increase plate heights;concern that house will be massive once built; Commissioners should hold to 8'-1" (second floor) and 9'-0" (first floor) plate height standards; the proposed house is too layered, from the guardrail to the porch to the plate heights;the plate heights are fine since there is precedent for them in the neighborhood;house looks nice the way it is; the porch does not fit the house; if the design is OK not every guideline needs to be followed;and lowering the plate heights in the house by 6" won't make a significant difference. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions, including changing the first floor plate height to 9'-0",the second floor plate height to 8'-1",and improving the porch by eliminating the pickets and proposing a more craftsman architectural style, have been addressed, the plans checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and contained in the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 3-2-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Osterling dissenting; Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3. 2536 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (ROBERT AND DIERDRE SHAW, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVID ULDRICK, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (40 NOTICED) --� PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. ZT Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five(5)conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff when the Beautification Commissions Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes"were adopted. CA Anderson stated they were adopted in February of 2006. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet,architect,307 South B Street,San Mateo,and Dierdre Shaw, property owner, stated: objections to the basis for the project being brought before the Planning Commission since the Hillside Area Construction Permit(HACP) code states that review by the Commission"shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views" and the neighbor's reasons for calling this project up for review were not related to construction; that Planning Commission review of this project shows the system is broken;this process has created an unfair financial burden on the applicant;applicant is disappointed in city and neighbors that a project for a two foot addition to a kitchen can be brought before the Planning Commission on these grounds;the HACP process needs to be more fair to both applicants and neighbors; the neighbor who called this project before the Planning Commission cut down several eucalyptus trees in their backyard which impacted applicant's privacy. Comments from the floor: Grace Ngai,2669 Martinez Drive. Acknowledged disappointment of neighbor because she experienced same frustration when seeking approval for a proposed addition to her house several years ago;two of the eleven conditions of approval for her project dealt with tree maintenance issues; she cut down the trees because, as part of the HACP process, she was required to trim them and it was -� discovered they were unhealthy; she had asked applicant to trim her trees and the applicant refused. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 Commissioner comments during the public hearing: requested CA Anderson brief Commissioners on whether they are required to accept an appeal; CA Anderson stated that anyone may appeal and there is no �- requirement for a person to state grounds for appeal; the HACP process is the only opportunity neighbors have to have the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and look at proposed application;based on the HACP criteria the only item before the Commission tonight is the blockage of distant views created by construction of addition. Repeating issues from the past does not help address the applicant's project; significant differences between 2669 Martinez and 2536 Valdivia projects,particularly that 2669 Martinez tree requirements were imposed to compensate neighbors for views lost because of the size of the new construction proposed; "Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes were developed specifically for this type of issue between neighbor; guidelines outline a process that is clearly laid out,allows for dialogue between neighbors, and allows for mediation if an agreement cannot be reached; and the tree issue is not a Planning Commission issue. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Auran moved to approve the hillside area construction permit application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 2,2007,sheets AO through A4;2)that any changes to the footprint, floor area,or building envelope shall require an amendment to this hillside area construction permit; 3)that during demolition of or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site,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, 4)that demolition for 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; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the hillside area construction permit. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (LILY LI, APPLICANT; CLEMENT YEN, TOYO COMPANY, DESIGNER; K.J. NICKMEY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) 63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the proceedings. He left the chambers. Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ken Toy,applicant,and Clement Yen,designer,stated: all the changes that Commission requested at their last meeting have been made; the unlabeled room next to the restroom is used for storage and is also a fire exit for the salon next door;venting of the garbage room will be up to roof not through the wall. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 Commission comments during the public hearing: expressed appreciation for removing the graffiti;like how the garbage issue was solved;if planter boxes are not professionally maintained proj ect can be brought back before the Commission;need to clarify with Fire Department that storage can be in neighboring salon's fire exit. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Terrones moved to approve the application,by resolution,adding a condition that the applicant must vet the use of the salon's fire exit for storage with the Fire Department before issuance of a building permit,with the following conditions: 1)that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 530 SF of on-site seating, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment;the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 2)that the applicant shall confirm with the Fire Department that the area adjacent to the restrooms shown on the approved plans can be used for storage and does not interfere with the neighboring tenant's use of that space for fire egress purposes; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 29, 2007 and October 5, 2006 memos, the Chief Building Official's January 26, 2007, December 19, 2006 and October 6, 2006, memos, the Recycling Specialist's October 16, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's January 29, 2007, December 20, 2006 and October 2, 2006 memos and the NPDES Coordinator's January 29, 2007 and October 3, 2006 memos shall be met; 4) that proposed garbage room shall have a tile floor, washable walls 6' high, an exhaust fan to the roof and the floor drain in the garbage room shall be connected to a new grease trap before being discharged to the City's sewer line; 5)that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the --. approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 8)that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 9)that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 10) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10'of the property line; 11)that this full service food establishment may be open seven days a week, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,with a maximum of 2 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees on site at any one time,including the business owner and manager; 12)that no banner shall be used per Title 22 Sign Code Section 22.48.080 and the applicant shall obtain Planning and Building permits for all signage; 13)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; 14) that the project shall provide adequate filtering and venting to avoid dissemination of odors on neighboring properties; 15)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business'or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; and 16)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 24,2007,floor plan and garbage room details,December 18,2006, site plan and ceiling plan, and that the 530 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; and that all planters shall be regularly maintained by a 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 professional garden service contracted for by the business operator. