HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2002.03.04BURLINGAMB CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Rnculan MrcBrrNc - MoNoa,v, Mmcn 41 2002
PAGE 1 OF3
* STLIDY SESSION: POA Negotiations
A CLOSED SESSION: Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant
to Government Code $ 54957.6
City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Bob Bell
Labor Organization: Police Officers Association
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIM FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. MINUTES - None
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakerc to three minutes each
a. Parks & Recreation Commission's Report on the Feasibility
Study for Recreational Facilities
b. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Design
Review, Side Setback and Height Variances for a First and
Second Story Addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, Zoned R-1
c. Appeal of the Burlingame Beautification Commission's Decision
to Deny the Removal of a Protected Dawn Redwood Tree at
1360 Vancouver Avenue
d. Adopt ORDINANCE to Limit the Noise Level and Further
Limit the Hours of Operation of Leaf Blowers
e. Adopt ORDINANCE to Amend Chapter 9.04 to Provide a 3-
Year License for Dogs and to update License and Fee Schedule
for Animal Control
6. 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 (he State local agency open meeting law) prohibits
council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of
council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. 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.
7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Commissioner Term Expirations (Planning Commission)
b. Appointment of Advisory Board for San Mateo County
Tourism Business Improvement District
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94O1 O
(6so) 558-7200
SUCIGESTBD ACTION
6:20 p.m., Conference Room A
6:40 p.m., Conference Room A
7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
Hearing/Acceptance
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Discuss/Appoint
Confirm Appointment
BIJRLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGEI\DA
Rrcur,m MnrrrNc - MoNoLY, Mmcn 41 2402
PlcB 2 or 3
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. RESOLUTION Authorizing License Agreement between the
City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Girls Softball League
for the Construction, Maintenance and Operation of certain
Facilities at Ray Park
b. Tentative & Final Condominium Map for a l2-Unit
Condominium, Parcel A, Block 17, Map of Burlingame Grove -
1237-41Capuchino Avenue, PM 99-02
c. RESOLUTION Approving Professional Services Agreement
with Roman & Lougee Consulting Engineers - Water Quality
Assessment, Job 9953
d. Status of Easton Branch Renovation Project
e. RESOLUTION Accepting Bayshore Highway, Rollins Road and
Skyline Boulevard Resurfacing Project - CP 8023(2)
f. RESOLUTION Authorizing Signatories to City Checks &
Drafts
9. CO[[\CIL COMMIT'TEE REPORTS
10. OLD BUSII\ESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Planning, February 25, 2002, & Planning
Special Meeting, February 19,2002; Beautification, February
7 ,2002; Parks & Recreation, February 21,2N2; Traffic,
Safety & Parking, FebruarY 14,2002
b. Department Reports: Police, Jantnry 2002
c. San Mateo County-wide Pollution Prevention Program (STOPP)
presentation for Community Development & Water Quality in
San Mateo County from City Planner
d. Letter of February l, 2002, from Rita Chaffee concerning
increase in parking rates
e. Letter of February 6, 2002, from Diane Elwell concerning
green zone on Bloomfield in front of Papillon Preschool
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94O1 O
(650) 558-7200
Approval
Approval
Approval
Information
Approval
Approval
Referred to Traffic, Safety,
Parking Commission
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Rnculm MBBrrNc - MoNoaY, Mmcn 4r2N2
PlcB 3 or 3
f. Letter of February 12,2OO2, from Bill & Donna Cerna
concerning overnight parking ticket on Balboa - Police press
release attached
g. Email of February 15,2002, from A. Vincenzio concerning
signage at Oak Grove and railroad crossing; response from
Assistant Public Works Director
h. Letter of February 22,2002, from neighbors of 1204 Cabrillo
concerning size of house at this location
13. ADJOI.JRNMENT
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650)
55g-7203 at least 24 hours befoi the meeting. A copy ofthe Agenda Packet is available for public review
ar the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m' before the meeting
and ar the meeting. Visit the City's website at rvrvw.btrlinganre.org. Agendas and minutes are
available at this site.
NEXT MEETING - March 18,2002
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94O1 O
(650) s58-7200
Referred to Planning
Commission
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: December 18,2001
FRoM: Randy Schwartz (558-7307)"Y;"'Wfiw ilor,W
AGENDA ia-ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 3-q -oy
aBY
{
SUBJECT:PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION'S REPORT ON TEE
TEASIBILITY STUDY FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council accept and concur with the Community Center Recommendation
report presented by the Parks & Recreation Commission (including the report and attachments of the Teen
Recreational Facility Needs Committee) and give direction to staff on a long range plan for improving the
community' s recreational facilities.
BACKGROUND:
In 1996, the City accepted a Masterplan to address the regulatory need of the Recreation Center. ln 1997, the
restrooms of the existing facility were brought in line with the Americans with Disabilities Act, but other work
to the facility was postponed until funds were available.
On February 5, 2000, the City Council asked the Parks & Recreation Commission to oversee a feasibility
study to determine the best approach to adding recreational facilities in Burlingame for teenagers as well as for
the general public. DES Architects & Engineers and Callander Associates were hired to assist the
Commission with the feasibility study. DESlCallander concluded that the area in or around the southwest
corner of Washington Park was the best location for new facilities because of its proximity to Burlingame
Avenue, transportation, Burlingame High School, recreational opportunities within Washington Park, the
Burlingame Aquatic Center, etc.
During the early phases of the feasibility study, several plans were presented by the architects to show how
new facilities for teens could be added within Washinglon Park. Though no one plan was ever adopted or
recommended from this phase, the basic site location and rationale (impact on the neighborhood, value of park
land, preservation ofthe trees, intergenerational facility uses and the synergy ofadjacent recreation program
areas) was established as well as the ground work for comparing the issues of dealing with a single or split
facilities. However, several issues also became clear through this process, including the lack of parking for
the existing facility, the need for parking for new facilities, traffic and safety along the Burlingame Avenue
area and the need to preserve the Lions Hall.
During this study, a citizens advisory group (Teen Recreational Facility Needs Committee) was formed to
bring the variety of community interests to the forefront. The Committee developed criteria (attached) that
would best meet the interests of the many different community groups, including the teenagers, senior citizens,
the Washington Park neighbors, the Historical Society, Parks & Recreation Department programs, local
business owners, parents, etc. The Committee also gave its consensus to a plan that would fit all of the
developed criteria. The final price tag for this option (listed at $26 million) was never fully determined, with
the missing costs being the relocation of two Washington Park tennis courts and the relocation of a majority of
the Parks Yard. This plan is attached as Option #1.
At the conclusion of the Committee's work, the Parks & Recreation Commission held two public hearings on
the issue. During these public hearings, the Commission heard from many in support and many in opposition
of Option #1. The opposition predominately came from the tennis public (who argued the impact on the
Washington Park courts was too great) and from neighbors asking for the tennis courts not to be relocated near
their homes.
In response to the Committee's criteria, the discussions about the tennis courts and questions from the
Commissioners, the architects developed two additional options. The Commissioners are recommending
Option #1 and Option #3 to the Council, but feel that Option #3 best addresses the needs of the entire
community. Subsequently each member of the Committee has added his or her support for Option #3, a plan
that was developed afterthe Committee meetings concluded.
Staff agrees that Option #3 best meets the needs of the Burlingame Community. The Option adds new
facilities for teenagers and for senior citizens, improves the recreational facilities for the entire community,
addresses the current and future parking issues, eases the traffic and noise impacts of the surrounding
neighborhood, creates new open space in Washington Park, and maintains the facilities for tennis players.
While an initial look at the architect's estimate for this project of $29 million may seem excessive, the actual
cost of facility construction, $9 million, is in line with what the City spent on the Library and California Drive
Fire Station. The remainder of the costs will provide an extra acre of open land to Washington Park and 145
new parking spaces allocated to the City's recreation facilities. This proposal also eliminates the need for the
City to address approximately $3 million in seismic and fire regulatory issues with the existing Recreation
Center.
ATTACHMENTS:. Parks & Recreation Commission Report. Options, including features and cost estimates, developed by DES Architects & Engineers. List of Primary Interests. Location Parameters. Final Report of the Teen Recreational Facility Needs Committee
BUDGET IMPACT:
If Council decides to proceed with plans for a new Community Center, the budget impact will be up to
approximately $29 million. If Council decides not to proceed with plans for new facilities at this time,
approximately $3 million will be needed to bring the existing Recreation Center in line with seismic and fire
regulations. Either way, the funding will need to be part of the Capital Improvement Program prioritization
discussions.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Telephone (650) 558-7300 ' Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330
Fax (650) 696-1216 ' E-mail: burlrec@aol.com
To: Burlingame City Council
From: Parks & Recreation Commission
Date: November 16,2001
Re: COMMUNITYCENTERRECOMMENDATION
Commission' s Recommendation
The Parks & Recreation Commission voted 7-0 on November 15,2001, to approve the following
motion:
"The Parks and Recreation C.ommission concurs with the recommendation of the
Teen Recreational Facilities Committee and supports the proposed community
center location parameters and the concept sketch for locating the future
community center in the south west corner of Washington Park and additional
properties across Burlingame Ave. and fronting East Lane. The C.ommission
further recommends that Option #3, which would locate the future community
center completely outside Washington Park on properties ecross Burlingame Ave.
and fronting East Lane, be explored as an option and is even more responsive to
the location parameters and the interests identified by the teen facilities
committee."
Backsround
For the past 18 months, the Commission has been examining the feasibility of constructing
recreational facilities for teenagers. As part of that process, the City hired consultants and the
Commission has held several public meetings on the subject.
Due to the controversial nature of the prdect, the Mayor and City Manager appointed 14
citizens, representing many different segments of the community, to a committee to help
examine the issue. This committee met nearly a dozen times, visited several facilities and
received much input from City staff and recreation professionals from neighboring cities. The
Committee developed criteria (see attached sheets) and reached consensus on a plan to meet the
recreational needs of teens and the Burlingame Community, at its August 16,200l meeting.
Attached is the Committee's report that defines the developed criteria, as well as the plan agreed
to by the Committee. A summary of the developed criteria is:,/ New facilities for teens and seniors, plus upgrading of the existing facilities/ Location - proximity to Burlingame Avenue, transportation, Burlingame Aquatic
Center, Washington Parlg etc./ Preservation of Washington Park - maintaining or increasing the Park's acreage,
number of trees and open/passive areasr' Lessening the impact of the surrounding neighborhood - traf{rc, noise, parking, etc.,/ Operational efficiency for recreation programs - close proximity for program areas
The main components of the Committee's plan are:./ a 20,000 sf facility on two tennis courts in the southwest comer of Washington Park,
r' the purchase of the property at 270 east lane to provide an additional 19,000 sf of
program space next to the Park,{ the relocation of the two tennis courts to the Parks Yard,,/ the return ofthe Recreation Center site to open space,{ the purchase of properties across from the park to be used for parking, and,/ the replacement of the Parks Yard north of Broadway.
While this plan meets all of the established criteria, and would be a great improvement over the
current recreational facility, it also leaves a couple of questions unanswered and created a small
amount of controversy. Several members of the public expressed their concerns about the tennis
courts to the Commission. These comments included the need to keep four contiguous courts,
not losing two courts and not lighting courts at Burlingame High School as compensation to the
tennis community. The plan also does not indicate a location or expense for the replacement of
the Parks Yard and only adds 105 new parking places to the area.
At the November 15ft Commission meeting, the architects presented a new plan (Option #3) that
was based upon the Committee's criteria, input received from the public and questions from the
Commissioners at the prior meetings. Option #3 calls for:{ the purchase of the same properties across from the Park as in the Committee's plan,/ the construction of a 32,000 sf facility in a 3-story format (one level below ground)
and a 3-level parking structure on the newly acquired property, and/ the return of the Recreation Center site to open space. '
The Commission supports Options #l and #3, but noted that Option #3 may be more responsive
to the needs of the community than #1. Option #3 was not developed until recently and therefore
was not available to be considered by the Committee at its meetings. At the November 15fr
Commission meeting, half of the Committee members were present and each acknowledged their
support for Option #3. Some of the additional benefits of this new plan include:
A none of the tennis courts are displaced, nor need replacing elsewhere in the
community,
t the City does not have to move the Parks Yard to a new location as part of this
project,
* more open space in the Park due to no recreational buildings within the Park,{' no obstructed sight lines into the Park from the train station area, and{. the addition of 145 new parking places to the area.
The Parks & Recreation Commissioners are pleased to provide this.recommendation to the
Council and are available for any follow-up assistance the Council may require. At the next
Commission meeting, facilities for teens in the interim will be discussed.
The Commission would also like to acknowledge and thank the members of the Committee for
their tremendous work and service to the City.
I
cars
3. RAILROAD R.O.W.| - , .i--cars
T O TiAI{
7
?
o
-RAIN STATION
' .,-',-.,,
1. NEW PKG LOT. . : - ;r{.1,
2. ROOF O{:.A\TS,.&
EDUC. BLDG.
2 chrs
o
z
tv
HffiI
SCALE l=30'OPTION 1
SITE PLAN
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY CENTER
BAIXEIBALL
colrRts
PARKING
32 cara
@ 50'
ffitwl
NEW PARKING
OPTION 1
I. FEATURES
. Acquire lots at Burlingame & myrtle and 270 E,. lane building
. Delete two western tennis courts. Build new 2 story activity & teen center bldg in park
. Renovate2T0 E lane building to become arts & education facility. Build new parking lot at Burlingame & myrtle lot. Build new parking spaces along railroad (east lane). Provide lighting at 4 tennis courts at BHS. Add picnic tables near BHS tennis courts. Uprade & improve 2 tennis courts at BIS. Demo existing rec. building & replace with aprox I acre new park. Add 2 tennis courts at park yard
2. COST ESTIMATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY CENTER
item cost
I Acquire myrtle ave $2,750,000
2 Relocation cost $100,000
aJ Acquire 270 E lane $11,800,000
4 Relocation cost $2,000,000
5 Demo 2 tennis courts $60,000
6 Build new activity & teen center $5,000,000
7 Renovate 270E lane $2,000,000
8 Build new parking lot at myrtle $200,000
9 Build new parking spaces at RR $50,000
10 Provide lighting at 4 BHS courts*site $ 145,000
ll Upgrade 2 courts at BIS $200,000
T2 Demo existing rec bldg $200,000
l3 Build new park land $ 1,500,000
t4 Demolish Park yard warehouse s50,000
15 Build 2 tennis courts and restrooms fac $300,000
TOTAL $26,355,000
NOTE: The price does not include land acquisition or build
a new Parks Corporate yard.
CallunderAssocisles
DES
ARCil t',rrc l s
INGIN IlUt9t}l
/ r.riil
NEW PARKING PROVIDED
''':1-.:, ,il .
"'.1. NEW PKG STRUCT.
AT'270 EAST LANE 145 cars
TOTAL 145 cars
f
7.
c
(r1
TRAIN STANON
\/
o
Y
o
a
v{|.
0
z.t
v
tuftrfE:3 LEVEL PXG
145 car3 ffi
EI
li
BASKETBAII
cot RTs
PI.AY AREA
LOT(E)
LI
e&ebqt
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY CENTER
SCALE l=30'OPTION 38
SITE PLAN
0, 10. 30. 60. t00'lfr
HEN
lffi""=Hl
N:r/o
mlwr CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY CENTER
OPTION 3
C ONCEPTUAL CHARACTER STUDY
DES
OPTION 3
1. FEATURES
. Acquire lot at Burlingame & myrtle and270 E. lane building
r Demo 270 E lane building.. Build I new facility and 3 level parking garage at combined lots
. Leave tennis courts as is. Demo existing rec building & replace with aprox 1 acre new park
2. COST ESTIMATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
COMMUNITY CENTER
CollunderAssocioles
item cost
I Acquire myrtle ave $2,750,000
2 Relocation cost $ 100,000
3 Acquire 270Elane $11,800,000
4 Relocation cost $2,000,000
5 Demo 270 E lane $150,000
6 Build new combined facility $8,750,000
7 Build new parking garage $3,200,000
8 Demo existing rec bldg $200,000
9 Build new park land $ 1,000,000
TOTAL $29,950,000
DES
Ancl I t'rric.t s
LNCINI:f,IIS
tU19l}t
List of the Primary lnterests that Were Considered by the Teen Facility Committee
In addition to the obvious need to respond to the request to develop a recommendation to
provide for the recreational facility needs of teenagers, the committee members brought a
number of other interests to the discussion and formulated a decision process.
1. Preservation/enhancement of natural beauty and passive areas of Washington
Park.
2. Transportation - maximize ability to gain access on public transportation.
3. Traffic and parking - provide adequate parking to avoid undue impacts on the
adjacent neighborhood streets and minimize the traffic impacts on adjacent
single-family properties.
4. Safety - to ensure maximum level of sense of safety for all members of the public
that would utilize the facility as well as neighboring properties.
5. Preservation of historical resources - avoid any negative impact on existing
hi stori cal facilities.
7. Teen ownership - ensure to provide a sense of teen ownership to maximize the
potential success of attracting and serving the targeted teens.
8. Financiallyresponsible.
9. Operational efficiency.
10. Address the needs of those displaced i.e. tennis players.
Obviously there are any number of the additional options that could be considered.
However those options should be weighed against these various interests that were
expressed by a significant number of residents in the community during the original
public hearing process and were represented by one or more members of the 14 member
committee. For example, there certainly are both less and more expensive options that,
however, they would result in a significantly reduced response to other intereits, such as
preserving or enhancing open space in Washington Park. Another obvious option of not
adding any more recreational facility square footage would be very responsive to the
interests of preserving Washington Park and being fiscally responsible it would be
completely unresponsive to the interests expressed by teens and many others for more
recreational facilities. While the committee knows and understands that there are many
members the community who will continue to believe that there are better alternatives,
they are unaware of any option that in their assessment was more responsive to the
various legitimate interest that they were asked to consider in developing the
recommendation.
6. Proximity to other team destination points - easy walking distance to other
destination points desirable to teenagers.
Summary of the Community Center Location Parameters
(As Recommended by the Teen Recreation Facility Needs Committee)
1. An increase in square footage of space, up to an additional 19,000 square feet, is
needed to better provide for the recreational facility needs of teens and other members
ofthe community.
2. Washington Park should not be used as the site to respond to the need for
additional square footage, however, future relocation of the existing recreational
building square footage should be in the southwest corner of the park and no greater
that 20,000 square feet.
3. Meeting the additional square footage facility needs could be achieved as part of a
campus type approach such that the square footage in excess of 20,000 square feet
should be outside the park but preferably with in 300 feet of southwest corner of
Washington park.
4. Future modifications to Washington Park to accommodate for recreational facility
needs will be done in away that provides one acre or more additional open/passive
space in Washington Park adjacent to the core oper/passive area behind the curent
Rec Center.
5. Additional recreational facility needs should provide adequate parking on the
same basis as is required for all other facilities in Burlingame, but no more parking
should be placed in Washington Park. To maximize sense of safety for the public no
underground parking will be allowed. Any added parking in the neighborhood must
be compatible with a residential neighborhood.
6. The additional facility space should be near other popular teenage destinations
such as Burlingame Avenue and Burlingame High School, and it should minimize the
user and vehicle traffic impact on the single-family neighborhood surrounding the
Washington Park.
7. Avoid need for additional investment of financial resources in the existing
community center, which is seen as limited in its ability to adequately meet the long-
term community recreational facility needs.
8. Provide for the community tennis demands by replacin g any reduction in tennis
courts.
9. No mature trees in Washington Park should be removed, especially heritage and
redwood trees.
10. The historic features of Burlingame and Washington Park, namely the Lion's Hall
and Burlingame Square, will be preserved.
For more detailed information on the Teenage Recreational Facility Needs Committee
reconrmendation see the September 20,2001Final Report and Recommendation.
To Mayor Joseph Galligan
Parks and Recreation Commission
From: Teenage Recreational Facility Needs Committee
Ed Larios and Charles Volta Co-Chairs
Subjecfi Final Report and Recommendation
Date: September 20,2001
I. Background
While the idea that Burlingame should have a new Teen Center is not new, it gathered
momentum a few years ago as a result of the'Burlingame Together" conferences. Support for
the idea grew as candidates for the City Council pledged their support for a Teen Center. The idea
moved closer to fnrition when the Parks and Recreation Commission held a series of public
meetings at which it established a set of criteria, considered a number of potential sites and
commissioned a set of concrete plans from architects and consultants, most ofwhich involved
major construction of new facilities and underground parking in Washington Park.
These plans became a matter of public controversy, mainly as to the size and location of
the proposed facilites and their potential impact on Washington Park. In early April the Mayor
appointed this Committee which represents the entire spectrum of stakeholders in the decision.
The charge to the Committee was given by the City Manager:
"The scope ofthe work of the committee is to develop a recommendation for
consideration by the Parks & Recreation Commission and the City Council as to
how to best provide a facility to meet the teenage recreational needs ofthe
community. Such a determination should include consideration as to whether it is
best to build/improve a separate building, or provide a facitty space as part of a
plan for a long-term community center. In addition, consideration should be given
as to how such a facility might enhance or detract from our ability to meet the
recreational needs of the rest ofthe community including our senior citizens. Any
approach that would involve WashinSon Park needs to consider how it would fit
into the park as a whole in the long term.,,
Wth facilitation throughout by staffofthe Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, the
Committee decided to hold its meetings in public and to make its decisions by consensus. After
nine lengthy and spirited meetings, on June 1lth the Committee narrowed the options it wished to
consider in detail to a few potential sites, asked for detailed analysis of these optionr by the Crty's
architects and consultants, and made a Progress Report to the Mayor at the City Council meeting
on June 18th (see Addendum I). The requested detailed analysis ofthe options was presented to
and reviewed by the Committee at its meeting on July 30th. At its meeting on August 16th the
Committee reached unanimous consensus on the following recommendation. Thus, what began as
'Burlingame Together" had come full circle to a'Burlingame Togethef' conclusion -- this time
including representatives of all community groups with astake in the outcome.