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve.The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2 (C. Deal recused; Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. C. Deal returned to chambers and took his seat on the dias. 5. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR FOX PLAZA MALL(SIGN AND SIGN AGAIN, APPLICANT; TOLU FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five(5)conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked is it correct that with the new sign code that the Subcommittee is working on the height limitation on signage will be changed so this variance would not be required? CP commented yes.How else would the new code differ? The amount of sign area allowed per tenant would be about the same,however,the number of signs would increase and window label type signs would be allowed in addition to wall sign allocation. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Jason Tolu,property owner, and Rob Jacklin, Sign and Sign Again,presented the project,showed examples of`push through' and brushed aluminum signs,type of signs used by`gold plated' clients like Coach,important to note that there is a front and back to Fox Mall,want to have signage for 6 main tenants, total 69 SF, all signs will be removed except the `Gala' sign on the Burlingame street frontage, this sign will visually match the proposed signage; the two wooden Fox Plaza Mall signs will be removed. Commissioners asked: from the plans its looks like the fonts on the proposed signs on Burlingame Avenue are different sizes?why do you need such large signs on the sides at the rear? why are you not including the names of all the tenants?like the wooden signs,why not keep them?Will all signs be identical? The applicants responded: the size of the signs on the inside are different size but all the signs on the front are intended to be the size shown on the plans and have uniform type; the city granted a previous permission for the size of sign on the sides and rear,tenants enjoy that and did not want to change, sides at rear are very large and need signs which fill the area; height proposed on the rear side is to get visibility from the nearby parking lots; names on the rear side are limited to those tenants who have representation there now; wooden signs are hard to light and would like a more modern look for the Fox Plaza Mall, if the signs can be removed in one piece will offer them to the Historical Society; some of the logos on push through signs will need to be translucent or they will not read with back lighting.There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: Agree with the sign program; can't agree with the variance request it's a deal for the tenants who have the biggest signs, in the Safeway discussion want to make Fox Plaza Lane pedestrian oriented this works against that end, could do a better program with less size. C. Osterling moved to approve the master sign program and sign variances based on the fact that this would be a pleasant addition to the Burlingame Avenue frontage, disagree about the signage on the rear of the building,the lighting of these signs will be subtle,agreeable after a project is built on the Safeway site;these are needed for the situation today, by resolution with findings in the record for the variances and with the 7 City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 30,2007,elevations and details 11"x 17",and date stamped October 30, 2006, site plan 11" x 17"; including two illuminated 7'-8"x 9' "push through"style wall signs(one at the front elevation and one at the rear elevation), an illuminated 2' x 8' channel letter sign at the front elevation, five non-illuminated channel letter signs at the front elevation and four non-illuminated signs at the right and left side elevations and there shall be no window or other signage on the site; 2) that any increase in the number,type,or area of the signs on the sites,shall require an amendment to the master sign program; 3)that any increase in the number or area of the signs on the primary frontage,which exceed the sign code requirements in effect at the time of application,shall require an amendment to this sign variance; 4)that the sign shall be permanently attached to the stucco wall of the building at 1419 Burlingame Avenue, Fox Plaza Mall, by a means approved by the Building Department; 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame.The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: when considered the variances noted that this building is different than others in the area,most just have a front on the street,this one has front,rear and sides; sign at the rear will begin 12'- 8"off the ground, 7'-8"taller,its maximum height is about 20 feet the alley is only 10' to 12'wide, so this sign will only be visible to people in the parking lot,those driving by will not be able to see it since it will be above the roof of the car•,note that the application is within the total gross square footage allowed,why do we care how it is proportioned on the site? This application requires 6 variances;yes,but 3 go away if you remove the 12 foot height limitation;under the current code can reduce the size of the sign and still have it over 12 feet and the variance will go away, they want the biggest sign possible to the detriment of the business district; if the signs are bigger on the sides and rear,they are smaller on the front;one way to look --� at it is if we don't want big signs on the front,we allowed them on the rear; this program will not serve the tenants well; proposed program is below the total allowed square footage, if owner wants to reallocate among tenants to serve him and them better he is allowed to do so, the existing parking lot toward El Camino is some distance away need to read the sign from there without problem;half the variances for this project will not be required with the new sign code;need to vote no on this application because feel that this signage program is not in keeping with the style of the building. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the master signage program including variances for exceeding the maximum square footage above 12 feet for the rear,right and left elevations of the building. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 ( Cers. Auran, Brownrigg dissenting, Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent)roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 6. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED SL - APPLICATION FOR PERMIT EXTENSION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE CHANGE IN OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; VANGUARD R/E HOLDINGS LLQ (I I NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report February 12, 2007 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen(14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, applicant, 216 Park Road, noted: the existing business has been operating well within permit requirements with approximately 25%of the cars onsite that -1 they are permitted for;almost relocated to South San Francisco but those plans fell through and now they're in the process of looking for a new site in the Burlingame area;requested removal of a condition of approval regarding expanding and redesigning a narrow section of the Bay Trail because the lot conditions and 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 existing building configurations cannot accommodate any widening of the trail; customers are now able to walk in and rent a car;the also serve the nearby hotels from this site.Commissioner noted walk-in customers �- can rent a car from the site. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the permit extension for two years and amending condition 11 to remove any trail expansion requirements, by resolution and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 3,2003,sheets A0.1,A1.0, Al.1,A2.1, and A22.1, site plan,partial site plan,second floor-administration,and building C floor plan,kiosk floor plan and reflected ceiling plan;2)that the car rental,maintenance and storage facility may be open for business from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m.,seven days a week, and that there shall be no more an 50 employees and 25 customers on-site at any one time; 3) that there shall be a maximum of 600 cars stored on the site at any one time,this number shall include cars that are on-site for maintenance and there shall be a maximum of 2 car carriers on-site to deliver vehicles at any one time;4)that no trucks delivering or picking up cars at this site shall arrive or depart between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. or 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily, and all such deliveries shall be made on-site with no impact on the public street or right-of-way; 5) that the required number of handicap stalls for employees and/or customers shall be provided and designated at 778 Burl way Road as per the California Building Code,2001 edition,and all employees shall be required to park in the 78 space employee parking lot in the southwestern portion of the site, employee parking shall be designated and employee cars shall have sticker identifying them as belonging to employees on-site; 6)that all employee parking shall be provided 24 hours a day,seven days a week at the south end of the site; 7)that the car rental operation at this site shall pay to the City of Burlingame$36,500 per year;the annual payment shall be payable in advance no later than April 30 of each year during which this permit is in effect. When one percent(1%) of the total gross rental for any vehicles for lease or rental originating from this site, whether those agreements are signed in Burlingame or adjacent jurisdictions exceeds $36,500 during any calendar year, the applicant shall then pay one percent of the total gross rentals to the City of Burlingame on a quarterly basis for the duration of the permit;this amount shall be due and payable no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar-year quarter.For purposes of this condition,agreements for rental from San Francisco International Airport car rental facility shall not be included in calculating the 1% payment to the City. In addition to making the payments required by this condition (either annual/flat amount or quarterly), the car rental operation shall file quarterly statements with the City of Burlingame Finance Department documenting the number of vehicle rental agreements signed at the site per month during the quarter on such forms as may be required by the City, and shall include a breakdown of the monthly vehicle rentals from the 778 Burlway Road site. In addition, the City of Burlingame shall accrue any sales tax revenue from rental contracts written in the City of Burlingame. Whether paying a fixed fee or 1%of the gross rental rates,the car rental operation on this site shall keep and preserve,for a period of three years, all records as may be necessary to determine the rentals from which the one percent (1%) payment calculation may be derived. Such records shall be available for delivery to the City for review with fifteen (15) days after request therefore; 8)that no cars shall be loaded,unloaded or stored on any public street, in any public right-of-way, or in any public access area; 9) that any change to the rental of cars, number of employees,amount of auto storage,addition of services or secondary business to the site,or any other aspect of the operation of the car rental business at this location shall require an amendment to this use permit; 10) that the fire lane from the east end of the site to Burlway Road shall be provided and maintained, unobstructed, on a permanent basis as required by the Fire and Public Works Department of the City of Burlingame; 11)that the property owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the public access trail and improvements adjacent to the subject property for the life of the project and shall be liable for any damage caused to the pubic for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard, including that the applicant shall remove volunteer vegetation at the narrowest point of the trail and call for an inspection by the Planning Department within 10 days (January 21, 2005) and fill the area of vegetation removal and all 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 pot holes in the Bay Trail and call for an inspection by the Planning Department within 90 days (April 10, 2005); 12) that the property owner shall install and maintain on a regular basis as prescribed by the city's NPDES inspector,petroleum filter pillows in all parking lot catch basins throughout the site,that all water used for washing cars on site shall be recycled by a method approved by the City Engineer,and that failure to install these systems within 90 days of approval of this use permit amendment or failure to maintain the effectiveness of these systems on an on-going basis shall cause this conditional use permit to be review by the Planning Commission; 13)that this approval shall expire in two years and all said uses on the site shall cease unless the applicant applies for a permit extension by February 22,2009,to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; and 14)that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Code,2001 edition as amended by the City of Burlingame.The motion was seconded by C.Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the permit extension for two years to February 22, 2009. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. 7. 1800 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED TW—APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A 25-UNIT, 7-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (PAUL BOGATSKY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DAN IONESCU ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS, ARCHITECT) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT; AND b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP—PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report February 12, 2007, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-one(5 1)conditions including the mitigations for the Mitigated Negative Declaration were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dan Ionescu, architect, and Paul Bogatsky, property owner, represented the project. They reviewed the changes made to the project since the study meeting. Commissioners asked about: a problem with the roof plan and the slope on the dormers. Concerned that this project will be lifeless at the street level with no lobby, recreation room or living area on the ground level which is counter to the City policy for this area. Said earlier that the exterior surface would be precaste material, is that now the plan? Will foam molding be used, not see note on plans? The detail of the front elevation is key, so it is important to know the size of the materials uses like metal railings,cement or brick decking etc.the plans do not show the detail/size of these elements,why?Would like to see less stucco,are the windows metal cased wood,need windows to be deeper set to increase the shadow line on plain fagade (need to know dimension);how big are the knee braces,what is the area with hatch lines under the windows, need to know how it will look, articulation, what the shadow lines will be. For example what are the decorations on either side of the front door, should be identified and their size noted,this is like a single family house, need to know what is being proposed so can determine if it is appropriate. Building looks plain,need to see how trees will soften, see a lot of tan stucco and not much roof,not exciting. Should do —� additional work on the entry, now mostly trim and detail, need structural change; are the rear two parking ramps covered? this deck area could be used as outdoor area by the residents of the building, can this be done? How much of the common open space was lost with the reconfiguration of the driveways and parking 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 spaces and aisles? Change of the materials