1
IL The Committee's Unanimous Recommendation
There are five interrelated components to the Committee's recommendation:
' If, fo, -y ,""roo, this building proves rmsuitable or unavailable the City should cosider acquiring other
property along East Lane that could serve tbe same purposes.
)
1 . Build a new Community Activity and Teen Center in Washington Park on
the present location ofthe two tennis courts nearest the Burlingame Train
Station. This building would be a two-story building of20,000 square feet
facing Carolan Avenue. It should have a separate entrance for teens and
contain specific facilities for teens as well as facilities that would be shared
by all members of the community, including multi-purpose rooms, a 7,500
square foot gymnasiurq a weight rootr! dance./aerobics classroorq and other
facilities focused on physical activities. There would be a convenient drop-
off zone in front of the building.
2. Acquire and convert the nearby building located at 270 East Lane into a
Community Leorning otd An Center at which would be located general
purpose meeting rooms, classrooms for classes (other than physical activity
classes), arts and crafts facilities, ard offices for staff of the Parks and
Recreation Department. This building is a one-story building of about 19,000
square feet that has two entralces, one on East Lane and one on Myrtle
Avenue. A unique and valuable feature ofthis building is roof-top parking
for about 53 cars. r
3. Relocate the two displaced tennis courts to the space in Washington Park
currently occupied by the Parks Department maintenance yard. This
maintenance yard would be relocated to another locatioq preferably at or
near the City's corporation yard on North Carolan Avenue. Placing these
two tennis courts in this location would still leave ample room for whatever
equipment is needed by the Parks Departme for maintenance of
Washington Park.
4. Acquire adjacent properties for surface parking needed to serve the new
combined facilities. These properties would include four older buildings
consisting of two small apartment buildings and two single-family residences
that are located on the south side ofBurlingame Avenue between the so-
called "Candy Store" (former Oldsmobile dealership) and Myrtle Avenue. In
additioq the City would need to acquire ttre rights to 10-20 parking spaces
on the railroad right of way along East Lane.
5. Restore to green space the space now occupied by the Recreation Center
which would be torn down once the new facilities are ready for occupation.
In additiorq the park space currently used as a parking lot for employees
assigned to the Park Department's maintenance yard would be restored to
green space. Taken together, these would result in a gain of approximately
one acre of passive green space to Washington Park.
Details of the cost estimate and parking analysis for each of the final options considered by
the Committee at its August l6th meeting are contained in the "Summary ofRecreational Facility
Options and Their Elements" (Addendum tr).2 Except where noted, the cost estimates are based
on data provided by the Crty's architects and consultants, and resulted in all of the final options
(other than Option 4) being considered to be essentially the same cost because the difference
between them was within the estimates' margin of error.
Ift 1;4"rruring the Recommendation Against the Committeers Key Criteria
Before finalizing its consensus decisioq the Committee reviewed it against the key criteria
it had established in prior meetings. In no particular order of importance these are the key criteria
and the considerations relating to them:
Transportation: The propos ed Community Activity qtd Teen Center and Commtnity
Leaning and Art Center are close to all forms of public transportation serving Burlingame. They
are also served by the after-school SamTrans busses that transport students fromBurlingame
Intermediate School to the Burlingame Train Station and the neighborhood east of it. Because
these busses are presently fully utilized, the Committee believes that additional busses would need
to be added to accommodate the BIS students who wishto come to the Teen Center after school
but do not live near it. The Committee also suggests that the City consider additional shuttle bus
service both for teens and senior citizens.
Traflic/?arking: Providing adequate parking proved to be one ofthe most difficult
challenges for the Committee. The Committee used the rule-of-thumb formula of 4 parking spaces
for every 1,000 sq. feet of building space recommended by the Planning Departrnent. There were
strong objections by some committee members to underground parking particularly in
Washington Park, based on both safety and aesthetic considerations, and lesser objections to
parking structures in or near Washington Park based on the sarte considerations. The
Committee's recommendation provides for all surface parking except for the 53 parking spaces on
tlre roof of the270 East Lane building.
Traffic along Burlingame Avenue should be improved along Burlingame Avenue between
the present Recreation Center and Myrtle Avenue, but will likely become more congested
between Myrtle Avenue and Carolan Avenue. Similarly, trafEc along Carolan Avenue will be
increased and steps should be taken to mitigate that, especially during peak traffic periods relating
to the Burlingame Train Station and Burlingame Ifigh School. The Carolan Avenue location
should be better able than the present Rec Center location to handle the numerous busses that can
be expected to arrive at the facility from time to time.
Safety: A safety comfort level is important for all citizens, but particularly for individuals
with disabilities, teens, women and seniors. The central location uear the Burlingame Train
Station promises to provide the kind of safety for the proposed facilities that is associated with
busy, well-lighted urban spaces. As noted above, all ofthe parking provided is surface parking
which most people consider the safest kind of public parking if it is well-lighted at night. Removal
'Th" Commitee's recommendation is designated as Option 2-C inthis document. A site map of
Washington Park with the Community Activity and Teen Center locatd at the two temnis courts nearest the
Burlingame Train Station is Exhibit F to Addendum tr.
J
I
of the present Recreation Center will allow the Burlingame Police Department patrol cars to see
into the park area behind the Recreation Center at night, which is not now possible.
Preservation of historic sites: Both the historic Lion's Hall and the Burlingame Square
surrounding the Burlingame Train Station are preserved under the Committee's recommendation.
Preservation of green space/open space: As noted abovg the Committee's
recommendation will result in the gain of approximately an acre of green space in Washington
Park, thereby expanding the "critical mass" ofquiet and peaceful space in the Park. The
availability ofthis space to the general public should become increasingly important as housing
density and the number of residents lMng in apartments, condominiums and town houses
increases. There should be no loss of mature trees in Washington Park
Prorimity to other teen activities/schools: The new facilities recommended by the
Committee are within easy walking distance ofboth Burlingame tfgh School and St. Catherine's
Elementary School (7th and 8th graders). They are also easily accessible to Burlingame Avenue
and the Burlingame Library which are popular destinations for teens and their parents. The
facilities are, however, almost three miles from Burlingame Intermediate School where it is
expected that the majority ofthe users of the Teen Center will come from. Mercy and Mlls High
Schools and Our Lady ofAngels Elementary School (7th and 8th graders) are similarly distant. As
noted above, this may require providing additional transportation.
Teen ownership: The proposed Community Activity and Teen Cenler will provide
separate areas that teens can call tieir owq as well as facilities that will be shared with other
members ofthe community. In additioq it is expected that the planning and operation ofthe Teen
Center will have significant teen involvement.
Financial cost: The total cost ofthis project is estimated to be about $20 million. (see
Exhbit B to Addendum tr).3 This does not take into account the $2-3 million dollars that is the
estimated cost of retrofitting and remodeling the existing Recreation Center, which funds could be
applied to the cost ofthis project. This, however, could be offset by the cost ofrelocating the
Parks maintenance yard from Washington Park to the City's corporation yard or nearby location.
Operations of facility: Although the Committee understood staffs preference for a single
multi-use facility of35,000 - 40,000 square feet, it felt that the height and bulk of such a facility
was much too large for Washington Park. But by locating one of the two proposed buildings
outside ofthe Park yet within a few hundred feet ofthe building in the Parlq and providing multi-
purpose facilities within then! this would help address the sta.ffs concems as to operational
efficiency and programming while at the same time minimizing impacts on the passive areas of the
Park. In additiorL our recommendation achieves the synergy benefit ofhaving numerous related
recreational facillities, including all those in Washington Park and on the campus of Burlingame
Itrgh School, located nearby.
City ownership/land acquisition: The proposed facilities are a combination of City-
owned and nearby privately-owned land. While the acquisition of such private property involves
3 fu noted h Exhibit B to Adderdum II, the cost estimate for acquisition ofthe 270 East Lane property
needs to be confirmd sooner rather than later, by an independent appraisal. Similarly, the structural
soundness o116e 6uil.ling should be confirmed by architects retained bythe City.
4
additional expense, the Committee was concerned that adding an additional 15-20,000 square foot
building (about the amount of floor space in Mollie Stone's Burlingame rto.") inside Washington
Parh with the related additonal people and parking that come with it, could upset the delicate
balance that presenfly exists between recreational and peaceful areas ofthe park.
Replacement costs/opportunity costs: This factor refers to the replacement or
opporhrnity costs that would have been incurred under other proposals if certain peaceful areas of
Washington Park had been used for other purposes or negatively impacted. However, the
Committee's recommendation would result in the gain of about an acre of peaceful green space to
Washington Parlg so this now becomes a plus factor since the recovery of such prime park space
near downtown Burlingame would be worth millions of dollars in todals market.
The Committee believes and hopes that its recommendation to relocate two tennis courts
elsewhere in the Park adequately addresses the removal of two of the four tennis courts from their
present location.
Impact on neighbors: The neighborhood surrounding the public areas east of Carolan
Avenue between Oak Grove and Burlingame Avenue is probably the most heavily impacted
residential neighborhood in Burlingame. Acquiring the 270 East Lane building, rather than
building new facilities in Washington Park (or neighborhood) with the same squaf,e footage,
should reduce the neighborhood impact that would otherwise occur. Only the users ofthat
building would change; the building itself and its roof-top parking remain the same and thereby
would not add to neighborhood impact. Locating the new recreational facitties near Carolan
Avenue will further reduce the impact of these facilities on both Washington Park and the
surrounding neighborhood.
Relocating two tennis courts to the space presently occupied by the Park Department
maintenance yard should have minimal impact on the nearby Lexington Avenue neighborhood
since tlese tennis courts will be adjacent to the present courts of the Peninsula Tennis Club.
Matching facility with space available (not oversized): By limiting the size ofthe
proposed Community Activity and Teen Center to 20,000 square feet and locating it across from
the Burlingame Train Station, the scale and footprint of the building will be compatible with
Washington Park and nearby buildings. This will provide an opportunity for architectural and
landscape design ofthe building and surrounding area that would make an attractive vizual
statement and entry to Washingtoq Park.
Matching facility size with programmatic expectations: The proposed Community
ActiviP qtd Teen Center and the nearby Commmity Lerning md Art Center wilt between
thenr, provide about 39,000 square feet of floor space for the comnrunity's indoor recreational
programs. This should be sufficient to meet the varied recreational needs of teens as well as other
a Mo[ie Stone's Burlingame store has a 2-story height and a floor area of 18,000 sq. ft in 1[s main part of the store
with another 1,000 sq- ft in the deli area. The area of the two tennis courts on which the nery Commrrnity Activity
and Teen Center would be built is about 17,000 sq. ft. That new 20,000 sq. ft. building will probably have
something close to a 15,000 sq. ft. first floor including a 7,500 sq. ft g6nnasium that would have a 2-story height,
and the building would have a second floor of about 5,000 sq. ft. The result wouldbe a 20,000 sq. ft building that
would be two-stories in height for about 12,500 sq. ft. (837o) of its approximate 15,000 sq. ft. footprint. The final
configuration of the building can of course vary from these approximations by up to a few thousand square fee!
plus or minus.
5
!
youtlL adults and senior citizens through florible programming and shared use ofmulti-purpose
rooms and facilities.
fV. Remaining Concerns
In the course of the Committee's deliberations, a number of items came up that the
Committee felt were beyond the scope ofits charge and/or matters on which consensus could
probably not be reached within our time constrainsts. Eventually, as a way to allow the
Committee's work to proceed, it was agreed that we would include these corcerns as part of our
final report. It is important to note that while the degree to which Committee members shared
these concerns varied from a few to many members, nonetheless we felt it important to share
these concems with the Commission and the Council.
Need For a Teen Center: While clearly most of the Committee were convinced (albeit
for varying reasons) that there was a need for a Teen Center like the one it now recommends,
some members believed tJrat the need for such a facility had not been adequately demonstrated
because, they felt, earlier surveys were dated and not well desigrred to demonstrate needs rather
than wants. A possible option that might alleviate these concems would be if specific questions on
this issue addressed to both parents and teens were included in a professionally designed
community survey that we understand the City is contemplating conducting later this year.
Transportation to and from Teen Center: The location ofthe proposed Teen Center in
Washington Park is premised in part on the assumption that the large portion of Burlingame's teen
populaton who attend school and./or reside in the northern half ofthe City will be able to travel to
and from the Teen Center conveniently. Several members of the Committee believg while others
are skeptical, that expanding the SamTrans after-school bus service fiom Burlingame lntermediate
School to the Washington Park area will go a long way toward meeting this need. This question
may deserve further inquiry, as does the Committee's suggestion that a shuttle bus service for both
teens and seniors should be considered. Both these proposals would, of coursg involve ongoing
operational costs that could prove significant.
Master Plan for Washington Park and Burlingame Recreational Facilities: The
committee believes that before the city commits to funding the proposed facilities, a long-term
Master Plan should be adopted by the Parks ard Recreation Commissioq bot! for Washington
Park and for the community's overall recreational facility needs. Particular attention in the latter
Master Plan should be given to the anticipated needs of seniors that will expand as the large Baby
Boomer generation reaches retirement age (60) beginning in 2005.
Programming Considerations: Closely related to the needs issue is the matter of the
kind of programs and activities that will be offered at the Teen Center. While the Committee did
not feel it appropriate for it to recommend specific programs or activities, it wanted to express the
hope and expectation that programs and activities offered at the Teen Center would be (l)
designed to include individuals with disabilities and, where appropriate, acconrnodate their
special needs, (2) targeted at "at risk" teens (those without adult supervision during the critical
hours between 3 p.m and 6 p.m. during school weeks) as well as at other teens; (3) designed to
strengthen and improve life-coping skills and abilities ofthe participating teens as well as to have
fun and enjoy each otheds company; (4) informed by current research and knowledge about
effective programs in other American communities; (5) responsive to tle diverse interests of
teens, including but not limited to sports, music, technology, art, drama, dance, nature and
6
science, fashiorq etc.; and (6) evaluated objectively, not just by participation numbers, but by
outcome-based criteria directed to the impact of the program on the lives of its participants. These
hopes and expectations are not meant to suggest that programs for teens should have to meet a
higher standard than recreational programs for others, for the same general approach should be
applicable to all progams offered by the Parks and Recreation Department. But these hopes and
expectations also recognize that the teenage years are critical in their personal development, and
the City should provide them with as much he$ and zupport in this process as it can.
Coordination With Other Community Teen Programs: Concerns were expressed by
members of the Committee that the various programs and activities that are available to
Burlingame teens should be coordinated so that they complement, rather than duplicate or
"o*p.i" wittr, each other. Two examples that came up in the Committee's discttssion on teehs'
,t."d for a teen-friendly space to do h-omework and/or computer research. Some teen members of
the committee felt thai the Burlingame Library was not a teen-friendly place to do homework' It
was also noted that the library at Burlingame lfgh School (which has a number of Internet-
connected computers) closed at 4 p.m. b..orr" the school district did not have adequate funds to
staffit for longir periods. These two examples were viewed by the Committee as solvable
problems that-witir coordinatiorl and perhaps some City fundi.g, could reduce the amount of
space needed in theTeen Center for homework and/or computer stations.
V. Conclusion
The Cornmiuee was able to achieve a unanimous recorlmerdation on an issue that had
divided the community as a result of its dedication to finding a solution that would meet the needs
of everyone involved. That took hard work, commitment to the process, patience and persistence
and, above all, a willingness to respect the views of others and seek common ground. We found
ttrai finding the optimal solution was not a zero-sum garne or a matter of having to make-
compromises so much as it was an ongoing search for a win-win solution that would be best for
Burlingame -- now and foryears to come. We believe and hope that is what we accomplished.
As a result of its extensive deliberations, the Committee well understands that there is no
perfect solution to the ir*., it struggled wittU and that its recommendation is not meant to be
free from criticism. But we ask that any critics of our recommendation -- in addition to finding
fault with its particulars -- accept the s-ame challenge and responsibility that the Committee took
or1 namely, to come up with a proposed solution that meets the essential needs of the cornrrunity
and reasonably accommodates the many and diverse interests involved. Only inthat way canthe
end result achieve the "Burlingame Together" that we all desire.
Members of the Committee:
Cathy Baylock - Burlingame lfistorical Society Representative
Natalie Cirigliano - Youth Advisory Committee
Karen Ditman - Parks & Recreation Commission Member
Joe Galligan - Mayor and City Council Liason
Grant Giliam - BIS Student
Annamarie Holland-Daniels - Burlingame Mothers Club Representative
Frank Hunt - Senior Community Representative
7
I !
.l
Linda Lees - Burlingame School Board
L. Serenella Leoni - PARCA Representative
Sam Malouf - Neighborhood Representative
Catherine McCormack - Senior Commission
Chuck Pascal - Lions Club Representative
Charles Voltz - Washington Park Society Representative
Mary Warden - Youth Advisory Committee
t:
8
1
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Mayor Joseph Gatligan
Ed Larios and Charles Voltz, CuChairs
Teenage Recreational Facility Needs Committee
Committee Progress Report
June 13,2001
I. Introduction
At the City Council meeting on April 3,2001,the Mayor and the City Manager
announced the appointment ofthe Teenage Recreational Facility Needs Committee
("Committee") whose members represented the various stakeholders who could be
affected by a decision on the kind of facility there should be and where it might be
located. On April 6,z}Ol,the City Manager outlined for the Committee the scope of its
work.
The Committee held its first meeting on April 18, 2001, and held subsequent meetings on
April 23,May Z,May 9, May 16, May Zl,May 31, June 6 and June l l -- for a total of 9
meetings. Each meeting lasted at least three hours, and was attended by all, or almost all,
of its members. All meetings were open to the public.
The Committee visited the San Carlos Teen Center and heard presentations from the
director of that facility as well as the director of the Red Morton Center in Redwood C1ty.
Some members also visited City-operated teen facilities in Foster City, Redwood City
and South San Francisco.
The meetings were facilitated by staffof the Peninsula Dispute Resolution Center. This
enabled the Committee to decide, as it did at its first meeting to make its decisions on a
consensus basis, if at all possible. While this process is more time consuming and
requires more of its participants and facilitators, it offers the prospect of decision-making
that is supported by the entire group rather than ending up with a divided majority and
minority.
The Committee worked hard and functioned effectively as a group. It received limited
input from members of the public, had extensive discussions and reviewed numerous
materials. As shown below in some detail, it was able to (1) reach a number of
agreements, (2) decide upon the key criteria and factors it would use in evaluating site
locations, and (3) narowthe options it wished to consider in detail to a few potential
sites.
Committee Agreements to Date (See Addendum A)
Committee's Key Criteria Regarding Location (See Addendum B)
Narrowing the Options For Detailed Consideration
During the course of its discussions, the Committee identified a number of potential sites
for a teen facility. (See Addendum C).
At the committee's June 116 meeting, the committee decided to narrow its focus and limit
the options under present consideration to two possible sites so that that the City's
archiiect consultants could analyzethese sites and, if a site appears to be feasible, provide
the committee with site plots, side views, total square footage, footprint and height
tr
m.
TV.
t
Aoor'/oaa f
dimensions, amount of parking needed and parking options, and related relevant
information.
A. Each of the two sites selected by the committee had two altematives rezulting in a
total of four options. These two sites and their respective alternatives are:
1. Site of present Recreation Center in Washington Park
a. New facility limited to or smaller than existing building footprint, but can be
two-story building. Multiuse Community Center with separate teen area and
shared gym.
b. Same as l(a) - except that some staff offrces and adutt classes (other
than those using gym facilities) and their related parking spaces, would
be relocated to a nearby satellite facility, which would need to be acquired.
2. City Parking Lot N at Park Road, the site where the temporary library was
located.l
a. Multi-use Community Center with separate teen area and shared gym.
b. Teen Center with gym.
B. The method the committee used to narrow its consideration to the two sites it selected
for further review was a straw vote in which each member could vote to support as
many (or as few) ofthe several options then under consideration. The top two
candidates in this process were tentatively supported by almost everyone (l I or 12
votes out of 13 voting members), with a gap between the top two and the remainder.
r The two runners-up were 1) the Washington Park tennis courts nearest Carolan and
Burlingame Avenues (6 votes), aud 2) trro facilities, one near BIS/Marco polo (teen only
without gym) and one in either Washington Park or a City Parking lot south of Howard
(multi-use community center) (6 votes).
. Tniling behind were 3) an interim facility while ffnal decisions are made and any new
Scility 6nstructd 4) BIS tennis courts, and 5) the site on Primrose Road where the
wacant Wells Fargo Bank building is located.
From this expression of general suppor! the Committee decided by eonsensus to limit
what we would ask the architects to flesh out to these top two potential sites listed as
A1&2above.
C. The architects estimate that it will take about 4-5 weeks to prepare the requested
materials and report back to the committee. Accordingly, the committee tentatively
scheduled ruly 30u as its next meeting at which it would evaluate the options in light
ofthe information provided by the architects.
D. While consideration of the foregoing options does aot preclude the committee,s
consideration of other options if these do not pan out or provide a basis for consensus,
the goal of the committee is that it will do all it can to reach a consensus
recommendation without the need for consideration of other options.
I There was no discussion ofwhettrer the Park Road ficility (other than the gym) should be a one or two-
story building.
2
vt Need For Further Guidance
Some matters arose in the course of the Committee's deliberation which the Committee
believed were beyond the scope of what it was asked to do. These include the following:
A. The extent to which parents will be willing to have their children go to ateen facility
at either ofthe selected sites;
B. Assumptions regarding transportation to and from the selected sites;
C. The potential impact of the selected sites on constituencies not represented on the
Committee; and
D. The need for a Master Plan for Parks and Recreation facilities that would meet the
recreational needs of the entire community while protecting and preserving green
open spaces in City parks. The Committee is not proposing that such a Master Plan
needs to be developed before it concludes its worlg but hopes that it would be
developed before construction of any major new recreational facility.
If you would like the Committee to address any of these matters, that would need to be
clarified for the Committee.
cc: City Manager JamesNantell
a
J
{
V. Other Potential Sites Identified by the Committee (See Attachment C)I
ADDENDI]M A
Committee Agreements To Date
1. This group wants to meet the needs of teens in our community since doing so benefits
the community as a whole.