on the front elevation and lowering the roof would help the entry. Architect responses to questions: yes,missed the beginning of the dormer and it can be corrected without raising the height of the overall roof, exterior surface will be stucco not pre-caste material; there will be foam molding with 3 coats of stucco finish on top which is fire rated;building will be Type H fire rated,the concrete edge of the decks will have stucco look;the decorations on either side of the front door are lights; intend to develop design as it is represented here with minor adjustments for building permit submittal,this is a type 11 building so will have brackets of wood or ceramic;can add notes about detail,not change design; the rear two parking ramps are not covered because to do so would require a variance; yes the ramps could be covered and the area put to some use for the future residents with a variance, would be a problem with access from this area to the common open space because of the location of the 12 foot wide driveway and the size of the podium requiring two exit stairs, but possible; about 1,000 SF of common open space was removed to widen the driveways and fix parking dimensions. Continued public hearing comments: CA noted that because the applicant applied under the previous zoning, design review is not required as a part of the zoning in this case, but is required as a part of the consistency with the general plan, so if the project is approved, the commission would not see it again; normally applicants submit a material board so that the Commission is more aware of how what they see will look when completed, this proposal's approach could be a problem for the Building plan check to know whether what is submitted was the size and materials approved. Applicant noted that there was no requirement for a materials board, adding details just adds time to the architects work and is not an advantage at the schematic plan stage. Commissioner noted that in the minutes of the last meeting on this item Commission asked the applicant to add notes on the size of trim,illustrations,etc.,was not done.There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: On whole pretty good but agree that more detail is needed on the plans,see more detail on single family houses than provided here, for example,how big are the knee braces proposed, the canopy over then entry should be reconsidered it is presently 31 feet in the air over the entry, project is approvable except for the absence of details;agree want more detail so that the commission knows what it is approving;project is close but not there—a materials board would help,would like to consider a variance for covering the rear ramps to create useable open space and a better living environment for the residents and neighbors, the enclosure would not affect the neighbors and would even enhance their properties, could cover wall with planters and climbing vines; preferred the original entry with the stairs to the first floor because it increased the sense of activity from this property along Trousdale, know that this requires a variance but it brings the building to the street and announces the true front door. Could support both of those variances,the unique condition on this site is the sewer easement which causes this major building to be moved over on the site and moved out of the ground, early on had concern about landscaping on the podium,putting living areas at grade causes a parking problem,need to bring people up to the living space, need some life on the street, variance findings could also include that the parking cannot go any deeper, could remove the extra 5 parking spaces and add a lobby and/or recreation space at the ground level. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to continue this project to the action calendar when the applicant has revised the plans based on the guidance of the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: for the entrance like the idea of the variances for replacement of the stairs also the �. enclosed driveway at the rear,would provide a nice useable space at the rear,not supportive of the removal of the extra five parking spaces, feel that there is a real need for more detailing on the design and identification of the building materials including a materials board. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration,project proposal and tentative map,and to bring the application back to the Commission on the action calendar when the architect has made the changes to the plans,staff has plan checked them,and there is space on the Commission agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Vistica absent). Because the action was continued the Commission's action is not subject to appeal. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 815 LAUREL AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(STEVEN RANDEL,CALIFORNIA HOME PLANS,INC.,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;PAT DELCHIARO,PROPERTY OWNER)(66 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Steven Randel,architect,presented the project and explained how efforts were made to: reduce mass;break up roof pitch with dormers and gables; select simple asphalt roof shingles for economy; design a simple cottage style house; and carefully select divided lite vinyl windows after researching wood options as advised by planner. The architect responded to questions from Commissioners, stating that: garage door and all windows throughout house will be replaced;did not want the elevations to get too busy with multiple materials;worked to avoid a heavy eave because it would not be -� compatible with other houses in the neighborhood. Other public comment: David Wilkins, 811 Laurel; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Way. Rear elevation seems heavy and overbearing, especially with the bay window; more landscaping would help screen the left and right elevations. A good design but seems large and heavy overall; do not use vinyl windows with interior grid mold inside because they don't last;maintenance on wood windows is less than that for vinyl windows; and the advice Commissioner's provide will yield a better house at the end of the process. There were no other comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed. In their discussion the Commissioner's noted the following: • The stone veneer is nice, but there is a lot of stucco surface. Generally, more materials need to be added to the design. For example, consider a vertical wood siding (like the existing house has), a water table trim,or continuing the stone veneer around to the side of the house. These details would soften the front and rear. (Whether stone veneer is extended or not, the plans should show more clearly where it ends). • Exposed rafter detail could also add texture to the elevation, as opposed to boxed eaves. • A front porch has been nicely added,but there is a confluence of roofs there. Hold front porch roof back and extend wall down on that side. • Wood windows have a richness, depth, and feel that vinyl does not have. Vinyl windows do not weather well. • Overall, these types of houses are difficult to put additions on but this particular proposal appears long and boxy, and has a "warehouse look". Nothing says "great house". Would like to see more -� articulation and massing. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 • A good example of what can be done for this project can be found at a house on the corner of Laurel and Morell that has recently had a second floor addition constructed. 816 Park is also a good N.— example, particularly of vertical wood finish. • Oval window on front elevation is nice,but round vents on front elevation overdo it. Rectangular wood vents would look better than round vinyl vents. Leave the vents because they add nice detail, just revise the design. • A handrail is required on the front porch because of the four risers. Try to get it down to three by working with the adjacent grade so that a handrail is not required. • Show a header. • Add a base or trim to the posts on the porch. • Consider shutters on the front elevation of the house; would help the design immensely. • Increasing the eave overhang could enhance the design. • Show the gutters on the plans. • The rear elevation is too massive, and is made bulkier by the stucco, short eaves, and round bents. • There is opportunity to incorporate more style into the proposed design. • The mass of the house warrants a landscape plan;include vertical elements and automatic irrigation. • Not every window of the house needs to be divided lite;double-hung windows could work well with this style and could simplify the elevations. • A spark arrestor on the chimney would enhance the design by adding detail. • For the garage door, look at craftsman-style doors that are made to look like carriage doors. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer the item to a design review consultant and bring the project back on the action calendar when the design review process is complete and plans have been revised and plan checked as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2(C.Osterling dissented;Cers.Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 9. 1477 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 –APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(SEAN AND ERICA CAFFERKEY/BART AND CAROL GAUL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JACK MCCARTHY, JACK MCCARTHY DESIGNER, INC., DESIGNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack McCarthy, designer,responded to questions from the Commissioners: a metal rail was proposed for the front porch for simplicity and to work well with the curve of the porch;willing to add a base trim on the right and left sides to provide a break in the wood siding;will consider adding a pitch to the flat roof area;the applicant understands the impact their design choices will have on the cost but feel the investment is worth it. Other public comment: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Way. Will C&G Construction be working on both 1473 Cortez and 1477 Cortez at the same time? Can they share a dumpster and debris removal? Can the dumpster be located some place other than on Adeline Drive? The designer responded that they could locate 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 the dumpster on Cortez, but he could not confirm construction and demolition of the two projects would occur at the same time and therefore could not guarantee debris removal could be coordinated. There were -� no other comments from the floor. The public comment period was closed. Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioner's noted the following: • Like the round elements. Design pays attention to both frontages and has lots of merit. • Add water table trim to break up flow of building into ground,or a base trim on right and left sides to break up the face of the wood siding. Landscaping would also cover it. • Removing the railing on the porch would provide openness,but could be left on for safety purposes. • Concerned about gable and bay at front. Out of character with simplicity of front. • Mixed feelings about inverted finial. Some Commissioners felt it was a positive element to the design while others felt it was not. • Diminutive gable at top of left elevation doesn't fit. • Flat roof in rear will look like a mistake when built,but pitching it might make the roof come too close to the trim. • Confirm owner has budgeted for the cost of construction. Some elements expensive,but also very important to the design. Would not want to see this project comeback to the Commission with FYIs because of cost concerns during construction. C.Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. --� Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20p.m. 10. 329 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A BASEMENT(RANDY GRANGE,TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JOE AND JULIA MCVEIGH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect,205 Park Road,and Joe McVeigh, property owner submitted a revised rendering of the project;noted applicant will work with neighbor at 333 Occidental to retain the fence and existing hedge; showed sample of the roof material that will not be bright orange tile;and displayed streetscape that showed the proposed house in relation to the neighboring houses. The architect and applicant responded to Commissioner's questions that: the planter boxes on the left elevation, balcony, and arched element at the front of the building will all be precaste; there is so much hardscape because they wanted a functional garage with an on-site turn-around area at the rear so that they could exit the driveway in a forward direction; a large second-story patio of is not necessary but was --� included in the design to create the outdoor patio area with fireplace on the ground floor;would be willing to eliminate balustrade and provide partial tile roof. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 Other Public Comment: Robert Beaudreau,333 Occidental Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. The plans look nice and have interest in keeping the hedge and wooden fence along the right side of project area;not in favor of the second story deck that would decrease privacy on neighboring property.It is a well- designed house that,although mansion-sized,would fit nicely into the streetscape;and suggested the trees by the pool be removed because they would be messy. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioners noted the following items: • On paper,the proposed project seems like a lot for the neighborhood. After visiting the site,it does not appear to be too much for the setting. It is an eclectic neighborhood with a lot of dramatic houses. This project would add to fabric of the neighborhood. House fits well with neighborhood and the lot can handle its size. Other big houses in the neighborhood save the proposed design. • Add more landscaping and decrease the amount of impervious material. The backyard is a sea of pavers that should be broken up with more lawn area and a tree between the driveway and patio. • Find a substitute for the proposed Italian cypress. They will push into the space and their form is not consistent with the area. • The house is too massive and belongs on a property twice the size. The lot cannot carry a house of this size and design. It is immensely bigger than any of the projects that led to the implementation of the design review process. • Concerned about neighbor's privacy because of the size of the second-story balcony in the rear. Is that balcony area needed? �.. • The terrace area beneath the second story balcony will be cold and damp,a problem exacerbated by the hardscape,and the balcony would add bulk. The dampness in the area below could be addressed by radiant floor heating. • The pool equipment needs to be enclosed and very well insulated so that the neighbors are not affected by noise. • Concerned about the giant fountain monoliths around the pool and the visual impact they will have on neighbors. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions, including reducing the size of the second story balcony and adding plants at the groundline of the house along the driveway,have been addressed, the plans checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and contained in the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-1-2(C.Deal dissenting;Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 11. 