2. This group recognizes that teen needs include:
1. Places where they feel welcome, included, and encouraged to be themselves.
2. Stnrctured physical, social and educational activities.
3. Unstructured but safe time together.
3. This group recognizes that meeting teen needs benefits the community. Our hopes
would be that any teen program would:
1. Give teens a safe place to be part of a peer community and also the larger
community (e.g., through programs like community service).
2. Prevent problems and/or allow the early identification of problems (through well-
trained staff).
4. In order to attract the targeted group, we assume programs will be designed that meet
the users' needs and have particular goals in mind. We recognize that standards and
evaluation methods (e.g., outcome-based methodology) evolve and change overtime,
and we do not want teen programs to be held to different standards than those that are
used for other Burlingame recreation programs.
5. Any facility that provides services to teens should be:
a. Attractive to, and accessible and safe for, groups we're serving.
b. Integrated with surrounding area.
c. Flexible for potential usage by compatible groups in community, if facility is
multi-usle.
6. Regarding Target Group
Out target group is aged l0 through 18; they live and/or gotto school in Burlingame.
We recognizethattypiqal users of a teen facility are between the ages of 10 and 15
(pre-driving) and that different programs -- or even a separate facility -- may be
needed to attract 16-18 year olds. However, we expect any facility developed to be
flexible enough to accommodate the whole age range.
7. Regarding Types of Programs
The group recognizes the need for both structured and unstructured activities that
serve physical social, educational and emotional needs. Facilities for unstructured
activities might include room for games, computers, TV,lounge, food and a gym.
Facilities for structured astivities might inolude classroorq private rooms for
counseling/tutoring, areas for arts and crafts and drama.
8. Regarding Teen Ownership
Regardless ofthe facility type, developing teen ownership will be critical to its
success and must be developed in planning stages.
4
9. Interim space forteens should
Will demonstrate to community and especially the teens our commitment to
respond to their needs;
Use the interim time to develop teen leadership, establish teen ownership, and
purchase equipment and programming materials;
Consider interim option for any recreational facility that would be put out of
commission because of the new facility; and
Caution against use ofthe interim facility as a judge of ultimate use ofthe new
facility as it will likely be less responsive to full array of teen interests.
be identified (possible need to lease space)
5
I
a
ADDENDT}M B
Committee's Key Criteria Regarding Location
These criteria and factors reflect the range of interests that members of the group believe
should be taken into account in determining a location for teen facilities, and are being
used by the committee to assess the options generated. In no particular order, they are:
. Transportation
. TraffrcParking
' Safety
' Preservation of historic sites
. Preservation ofgreen space/open space
. Proximrty to other teen activities/schools
r Teen ownership
. Financial cost
I Operations of facility
. City ownershipfland acquisition
. Replacement costs/opportunitycosts
I Impact on neighbors
. Matching facility with space available (not oversized)
r Matching facility size with programmatic expectations
6
a
I.
OTEER POTENTIAL SITES IDENTIF'IED BY THE COMMITTEE
The list below is taken from a more anotated list of suggested sites submitted by C. Voltz
Site Locations That Could Accommodate Facilities For Teens As \ilell As Others.
A. City Parking Lot F between Highland Avenue and Lorton Avenue.
B. Clty Parking Lot N between Park Road and Lorton Avenue.
C. U.S. Post Office Facility between Park Road and Lorton Avenue.
D. Vacant Lot at Trousdale and El Camino Real (northeast corner)
II. Site Locations That Could Accommodate Facilities For A Teen Center
A. Franklin School Campus (adjacent to Burlingame Intermediate School)
B. Ray Park (adjacent to Lincoln School)
C. City Parking Lot H: El Camino Real and Ralston Avenue
D. Vacant Land Along Railroad Right-of-Way at California Drive South of Oak Grove
E. Commercial Center at Oak Grove and Carolan Avenue
F. Commercial Center at Adeline and El Camino
G. Private Parking Lot at South Lane and CaliforniaDrive
H. Burlingame Avenue Residences Across From Tennis Courts at Myrtle Avenue
I. Burlingame High School Parking Lot
I. Vacant Land Adjacent to Caltrain Tracks at Howard and Myrtle Avenues
K. Donnelly Avenue Buildings East of City Parking Stnrcture and Parking Lot
L. Washingtog School
7
t
Results of a 6/11/01 Committeegroup brainstorming session:
1. Rollins Road Site($ (3)
2. El Camino at Trousdale
3. Combination of SE corner of Washington Park and some property across the
street. (6)
4. ECR and Ralston Ave. parking lot
5. Rail right ofway near Oak Grove (4)
6. Former Wells Fargo bank site next to Safeway (5) (Ultimately group agreed it
would not be fruitful to spend more time on tlris option.)
7. Pershing Park
8. McKinley School
9. Bayside Park (3)
10. BIS Tennis Courts (6)
11. Pal Care Block
12. Franklin School (l)
13. Burlingame Country Club
14. Roosevelt School
15. Rail right ofway near Broadway
16.301 Airport
17. Peninsula Hospital property (4)
Note: ( ) indicates number of committee members that wanted to give more serious
consideration to the option. Absence of any ( ) means 0 votes.
The matrix on the next page was developed by DES the design consultant as part of their
site selection efforts.
8
t'
a
Summary of Recreational Facility Options and Their Elements '
Location Parking Spaces
Surface/Above./Below
Functions Parking Spaces
Needed
(4 per 10ffi sf)
1-B Wash Pk.' 160 40/99121=160lAll Functions (2+tory)40 000
2-C"Wash Pk.
270ELn
Teens & Others (2-story)
Classes, Offices (& Srs ?)
20,000
19,000
80
76
100/53/0:153'z
3-D*Wash Pk
Park Rd
Nl except teens (2xtory)
Teen Center (2-story)
20,000
18,000
80
72
80/0/0=80
76199R7112
Less prior -140
Net gain = 72
3-E*Wash Pk
Park Rd
All excepl classes & offrces
(2+tory)
Learning Center (2-story)8 14,000
24 000 96
56 89t0163:152
Less prior -96
Net gain : 56
961010+6
2012161121=357
Lessprior -22
Net gain : 130
still 30 short.
4 Park Rd AII Functions (2-story)40 000 160
Est Cost
millions
s18.0
$10.
$11.34
$213s
$lo.
$r0l'
s20.5
$11.
$ 7.410
$18.4
s32.8
New variations on edsting Options are in bold.
Note: Parking space choices are based on descending order ofpreference: (1) surfacg (2) above-ground, (3) below
building and (4) underground free-standing.
* Locates Washington Park facility at site of existing Rec. Center. Alternative: Locate new building at site of 2
tennis courts nearest Carolan Ave.ll Estimated cost for each of these sites would be about 51 million lower due
to elimination of $ l. 5 million relocation expense; and parking analysis would be about tlre same.
' See Exh. A for parking analysis ofOption 1.
'z See E)&- A for parking analysis of Option 2-C
3 See Exb- B for cost estimate for Community Center facility itr Option 24
a See E>iJr B for cost estimate of 270 E. lane facility in @ion 2-C.
5 Total cost for @ion 2-C could be redrced to $20.0 milion. See Exh- B at footnote 12.
t See Exh C for cost estimale and parking analysis for Comrnunity Center facility in Option 3-D.
7 See Exlr- C for cost estimate and parting analysis for Teen Center in Option 3-D.
E See Exlr. D for site map of propossd Park Road Leaming Center.
e See Exh- E for cost estimate and parking analysis for Corrmunity Center in Option 3-E.
lo See Exb- E for cost estimate and parking anallsis for Leaming Center in Option 3-E.
I I See Exh. F for site map of Washington hrk with Community Center located at 2 tends courts nearcst Carolan Ave.
Aoa.rra,^ T[-
Option Sq. Ft
S.r.-ury of Recreational Facility Options and Their Elements
EXEIBIT A
Parking Analysis for Option 1:
Parking Spaces Needed
Surface parHng:
Surface space at bldg
Lion's lot(ll2 of 60)
Total surface spaces
Above-ground parking:
Myrtle Ave. 3-[evel structure
Belan-groand parking:
Under Community Center
Total parking spaces
Parking Analysis for Option 2-C:
Parking Spaces Needed
160
10
30
40
99
2l
160
156
Surface parking:
Surface space at bldg
Lion's lot(ll2 of 60)
Myrtle Ave. lot
RR along East Lane
Total surface spaces
Above-ground parking:
Roof ofEast Lane bldg
Below-ground pmHng:
Total parking spaces
a
10
30
45
15
100
53
0
153
EXHIBfI A
I
EXHIBIT B
Cost Estimates for Option 2-C
Cost Estimate for Community Center in Washington Park:
Community Center
New Bldg - 20,000 sq.ft. 2-story
Business relocation
Site development
Total for Bldg
Myrtle Ave. parking lot (45 spaces)
Property acquisition
Business relocation
Site development
Total for parking lot
Property acquisition
(19,000 sq. ft @ $400/sq. ft)
Remodeling
Business relocation
Site development
Total for building
Total for Building and related parking $10.0
Cost Estimate for 270 East Lane Facility:
$s.0
$1.5r2
$0.s
$7.0
$2.8
$0.1
$0.1
$3.0
$7.913
$2.0
$1.014
$0.2
$11.0
Parking along E. Lane RR (15 spaces) $0.3
Total for Building and related parking ry
Total for project $21.3
EXHIBIT B
" $ 1.5 million relocation cost could be avoided by phasing project as follows: Phase I: Acquire n0 E. Lane, Myrtle Ave. lot, and Route 66
buildings and remodel them; Phase tr: Locate temporary teen center in Route 66 buitding and relocate all other Rec Center firnctions into
z716.Lane bldg when buildings are remodele{, PhasgIII: constmction of new Community CenteE Phase fV: Ocarpy new Commrmity
Center and relinquisn Route 66-building Assuming Route 66 building is not leased, it can be purchased for about $1.8 million and later
sold, presumably at about the same pice. Net cost would be $200,000 rernodeling cost. Building has 3,000 sq. ft. on gpund floor and 2,0O0
sq. ft above. Net savings: $1.3 mittlsn, which would lower the total project cost to $20.0 million.
13 Comparablepropertyincurrentmarketisvaluedbetween$350and$400persquarefoot.Architectestimateof$ll.8millionwasbased
on sale of prop"ty i" tiurlingame Ave. shopping district at peak of real estate boom Independent professional apraisal is needed before
any final decision
14 Architect's estimate of $2 million seems too high in view of relative ase of relocating ocorpant of 807o of sgace (a soft':vare company)
in present market.
Summary of Recteational Facility Options and Their Elements '
a
Summary of Recreational Facility Options and Their Elements
EXHIBM C
Cost Estimates and Parkine Analvsis for Ootion }D
Cost Estimates for TV
Community Center
New Bldg - 20,000 sq.ft. 2-story
Business relocation
Site development
Total for Bldg
Myrtle Ave. parking lot (45 spaces)
Property acquisition
Business relocation
Site development
Total for parking lot
for W PK
Parking Spaces Needed
Surface puking:
Surface space at bldg
Myrtle Ave. lot
Lion's lot(ll2 of 60)
Total surface spaces
Parking Analysis for Park Road Teen Center
Parking Spaces Needed
Surface pmking:
Surface space in Park Rd lot
Lorton Ave. lot (existing)
Lorton Ave. lot (new)
Total surface spaces
Above-groundpwking:
Lorton Ave. parking structure
CtrPKCtr
$5.0
$r.5
$ar
$7.0
$2.8
$0.1
&-L
$3.0
80
5
45
30
80
Total forBuilding and related parking $10.0
72
30
23
23
76
99
Below-ground puking:
Under Teen Center
Total pa*ing spaces
Less existing spaces
Net gain
37r5
272
-140
72
EXHIBIT C
Cost Estimates for Park Road Teen Center
Teen Center
NewBldg - 18,000 sq.ft. z-sto:y
Site development
Total for Bldg
Parking under bldg (37 spaces)
137 Lorton Ave. parking lot (23 spaces)
Property acquisition
Business relocation
Site development
Total for parking lot
Lorton Ave. parking stnrcture $2.2
Total for Building and related parking $10.5
$1.0
$4.5
$a.5
$s.0
$2.0
$0.1
$u
$2.3
15 Farking under building could be controlled by electronic card access and limited to staff employees, insructors and teens registered at
the Teen Center.
tII
reational Facility Options
EXEIBTT E
mm Ctr
$6.0
$1.s
$0.s
$8.0
and Their Elements
for Ctr
Parking Spaces Needed
Surface poking:
Strrface space at bldg
Myrtle Ave. lot
East Lane RR
Lion's lot(U2of60)
Total surface spaces
IO
45
ll
30 "'
96
Learning Center
$2.8
$0. l
$0. I
$3.0
$0.2
tt.2
Center
$3.5
105
$4.0
f 1.3
N2.O
N0.1
!02
i2.3
i7.6
6316
t52
-96
56
Parking Analysis for Park Road
Parking Spaces Needed
Surface pwking:
Surface space inpark Rd lot
Lorton Av6:. Iot (existing)
Lorton Ave. lot (new)
Total zurface spaces
Above-ground parking:
Below-ground parking:
Under Learning Center
Total parking spaces
Less existing spaces
Net gain
56
43
23
23
89
0
EXHIBIT E
ctronic cardaccess andlimitedto shffemployees, instructors andpersons registered 9
E
,-
I
I
I
i
)
UJ
ozvtr
c *
,g
EE
5B
t!:tt . |''
,i:{ r-r'i;
$\{
96
. ';
BURLINGAIIE HIGH ECHOOL
lHl lHl lHlT)s
a sKflB lt
corRTS(E)
.-ob3
D PI.AYAREA
{E)
I
II
I
a
I
IIJ
-9-'l
':;1
'1^
e
PARKING
(E)
U
$
UR
:. i
'';i:
e-@
City of Burlingame
Parks 8L Recreation Dept.
ywko &
Community Center Report
February 4,2002
\
(.r
BURLINGAMEc^ r. r roit I a
4
Teen Center vs.
Community Center
Community Center encompasses:
./ Facilities for teens - areas for recreation
programs, hangout, homework and counseling
./ Facilities for senior citizens - drop-in activity
and social service assistance areas
./ Community gymnasium - shared facility for
sports, fitness activities
./ Improved current recreation facilities -
provides long-term solution to replace S4-year
old facility
Developed Shared Interests
l. Preservation /enhancement of natural beauty and passive areas of Washington Park
2. 'l'rarrsportation - maximize ability to gain access on public transportation
3. 'l'rallic and Parking - provide adequate parking to avoid undue impacts on the adjacent
neighborhood streets and minimize the traffic impacts on adjacent single-family properties
4. Safbty - to ensure maximum level of sense of safety for all members of the public that would
utilize the facility as well as neighboring properties
5. Preservation of historical resources - avoid any negative impact on existing historical
facilities
6. Proximity to other teen destination points - easy walking distance to other destination points
desirable to teenagers
7. Teen ownership - ensure to provide a sense of teen ownership to ma:rimize the potential
success of attracting and serving the targeted teens
8. Financially responsible
9. Operattonal efliciency
10. Address the needs of those displaced i.e. tennis players
Architects' Option
Benefits
. Adds 153 new parking spaces
. Provides new facilities for teens & seniors
. Upgrades current recreational facility
. Locates recreation progrirms at existing site
Issues
. More impact on neighborhood is anticipated
with the addition of new program space
. Designated parking is over a block from
proposed facility
COSTS (preliminary)
. $18.7 million
$3 million in property acquisition
12 million facility construction
3.7 million parking construction
. Does not include cost for relocation of tennis
courts, if facility is moved to southwest
corner of Park
f' romntr
lolol Gom
ll0cotr t!.aOf
tO crt
'f*l
t. xIw caturlululr ctfifii
'r.re . ao,o s+ n. ,.$r, $ to.@f,lorln+nlraoqolisr * troI
.lb ornlogno* 3 O.t0X
lrold 3 rzEms tomu ro lru rilc allll
a-?AtI$gloI
$ulocr ftig.. lrd aocrrrlhr..t. lrlo. itr t0c6
turlocc lrtg.
t,nrt ae, ifg
loloa ,l can $
Ind. ll (ar
I ccr
il. ,ltllltAlur$ Illllclultt
A(qiirhoo
Llu&n
l1Prtotr I
t t200t r. ipct$tt3 r '$f, '.
UXoCIOI. ?r(Ct t aor a. ?l(G nructtm
t lrtl!ff loral
Ita cff ldd l}b
lol cm fitg cdar
\
\
-.4
t.)
t*
llat l0 GCt
' taar aa ccr
q\
$2rtlt
0 r0f
00ru
ll.00I
l fttI
i@I
$
t
\,aa|
t tc Dcvdor.ronl
'rte
gtucl. llv.lr tt cu 9, lol
$500f
dtn
QAlafi.A
r. lfitcBtrElI UTO{IGi
'tTGI ?Atnx; tol
tqat
lolol ttlc
tff, C{dr
I
$
c
I rr rol
,J5 cct
MI cot
Community Center
Option #l
t. ]tElv Prc LoT
2. ROOF OF ART$ &
EDI}C. BI,DG
3. RAILROAD R.O.U"
, fiilitr.frr+1if.
]'i EW PARKIT-(; PROVIDED
32 ar*
13 crml! trrr
1'()TAL 100 lrrf
T
Proposal r
Benefits
. Adds 105 new parking spaces
. Moves impact away from residential area
. Provides new facilities for teens & seniors
. Adds open space to Washington Park
. Upgrades current recreational facitity
. Locates recreation programs near
Burlingame Avenue, Washington Park,
Burlingame High School, Aquatic
Center, Transportation, etc.
Issues
. Does not add enough parking spaces
. Complaints revolving around tennis courts
(relocationof 2 courts, elimination of
4 contiguous courts, loss of 2lighted
courts, impact in area of relocation)
(]ITI' OT BTIRLINGAI\IE
('onlIttJNl rt c[N ItR
oPTl():{ I
Costs (preliminary)
. $26 million
$16.6 million in property acquisition + tenant relocation
9.1 million facility construction
.3 million parking construction
. Does not include cost of property acquisition for new
Parks Maintenance Yard, relocation of Yard or
relocation of tennis courts
o
,:/.
I
I
a.,(.
ffiad.rtimat
+--!
H6n
r
4
!1 {r-il
l
--i ".\
Community Center
Proposal r Option #3
Benefits
. Adds 145 new parking spaces
. Moves impact away from residential area
. Provides new facilities for teens & seniors
. Adds maximum amount of open space to
Washington Park while allowing Center users
to take advantage of Park facilities
. Does not impact any existing recreational
opportunities within Washington Park
. Upgrades current recreational facility
. Locates recreation progrilms near Burlingame
Avenue, Washington Park, Burlingame High
School, Aquatic Center, Transportation, etc.
. Single facility allows for intergenerational
opportunities, shared use of facility areas,
lower staffing/maintenance costs, eliminates
duplication of facility features/areas
Costs (preliminary)
. $29 million
$16.6 million in property acquisition + tenant relocation
9.2 million facility construction
3.2 million parking construction
\ / llQ.'9il ililxfl'}
t\f,u' ntRKtli(; PRovlDf, D
I. NEW PI(G STRIICT.
\ {T 270 E{sT l.A\f t,ts crrr
I()f{L l4lcrtr
rI.GE ('l t l or 8t Rt,l:ri(;AltE
(1)ltltr \tI\' ( t:N I tiR 1 OPTIO\ 38 H
I
I
.tl
.7
I l-
-r.
Ir"
'!
Evaluating Options
Architects
Option
Committee's
Option
Commission
Option
+
,S
1. Preservation of Washington Park
2. Transportation
3. Traffic and Parking
4. Safbty
5. Preservation of historical resources
6. Proximity to other team destination points
7. Teen ownership
8. Financially responsible
9. Operational efficiency
10. Address the needs of those displaced
+
:
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
:
+
+
+
+
Park Acreaoe rvev
(December 2001)
Size in
1
# of City Parks
Derclo Park S
Acres of
# of Parks than 15 acres
in acres
IL
a
cia
ooq
(Uo
c(E
U)
o
em
C(Ua
o
o
=
o
.U
o
E-o
=
.=o
Lo
ttto
TL
o
Eo
CD
.-tr
L
=tr
#of
1 000 residents
Acres of able to be dewl
Other park/open space areas
3 5 13 4 4 22 u 6 5 24
4,000 28,000 50,000 30,000 20,000 57,000 77,OO0 46,000 28,000 61,000 137,000
3
0
9
2
13
2
21
1
13
I
33
5
23
2
18
1
13
1
15
5
19
4
2 1 13 18 7 18 22 22 4 7 29
45 58 210 121 44 276 't42 90 60 111 535
11.25 2.07 4.20 4.03 2.20 4.84 1.84 1.96 2.14 1.82 3.91
35 ???33 36 ???600 12 30 29 200
Skatepark
28
Mills
Canyon
33'Blict bcnl'
FamiGol,
CouB 9
Levee
System
7 132
Spur l rail
P ro pertv
5500
3700 Cil].
IEOO
S lanfo rd
70
Open
Space
1.2
66 54
Frun
Orc ha rds,
Fams, otc
'Plea* notelhat lheabove information islistd asreprted and dtould be conddqed in gengrgl tams,
Washington Park
Adding 1 acre of
open space to the
neighborhood
surrounding
Washington Park would cost
approxrmately $Z r $8 million.
r
t.."]'E
Architects
Option
Committee's
Option
Commission's
Option
\ . lfryarq'
\1:$ PAtxtNG ?tOVtOf,O
t. rt*ftglol , snr rmFotAma
DDarc. aloc g..h
, lAlLlO.S io,t. 13 6[
( tT! ot atu_rsctME otTlox I
r. N* ftG ttrtd.
\ rr rt. EM uxa
rf,s flnNt\(; ttovtDt:D
crTl or BrtltNG.rlrD
l
J
1\/r\ "'" :
. $18.7 million
. 153 parking spaces
. Single facility allows
for efficient operation
. High impact on
neighborhood
. Parking 1+ blocks
from facilitv
$28 - $30 million
105 parking spaces
Moves impact away
from residential area
Adds open space to
Washington Park
Split facility
Eliminates 2lighted
tennis courts
Parking across
Burlingame Avenue
from facility
. $29 million
. 145 parking spaces
adjacent to facility
. Moves impact away from
residential area
. Adds over I acre of open
space to Washington Park
. Does not impact any
existing recreational
opportunities
. Single facility allows for
efficient operation
a
a
a
a
t
E
a
o
o
Elements of $29 Million Cost
Provides additional acre of park
open space.