1110 EASTMOOR ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GREG AND DIANE HAUPT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (55 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN ZT Whitman briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road stated: uniquely shaped lot -� with the curved front lot line set T-6"back from sidewalk;although a variance is required for encroachment into the front setback the modest additions to the front of the house will have minimal impact on the streetscape; when developing the proposed plans, experimented with unique elements on the broad left elevation to enhance the design but those were not effective. The architect responded to Commissioner's questions that: all windows will be replaced throughout and there will be a new garage door; experimented with the left elevation and found that more detail made it look squat; challenging to break up the left elevation and in the end tried to keep it simple; and will carry the front porch beam back around the wall onto the right elevation, as suggested. Other public comments: Martha McCormick, 1530 Meadow Lane. She can see six homes outside her rear window and if they all do additions like this she'll feel boxed in; has concerns regarding the long-term impact on the neighborhood should more neighbors put additions on their homes;does not want to make this proj ect difficult for neighbors.There were no other comments from the floor.,The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: In their discussion the Commissioners noted the following: • Nice job on design; front elevation is scaled nicely and proj ect proposes good use of materials.Porch is a positive element and the request for variance is well substantiated. • Please edit plans to clarify 2" x 6" rafters are proposed, not 2" x 16". • Will all windows be replaced throughout? Will there be a new garage door? • The left elevation is large and broad with no clear style. Add detail to bring down the scale of the face of the left elevation. • Add a diamond window to break up space on blank right elevation, to kitchen wall face. • There is a tricky transition on the right portion of the roof over the porch. On the right elevation on the porch beam to side, there's really nothing there. • A balustrade, not just a handrail, is needed on the porch since it's greater than 30" high. • Landscaping in rear of lot may help address neighbor's concerns by providing some of shielding the addition. • Both side elevations are quite prominent because of the lot proportions and location. Greenery on both sides would help. Add landscaping,including large-scale trees and shrubs,to both sides of the house to address side elevations. Those vertical elements would help screen the side elevations. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions,including enhancing the landscaping with large-scale trees and shrubs on the left and right sides of the house, have been addressed, plan checked by staff, and there is space on an agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed by the Commission and included in the motion. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS - Requirements for Plan Submittals for Current Planning Projects. 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 CP Monroe discussed with the commission what items that they felt they needed on plans, suggesting iat a full discussion of this be referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Among the items noted were that isometric drawings should not be included in the approved plans, the amount of detail matters and the size of the detail items is important, that streetscapes are valuable and there should be some guidelines about them, there was some discussion about the validity of the images presented by some approaches; like to see a landscape plan, expectation for landscape plan needs to be better defined. League of California Cities, Planning Department Meeting, March 21-23, 2007. Two commissioners, Deal and Vistica, have expressed an interest in attending this year's League of California Cities Planning Department meeting. CP Monroe reported on the budget allocation and asked if any one else was interested in attending. Commission determined that Commissioners Deal and Vistica would represent them this year. The meeting is to be held March 21-23, staff will assist in registration. - FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project—location and process for reviewing public art. CP Monroe noted that the city has adopted a public art process and it falls to the Commission who oversees the project to select the public art. In the case of the Hospital, the Planning Commission provides the oversight. Project manager has asked the City to provide guidance regarding the process for selecting the art required in vicinity of the parking garage. Cers. Brownrigg and Deal volunteered to be on a subcommittee to work with the hospital Project Manager. The process would begin with this subcommittee but the selection would include the full Commission and probably the City Council as well. Xl. PLANNER REPORTS City Council regular meeting of February 5, 2007. CP Monroe noted that the City Council adopted the amendment to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the El Camino North Zoning District regulations, and the amendment to the zoning map for the El Camino North Zoning district as recommended by the Planning Commission. She noted that there would be two appeal hearings at the Council's next meeting: 3 Rio Court and 2300 and 2750 Adeline Drive, Sisters of Mercy. The building permit extension regulations recommended to Council by the Commission will also be introduced. FYI Requests CP Monroe noted that there were seven FYI items on tonight's agenda; and asked if any should be set over for a public hearing and action. Commissioners noted that three of the requests appeared to be diminished as a result of the requested changes and set them over for action hearings: 1136 Oxford Avenue,2209 Hillside Drive,and 701 Vernon which was asking to remove the shutters which was the only detail on the structure. Commissioners also noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee might discuss the delegation of some of these decisions to the staff in the field at the time of final inspection,rather than FYI's on minor changes. The CA noted that the three projects which were carried over to action hearings could always build the projects as they were originally approved, and avoid the additional processing step. It was noted that some of the requests reviewed in the past represented big changes to the appearance of the structure and need to be reviewed. - FYI: 1136 Oxford Road—changes to a previously approved design review project. Requested to be set for action hearing. - FYI: 1141 Bernal Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project. Acknowledged change. - FYI: 1145 Cortez Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project. `-- Acknowledged change. - FYI: 1456 Bernal Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project. Acknowledged change. 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2007 - FYI: 2209 Hillside Drive—changes to a previously approved design review project. --� Requested to be set for action hearing - FYI: 701 Vernon Way—changes to a previously approved design review project. Requested to be set for action hearing - FYI: Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project—location and process for reviewing public art. This item was moved to Commissioners Reports. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Acting Secretary VAMINUTESWinutwunapproved 02.12.07.doc 18 City of Burlingame JANUARY PERMIT ACTIVITY Permit activity was strong in January.Although the number of permits for residential and non-residential alterations was the same as January 2006 the valuation for these types of alterations was significantly higher. A permit was also issued for a new single family dwelling with a construction value in excess of$500,000. In addition, the Building Division issued more minor permits(roofs,furnaces, etc.)than were issued in the same month last year. There were no requests for pre-application meetings during the month of January. THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 8 13,996 10 11,100 26 31 46,616 42 37,390 25 SWIMMING POOL 2 86,500 5 103,800 -17 SIGN 4 22,300 1 2,000 1,015 29 189,495 21 56,537 235 ROOFING 24 305,934 15 173,215 77 180 2,503,837 167 2,069,583 21 RETAINING WALL 1 12,000 3 274,020 6 254,017 8 PLUMBING 15 34,384 12 60,096 -43 107 297,208 277 993,353 -70 NEW SFD 1 635,000 8 4,169,000 12 4,345,000 -4 NEW COMMERCIAL NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 3,500,000 NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT MECHANICAL 7 28,860 3 9,935 190 34 384,483 27 104,520 268 KITCHEN UPGRADE 4 65,500 2 27,000 143 21 652,100 19 487,594 34 FURNACE 4 23,022 3 18,670 23 9 48,936 22 80,365 -39 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 1 2,000 12 32,150 5 61,200 -47 City of Burlingame JANUARY PERMIT ACTIVITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F.Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % ELECTRICAL 3 18,400 3 22,500 -18 29 261,245 45 138,017 89 BATHROOM UPGRADE 2 20,000 5 104,400 -81 23 331,200 27 526,863 -37 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 21 670,925 22 441,321 52 190 8,604,735 265 9,422,670 -9 ALTERATION NON RES 5 818,500 5 410,000 100 48 8,524,174 55 6,846,966 24 Totals: 100 2,670,821 81 1,280,237 109 727 29,905,699 995 25,527,875 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary January 31, 2007 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF&County Pool 18,197,731.10 18,197,731.10 18,197,731.10 61.32 1 1 4.714 4.780 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 11,000,000.00 10,937,270.00 11,000,000.00 37.06 1,091 699 4.579 4.643 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 500,000.00 498,450.00 480,695.56 1.62 280 22 5.212 5.285 29,697,731.10 29,633,451.10 29,678,426.66 100.00% 410 260 4.672 4.737 Investments Total Earnings January 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 120,874.81 803,750.45 Average Daily Balance 31,355,906.09 30,623,726.21 Effective Rate of Return 4.54% 4.46% 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 availab'' of"som -- J ese funds is restricted by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds). E SNAVA, INANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 01/01/2007-01/31/2007 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:02/12/2007-09:33 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRepl 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments January 31, 2007 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date LAW&County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 10,558,771.28 10,558,771.28 10,558,771.28 5.156 5.156 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 7,638,959.82 7,638,959.82 7,638,959.82 4.260 Aaa 4.260 1 Subtotal and Average 17,068,758.92 18,197,731.10 18,197,731.10 18,197,731.10 4.780 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 993,130.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 141 06/22/2007 3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 996,880.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 4.817 631 10/24/2008 3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 994,060.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 655 11/17/2008 3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 996,880.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 330 12/28/2007 3133XGQM9 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2006 1,000,000.00 998,440.00 1,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 960 09/18/2009 3133XJ6F0 531 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/20/2006 1,000,000.00 989,060.00 1,000,000.00 5.025 Aaa 5.025 1,418 12/20/2010 3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/06/2006 1,000,000.00 991,950.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,708 10/06/2011 3128X5SU3 532 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 12/29/2006 1,000,000.00 992,800.00 1,000,000.00 5.220 Aaa 5.220 1,426 12/28/2010 313QF5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 994,690.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 85 04/27/2007 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 989,690.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 259 10/18/2007 31359MMP5 530 FANNIE MAE 12/01/2006 1,000,000.00 999,690.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.215 73 04/15/2007 Subtotal and Average 13,806,451.61 11,000,000.00 10,937,270.00 11,000,000.00 4.643 699 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 313588CFO 526 FANNIE MAE 05/19/2006 500,000.00 498,450.00 480,695.56 4.964 Aaa 5.285 22 02/23/2007 Subtotal and Average 480,695.56 500,000.00 498,450.00 480,695.56 5.285 22 Total and Average 31,355,906.09 29,697,731.10 29,633,451.10 29,678,426.66 4.737 260 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale:02/12/2007-09:33 PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a oFt Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details -Cash January 31, 2007 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Average Balance 0.00 0 Total Cash and Investmentss 31,355,906.09 29,697,731.10 29,633,451.10 29,678,426.66 4.737 260 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:02/12/2007-09:33 PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity By Type January 1, 2007 through January 31, 2007 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 5.156 2,608,327.28 0.00 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 4.260 1,273,609.94 1,700,000.00 Subtotal 16,015,793.88 3,881,937.22 1,700,000.00 18,197,731.10 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 3.000 01/30/2007 0.00 3,000,000.00 Subtotal 14,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 11,000,000.00 Federal Agency Issues-Discount Subtotal 480,695.56 480,695.56 Total 30,496,489.44 3,881,937.22 4,700,000.00 29,678,426.66 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale:02/12/200 PM(PRF_Pj 'VmRept 6.41.202a I1 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Activity Summary January 2006 through January 2007 Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity January 2006 10 29,203,493.47 3.692 3.743 3.767 0 0 338 192 February 2006 10 27,236,535.77 3.734 3.786 3.836 0 0 363 196 March 2006 11 28,865,253.49 3.750 3.802 3.721 1 0 361 192 April 2006 11 31,600,492.83 3.997 4.052 4.136 0 0 330 165 May 2006 15 34,904,265.49 4.169 4.227 4.293 4 0 317 155 June 2006 16 33,717,988.31 4.224 4.283 4.375 1 0 330 150 July 2006 16 32,218,943.80 4.307 4.367 4.539 0 0 346 143 August 2006 16 32,238,322.45 4.317 4.377 4.558 0 0 345 128 September 2006 14 30,514,724.43 4.326 4.386 4.500 1 3 379 158 October 2006 15 29,368,136.07 4.375 4.435 4.533 1 0 456 210 November 2006 14 26,276,897.39 4.464 4.526 4.812 0 1 496 211 December 2006 15 30,496,489.44 4.455 4.517 4.691 3 2 506 267 January 2007 14 29,678,426.66 4.672 4.737 4.780 0 1 410 260 Average 14 30,486,151.51 4.191% 4.249% 4.349 1 1 383 187 Portfolio CITY CP Run Dale:02/12/2007-09:33 PM(PRF_PM4)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Distribution of Investments By Type January 2006 through January 2007 January February March April May June July August September October November December January Average Security Type 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 by Period LAIF&County Pool 65.8 63.3 58.4 62.0 58.6 55.6 53.6 53.6 54.2 49.0 46.8 52.5 61.3 56.5% Certificates of Deposit-Bank Certificates of Deposit-S&L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln Negotiable CD's-Bank CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing Commercial Paper-Discount Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 34.2 36.7 41.6 38.0 37.2 40.0 41.9 41.9 44.2 49.4 51.4 45.9 37.1 41.5% Federal Agency Issues-Discount 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.5 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 2.0% Treasury Securities-Coupon Treasury Securities-Discount Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon Miscellaneous Securities-Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments Mortgage Backed Securities Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:02/12/2007-eQ,33 PM(PRF_PM5)SymRepl 6.41.202a CReport Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 7 Interest Earnings Summary January 31, 2007 January 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 45,000.00 362,033.33 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 124,770.29 124,770.29 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 117,412.20) ( 119,852.38) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 52,358.09 366,951.24 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 52,358.09 366,951.24 Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 168,890.83 569,237.98 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 321,407.01 321,407.01 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 421,781.12) ( 453,845.78) Interest Earned during Period 68,516.72 436,799.21 Total Interest Earned during Period 120,874.81 803,750.45 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 120,874.81 803,750.45 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:02/12/2007-09:33 PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 I FMAsset Management LLC - I PROGRAM/ I Investment Portfolio Information For CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00) Portfolio # 12510150 Section/Report Title A. Account Summary B. Detail of Securities Held C. Fair Market Values&Analytics D. Security Transactions&Interest E. Cash Transactions Report F. Realized Gains&Losses G. Cash Balance Report For The Month Ending January 31, 2007 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME CA PFM Asset Management LLC*One Keystone Plaza*North Fron x,Market Streets,Suite 300*Harrisburg,PA 17101-2044*(717)232-2723 For more information,please contact your client mar NSESA KAZADI (415)982-5544 KAZADIN@pfin.com PFMAssetManagententWC- CAMP PROGRAM Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOF BURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: January 31,2007 (Exc ding Cash) MARKET%OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORST FED AGY BOND/NOTE 2,000,000.00 1,998,458.93 1,998,275.00 66.871 5.256 4.992 0.081 FED AGY DN 1,000,000.00 990,282.50 989,972.55 33.129 5.191 5.209 0.187 TOTAL SECURITIES 3,000,000.00 2,988,741.43 2,988,247.55 100.000 5.234% 5.064% 0.116 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 3,000,000.00 2,988,741.43 2,988,247.55 100.000'% ACCRUED INTEREST 29,368.06 29,368.06 TOTALPORTFOLIO $3,000,000.00 $3,018,109.49 $3,017,615.61 Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity.The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes(i.e.settles)all investment transactions.The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions.Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities.Clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies,implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions.PFM recognizes that out clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping,therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved.PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by F.T.Interactive Data,Bloomberg or Telerate.Prices that fall between data points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates o£deposit are priced at par. A-1 Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: January 31,2007 (Excluding Cash) MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARICE SECURITY TYPE T CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 989,068.00 5.290 10,951.39 998,882.86 998,900.00 3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 998,391.00 5.221 18,416.67 999,576.07 999,375.00 2,000,000 1,987,459.00 5.256 29,368.06 1,998,458.93 1,998,275.00 FED AGY DN 313588EEI FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 04/11/07 A-1+ 10/27/06 10/27/06 976,621.67 5.191 0.00 990,282.50 989,972.55 1,000,000 976,621.67 5.191 0.00 990,282.50 989,972.55 TOTAL SECURITIES $3,000,000 $2,964,080.67 5.234% $29,368.06 $2,988,741.43 $2,988,247.55 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value 11 A-1+ $969,973 33.1% ❑FHLMC $1,998,275 6fi.9% AAA $1 990275 66.9% ■FNMA $969,973 33.1% Total: $2,966,248 100.0% Total: $2,986,248100.0% / B-1 PFM Asset ManagemetWE- C- CAMP PROGRAM Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Ey,cluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: January 31,2007 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY FIRST CALL MARKET MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UNREAL G/(L) DURATION YTM CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE DATE PRICE VALUE ON AMORT COST ON COST TO WORST AT MKT FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 99.890 998,900.00 17.14 9,832.00 0.041 4.809 3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 99.938 999,375.00 (201.07) 984.00 0.122 5.175 FED AGY DN 313588EE1 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 04/11/07 98.997 989,972.55 (309.95) 13,350.88 0.187 5.209 SUBTOTALS $2,988,247.55 ($493.88) $24,1((.88 0.116 5.1164 ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 29,368.06 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $3,017,615.61 C-1 M" .700=0 F1 jr M Security Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF B URLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: January 31,2007 (Excluding Cash) S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED INTEREST TOTAL 13,125.00 TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT 125ES 13,125. .00 01/19/07 01/19/07 INTEREST FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 31359MTX1 AAA 1,000,000 2.625 01/19/07 0.00 13, 1,000,000 0.00 13,125.00 13,125.00 01/19/07 01/19/07 MATURITY FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 31359MTX1 AAA 1,000,000 2.625 01/19/07 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,013,125.00 TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS i D-l agentPFM A sset Man i MP PR , GRA M Cash 'Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: January 31,2007 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT 01/19/07 CW WITHDRAW (1,013,125.00) (1,013,125.00) NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONSKWITHDRAWS) ($1,013,125.00) E4 Realized Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAD41'-C1'1'1'OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: January 31,2007 (Excluding Cash) PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED TRADE SETTLE CST E DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT 'DAT01/1 E MATURITY FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 31359MTXI 1,000,000 2.625 1,000,000.00 10,426.00 0.00 01/19/07 $10,426.00 $0.00 TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES r F-1 1 I i i CAMP PROGRAM / I I Cash.Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: January 31,2007 CASH BALANCE: $0.00 Earnings Calculation Templates Current Month-End Book Value + Add Coupon Interest Received + Current Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons Less Purchases Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/- Less Purchased Interest Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month Add Disposals(Sales,Maturities,Paydowns,Sinks,etc.) + Add Coupon Interest Received + Less Previous Month-End Book Value Less Previous Month-End Accrued Interest Total Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month Economic Calendar 02/02/07 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 02/16/07 Building Permits 02/02/07 Unemployment Rate 02/27/07 Durable Goods Orders 02/14/07 Advanced Retail Sales 02/27/07 Existing Home Sales 02/15/07 Empire Manufacturing 02/28/07 4th Quarter GDP Revised 02/16/07 Producer Price Index 02/28/07 Chicago Purchasing Manager 02/16/07 Housing Starts 02/28/07 New Home Sales Market Commentary The economy grew at a rate of 3.5%during the 4th quarter compared to economist's estimates of 3%. Lower gas prices and unseasonably warm weather helped contribute to the better than expected growth. Housing starts were better than expected and existing sales were in-line with expectations reviving hopes that the housing market has bottomed. Most data related to the consumer,including confidence and retail sales;indicate that the consumer is still willing to spend. The strong economic data released over the course of the month has convinced many that the economy will not suffer a hard landing in 2007. The FOMC left rates unchanged at 5.25%for the 5th consecutive meeting. The Fed cited firmer economic growth and cautioned the market about the need to act if inflation reappears. The Treasury market continues to trade in a range reacting to economic data and changing FOMC expectations. The yield curve still remains very flat and in some cases inverted despite Treasury yields retreating to the top of their trading range. G-1 ,- '�1 "Co m ca stc Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon, CA 94583 February 8, 2007 Office: 925.973.7000 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may already be aware, it is our goal at Corncast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community. In keeping with pursuit of our goal we are sending you this letter to inform you of our intention to adjust the programming on the existing channel line-up. Effective January 18, 2007 the following will take place. Action Channel Name _ Service Level Channel Location Add Vs/Golf HD High Definition 721 Effective January 25, 2007 the following will take place. Action Channel Name Service Level Channel Location Relocate Encore West Digital Plus to Digital Classic same location Customers have been informed of the addition via a message on their Digital Control Terminal . If you should have any questions please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling at (415) 715-0549. Jai It.Bi Cly, Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Manager Franchise Compliance-Bay Market