Includes property for long over
due parking for the existing
community center uses.
Builds a new community center
and provides additional parking
associated with the additional
square footage for teen and
senior needs.
$7,500,000
$ 10,500,000
s I I ,000,000
a
O
o
How Does This Project Benefit
Our Community
o New drop-in and programming facilities for teens
o New drop-in area for senior citizens
o Provides more recreational program space for community use
o Upgrades 54 year old recreational facility to conform with
seismic and fire regulations
o Increases amount of open space within Washington Park,
while decreasing the facilities impact (traffic, noise) on
the neighborhood
o Addresses cuffent lack of designated parking
o Creates opportunities for intergenerational programming
o Maximizes the use of land space
BE HAPPIER o BUILD FAMILY UNITY . TAKE CARE OF LATCH KEY CHILDREN
REDUCE UNEMPLOYME]\T . LOSE WEICHT . DIMIMSH CHANCE OF DISEASE
F,tlELGItL.A'l- o ,r, o REDUCESTRESSo h,{EHT'FRIEF{DS
PROMOTE SENSITIVITY TO CULTURAL DIVERSITY o ELIMINATE LONELINESS
INCREASE COMMT]NI,T.Y PRIDE o REDUCE CRIME O GENERATE REVENUE
EDUCATE CHILDREN AND ADULTS o RELAX O PROVIDE SAFE PLACES TO PLAY
LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS o o CONTROL WEIGHT
S'IRE]\IG'I'I{EN }*JtllCFlI}ORI-IOOD INVt}l.VEtulEi\-l'f o PROVIDE CHILDCARE. . : . oCURBEMPLOYEEABSENTEEISMO INCREASETOURISM
BUILD STRONG BODMS o INCREASE PROPERTY VALUES O LIVE LONGER
ATTRACT NEW BUSINESS o CREATE MEMORIES o PROTE(IT" 'rFIEl HT\VIROFiivlHNlT
CLEAN AIR AND WATER . BOOST EMPLYE,E PRODUCTIVITY O LOOK BETTER
EN]HANCE REI,ATIONSHIP SKTLLS T DECREASE INSURANCE PREMIUMS
OFFER PLACE FOR SOCIAL INTERACTION o DIMIMSH GANG VIOLENCE
TEACH VITAL LIFE SKILLS . PROVIDE SPACE TO ENJOY NATURE...
Parks nndftecreation
THE BENEFITS ARE EI{DLESSO'O
,
*\
STAFF REPORT
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 3.4.02
SIIBMITTED
\(\r7>
DATE:FEBRARY 25.2002
APPROVED
rROM: CITY
SI]B'ECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
SIDE SETBACK AI\ID HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST
ADDITTON AT 1369 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1.
BY
BY
OF DESIGN REVIEW,
AND SECOND STORY
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Any action should include the reasons (findings)
for the action. Affrrmative action should be by resolution. The action alternatives are attached at the end ofthe staffreport along with the criteria for design review and required findings for a variance.
Conditions of Approval from the planning Commissionl. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submiued to the planning Department date
stamped November 5,2001, sheets A1.l through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and i'uilding elevations,
and sheet L-l and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped"January 30,
2002;
2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5,200I
shall be met;
3. that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of thefirst or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,
replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be
subject to design review;
4. that the project shall meet all the requirements ofthe California Building and Fire Codes, l99g edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on February ll,2OOZ the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-l-Z (C.
Brownrigg dissenting, Cers, Keele and Osterling absent) to approve the design and two variances for an
addition to the house at 1369 Bernal Avenue. In their action the commissioier's in support noted:o The code allows a certain floor area on each lot, to exercise that right and to add a second story on thislot requires a variance because the single story house is already at15'-Z- (a special permit) and one
cannot add a second story in 10 inches;o The slope on the lot (20 foot rise from street) justifies a variance as an existing hardship;
5b
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REWEW SIDE SETBACKAND HEIGHT
I/ARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1369 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. March 1, 2002
o The addition is well-designed, has a minimum plate height ( 8'-6" first floor, 7'-6" second floor), the
second story has a significant setback from the street so will have little impact on the neighborhood,
story poles indicate that the second story (setback 58 feet from the front property line) will be barely
visible from the street;
o The addition is minimal and not massive,
o While the property to the south will be impacted, the commission cannot insure privacy on 50'x100'
lots;
o The side setback variance is justified because the renovation of the porch, an existing architectural
feature, will enhance the design of the house.
In opposition to the motion it was noted:
o Will affect view from inside house next door and make house darker inside; Loss of privacy in rear
yard of neighboring properties; ando Previous application for height variance denied.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Gary and Mary Claire Diebel, are requesting design review, side setback variance (3,
proposed, 4' required) and a height variance ( 4l'-g- requested, 30' maximum allowed, 36' maximum with a
special permit) in order to make a first and second story addition at the rear of the existing house at 1369
Bernal Avenue, Zoned R-l.
The existing house is 1,983 SF (.33 FAR) on a 6000 SF lot (3,420 SF, .57 maximum FAR allowed) The
proposed addition would increase the house to 2,942 SF (.48 FAR) The site rises from street level. Story
poles have been installed which indicate the roof height of the proposed second story addition. The front
porch, where the side setback variance is required, is existing. Over the years the porch had been enclosed
with bronze aluminum, sliding windows. The applicant is pioposing to i"*or" these and restore the porch to
its original open plan so that it supports the original design of the house. Because the restoration of the porch
requires removing parts of it and reconstruction, a side setback variance is required.
This lot slopes up steeply from the street with a change in elevation of about 20 feet from the front property
line to the rear property line. Because the change in slope is less than25Yo,the height of the housels
measured from the average elevation of the curb in front of the house. Measured from the curb at the front,
the top of the addition will be 4l'-6- . A variance is required for height over 36'. Between 30' and 36,, the
applicant would be required to apply for a special permit. The special permit for height was established to
accommodate architectural design features. A variance should address physical conditions on the site which
may affect design, but also are, in some way, beyond mitigation with design and can be attributed to the
property itself.
The proposed project includes requests for:o Design review for a first and second story addition;o Variance for height (41'-6" proposed, where 36'-0" is the maximum allowed with a special permit, and30' is the maximum allowed);
o Side setback variance (3' proposed on the right side where 4' is required).
History
In 1993 a previous owner of the property at 1369 Bernal Avenue, made application to demolish the existing
house on this lot and replace it with a new house (2,104SF first floor) *t itt met setback requirements as well
as lot coverage (35Yo requested, 4Oo/o maximum allowed); FAR review was not required at the time. The
height of the proposed replacement house was 39'-6", as measured from average top of curb at the front of
n
APPEAL OF THE PTITNNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN RENEW SIDE SETBACKAND HEIGHT
VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1369 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. March 4, 2002
the lot. At their May 10, 1993 meeting the Planning Commission voted to deny the application. Subsequently
at their June 7, 1993 meeting the City Council voted 5-0 to deny the project without prejudice because it was a
new house and could be designed to fit the lot. (CC Minutes June 7, 1993 attached) In the action the Council
gave direction that: the height could be reduced by reducing the angle (pitch) of the roof and adding dormer
windows, the house could be moved back on the lot to reduce the impact on the neighbor, the foot print could
be increased to compensate for reducing the height. The applicant did not revise the application.
StaffComments
Planning Staffwould note that each application stands on its own. The reason findings are important is to
insure that the hardships are identified as they relate to the specific project and the objectives of the code.
Having noted that, one of the trade offs considered by the Planning Commission in this action was that the
applicant was l) retaining and remodeling the existing house and restoring a major architectural feature which
is consistent with the design guidelines (the front porch) and 2)the applicant was constrained by the fact that
they were not demolishing the entire house as was the case in the previous application for this site. Staff
would also note that in 1993 the city did not have design review criteria or FAR (mass/size) limitations on
development.
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives, Requirements for Findings for a Variance, Design Review Criteria
Patrick and Debra Cunningham letter to the City Clerk, February 19,2002, requesting appeal
Monroe letter to Gary and Mary-Claire Dieble, February 21,2002, setting appeal
Planning Commission Minutes, February ll,2OO2, action meeting
Planning Commission Minutes, January 14,2002, design review
City Council Minutes, lune 7, 1993
Planning Commission StaffReport, February 11, 2002, with attachments
Resolution
Public Notice, mailed February 22,2002
RESOI.UTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT
RESOLVED by the CITY COLTNCIL of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made forlpgi4
review and variance for height for a first and second story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue. zoned R-1.
Gary Diebel and Mary C. Lee. property owner. APN: 026-058-040;
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council- and a hearing thereon held on March 4.
2OO2 , 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 l-(e) additions to existing structures
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50Yo of the floor area of the structures
before the addition.
2. Said design review and variance for height are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and variance for height are set forth in the
minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that a certified copy ofthis resolution be recorded in the offrcial records of the
County of San Mateo.
I, ANN MUSSO, 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 4ft day of March ,2002 ,
and adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
EXHIBIT ''A''
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and variance for height.
1369 BERNAL AVENUE
effective MARCH 4,2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 5,2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building
elevations, and sheet L-1 and Al.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped
January 30,2002;
that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5,
2001 shall be met;
that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope ofthe
first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,
replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review; and
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
I
2.
J
4
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 5,200I
TO:_City Engineer
_Chief Building Offtcial
Fire Marshal
Y' Recycling Specialist
_St. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBIECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058.040.
STAIIF REMEW:November 5,7001
Afit-Ao{/^rJ
q (
L-,u1 a EPcz<1&{
("'* \q'w
Reviewed By:Date of Comments:l(c.,
lil"
ROUTING FORM
DATE:November 5,2001
_L Citv Engineer
_Chief Building Official
_Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
TO:
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBIECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058-040.
STAFF REMEW:November 2001
U'! {,6r,,*u-h, adJl k 6-fu- #\^,,"aL {4" iL,K
Reviewed By:w Date of C.omments:o
P
1369 Bernal Avenue
ACTION ALTERNATIVf,S
1. City council may vote in favor of an applicant=s request. Ifthe action is a variance, use permit,
hillside area construction permit, fence exceptioq 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 ofthe 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 stafi applicant and Planning Commissior/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 FI}{DINGS FOR A VARIANCE
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property
involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting ofthe application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment ofa substantial
property right ofthe applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting ofthe application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in
the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(d) that the use ofthe property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
existing and potential uses ofproperties in the general vicinity.
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance Nol l59l adopted by the Council on April 20,
1998 are as follows:
1. Compatibility ofthe architectural style with that ofthe existing character ofthe neighborhood;2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure4. Interface ofthe proposed strucfire with the struchres on adjacent properties; and5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
ry
EONONABI,E UAYOR & CITr COT'NCIL
Ao aX[ea1 hearing for
1369 Bernal should be serfor the Hdrch 4, 2002 Council
Meetlng.
RespectfuLly requested,
Ann Musso, CIty ClerkFdrury 19,?fi2
Clcrrq City Ccuncil
Cityof &rlingarne
501kirrrwRoad
Burlingiln€,CA 9{OlO
Cl€dr, City o,f Burlingame
501BirrrwRmd
Burlingme, CA 94010
Re l369BemalAveure
Atkr: ArrrMusso
Reryertilly
C\nniqfrun
94010
(5Jo)
wchcrdy appeal thePlanning cqrrni$iqr'g deicim ddcdFeb,rury |l,?wl
Prrnining zc.ring variances fa 1369 Bemal Avemg Burtinganre, eetiramia
Endsed hcrsith fu our ctre& inthe amqm, of $2J0.m.
Ptpnqe contact ur rtrculd you need filtlrer infamaticn
€nue
fttr.^.\, '^/\
","11'LtD
''4rfl;,w'6,;;;
The City of Burlingame
PI..ANNINGDEPARTMENT
February 21,2002
Gary and Mary-Claire Diebel
1369 Bemal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94070
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Diebel,
At the City Council meeting of February 20,2\02,the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your
project for a design review and variance for height. This application was to aliow a first and second
story addition at I 369 Bemal Avenue, zoned R- I . . A public hearing will be held on March 4,2002 at
7:00 p.m. in the council Chambers, 501 primrose Road, Burlingame, cA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present.yourproject. Please call me if you have any
questions.
Mlvl/s
APPLHRCC.acc
c:property owner
City Clerk
CITY }IALL 5OI PRIMROSE ROAD
BTJRLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010.3997
IEL: (650) 55&7250
FAX: (6$) 69G3790
Citv
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11,2002
story into the first; the applicant needs the remaining the second floor to break up the mass of
the house; would like to amend the conditions to include addition regarding removal of the trellis, to
move the widow on the left side of the door on the fagade to increase the symmetry on that fagade,
and to require that the gate across the drive way electric so that it can be and closed from
inside a car and inside the house; she also changing out the original on the front of the
house so that they matched the new improve the entire of the project; she then
moved to approve the application, by withthe following l) thattheproject
shall be built as shown on the plans to the Planning date stamped January 28,2002,
sheets A.l through ,4..6, site plans and building with the change that the trellis over
of the trellis which support the gatethe driveway shall be two support members at
may be retained but these and any portion of the gate be lowered to a maximum height of 7 feet
on or within 2 feet of line; 2) that the inside on the left side ofthe second floor ofthe east
(front) elevation shifted to the left, away door and closer to the outside window, so that the
left side of the is more symmetrical right side ofthat floor's elevation; 3) that any gate
or closure across the driveway front property line and the face ofthe garage shall have
an electronic designed to be from inside a car and from inside the house; 4) that any
changes to.size or envelope of the ect, which would include adding or a dormer(s) or
roofheight or pitch, and to windoddoor placement shall be subject to designor5) thatthe conditions of Engineer, Chief Building Recycling Specialist's July 16,
200 shall be met; and the project shall meet all the of the Califomia Building
Fire Codes, 1998 amended by the City of C. Auran seconded the motion.
Comment on the the maker ofthe motion to include a condition that original first story
windows be replaced;maker of the motion noted replacement ofthese windows is a suggestion only
and not a condition approval. If the applicant to replace first story windows during the course of
the project, she return to the a design review amendment.
Chairman called for voice on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion
passed on 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This
7:54p.m.item at
6. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R"l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW , SIDE SETBACK
AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL,
DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY owNER) (61 NOTTCED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CA KEYLON
Reference staff report 02.ll.}2,with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted that a letter opposing the project
was before the Commission as a desk item. Commission asked: there was a project proposed at this location
approximately two years ago, what height was proposed then? CP Monroe responded that information for
past proposals is not included in the current staff report because if the projects are not built, they are
considered terminated.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, representing the owner, and Gary Diebel,
applicant, owner, and architect for the project, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the
applicant has complied with the requests of the Commission by submittirrg u landscape plan, erecting story
poles, and submitting the front elevation outlines of the neighboring houses. He feels the severe slope"on the
lot justifies the height variance.
5
February 11,2002
Patrick and Debbie Cunningham, 1365 Bernal Avenue; Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue; and
Michael Carpenter, 1360 Bernal Avenue, spoke. They oppose the height variance for the proposed
project; the addition will compromise the privacy, sunlight and air circulation on their property; the
subject propeffy cannot support a second story; the applicant does not have a right to a second story; the
applicant did not approach any of the neighbors with his plans for an addition to get their input; applicant
is an architect and he bought the house with the knowledge that a second story could not be added without
requiring a variance; could support any first floor addition the applicant wanted to build. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: the applicant is allowed a certain floor area on this lot and to add a second story to
the house, a variance is required; the existing house is already at 35'-2" (would require a special permit
today) and a second story cannot be added in l0 inches; the slope of the lot is justification for the variance;
the addition is well-designed and has the minimum plate height,T'-6";the second story setback from the
street is significant and the addition has very little impact on the neighborhood; the story poles illustrate that
the second floor will barely be visible from the street; the addition is minimal and not maisive; the property
to the south will be impacted, but the Planning Commission cannot insure privacy on 50' x l21,lots; the side
setback variance isjustified because the porch is an existing architectural feature and the design ofthe housewill be enhanced by opening the porch up.
C' Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: l) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Departrnent date stamped November 5,
2001, sheets Al.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and sheet L-l and A1.3,
landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped January 30,2002,; 2) thatthe conditions of
the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5,2OOl shall be met; 3) that any
increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second
floors, which would include expanding the footprint orfloor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a
window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subjecito deslgn review; and4) thatthe project shall meet all the requirements ofthe Califomia Building and Fire Codes, i99g
"ditiorr,
*
amended by the city of Burlingame. c. Boju6s seconded the motion.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed ona4-l-2voice vote
(C. Brownrigg dissenting, Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:33 p.m.
Ix. DESIGN REVIEW ITEMS
7. 1436 DRAKE A TION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT TWO-S FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ; DANIEL STRAMBI, PROPERTY
Reference staff report 02.1 | .l2,with attachm ents. ZT the report, reviewed criteria and staff
comments. Commission asked: can the FAR calculations be
maximum allowable FAR.
since the project is right at the
chairman vistica opened the public hearing. Alan olin, designer, was present questions about
the project. Nasser Momtaheni, 1437 Drake and Lou Brooks, I
6
432 Drake,The neighbors
City of Burlingame Planning Commtssion Minutes
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minates January 14,2002
Chairman
passed on
a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable.item at l0:50 p.m.
1369 BERNAL AVEI\ITIE _ ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND HEIGHT VARI.ANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL,
DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (6I NOTTCED)
PROJECT CATHERINE
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter was submitted after preparation of
the staffreport by Laurie and Jim Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, dated January l0,2112,whichexpresses
concerns they have with the proposed project. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attorney representing the applicant, 216 park
Road, and Gary Diebel, architect and property owner, were present. Mr. Hudak notld that this is the
architec,t's personal residence, slope on the lot 20' from front to back is an exceptional circumstance for the
height variance, would like to open up the existing porch at the front of the house, proposed floor area ratio
is under the maximum allowed by 500 SF, adequate on-site parking is provided, detached garage will remain
at the rear of the lot, this lot is raised substantially above top of curb level, side setback r*i*i. is justified,
existinghousewasbuiltinthe 1920'switha3'-0"sidesetback,therewasanexistingfrontporchbutitwas
enclosed, thd applicant is now restoring the porch to it's original design which is Iocated in the side setback,
restored porch will reduce the existing living area, proposed addition atthe rear ofthe house complies with
the required side setback, neighbors not in opposition to the side setback variance; in regard to the proposed
height, the Commission recently reviewed a similar project at l2l9 Vancouver Avenue, this project had a
similar problem with measurement of height, first floor is approximat ely 20'above average top olcurb, Iot
rises approximately 30', if house was measured from ambient ground Ievel it would comply with height
regulations> as measured from average top of curb as the code requires, proposed house exceeds the
maximum height limit by more than I 0'; there are two other 2-story houses in ihis neighborhood at 1360 andl36l Bernal Avenue and therefore the proposed 2-story house will not be out ofplace, can,t see second floor
addition from street level, will not block views from the uphill side; would fite to address two letters of
opposition received from neighbors to the left and right of the subject property, on the right side ^, , f the 4
winclows are stairway windows, fourth window is in a laundry room whictris between the washer and dryer,
there is a planter box proposed under the laundry window, plants in the box will help screen the view into
the neighbor's yard.
Further comment: Mr. Hudak addressed concern about reducing the light and air into neighbor's properties,
second story is set back l0' and will not be disruptive, the existingiarge tree at the rear of thl p-p"rty
probably creates more shade than the proposed addition would; *"hit".ih* designed the second floor so
that it cannot be any less intrusive into the neighbor's yards, the existing hee at the rear yard of 1365 BernalAvenue will screen their yard, new second floor is set back and will create a physical separation.
Commissioner noted that he did not receive a copy of a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Cunningham, staff
noted that it will be in the staff report for the action hearing; Iike the porch on the front elevation, cansomething be done above the arched windows, need to decrease the mass i, thut ur"u, south elevation isnice,
east elevation is a flat plane and needs more articulation, applicant noted that there are vines growing on that
side of the house, vines grow over the first story parapet; north elevation is barren, would suggest addingadditional mature landscaping at the front of the house to screen the bare wall, a tree that has the crown mass
above the window would be ideal; concerned with the frst floor addition at the rear of the house reducing
t4
I
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 14,2002
the size of the rear yard, applicant notes that there two patio areas at the rear, building is set back l5' from
the rear property line, rear ymd is shaded by the large pine tree; concerned about height and in general the
mass of the addition, suggest placing story poles to help visualize the addition from the street, and relative to
the neighbors, think the house will be tall, but would like to see the story poles before making any
conclusions, applicant noted that if measured from adjacent grade, the house would measure 26'-3" in
height.
Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue, Patrick and Debbie Cunningham,1365 Bernal Avenue, and Jim
Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, spoke concerned with the proposed height, there was a similar application
before the City Council at this site in 1993, variance was required to exceed 36' inheight, at that time City
Council indicated that it could approve the project if the height were lowered to 35'-9", current proposal is
increasing the height from 35'-2' to 41' adding 6' to the existing height, this is not a flat lot, will affect
sunlight on the low side of Bernal Avenue, second story addition includes a 689 SF master bedroom, feel
that this area can be adjusted, his house is lower than the foundation of the subject property; objection is to
height, this site is higher than theirs, existing mature landscaping provides privacy, house was built in the
1920's,landscape has mahred and created privacy in their yard, will loose privacy with this addition, will
block sunlight in the afternoon, backyard is rtow damp, additional shade from addition would increase the
problem of keeping the rear yard dry, will loose some view of the sky and will see only second story, sees
no justification for variance, does not oppose the first floor addition, invite the Commission to 1365 Bernal
to view impact from house; property is similar to subject property, entire yard is landscaped, will loose
privacy and sunlight, applicant referred to four windows on my side but one window is actually 3 windows,
house is only 1600 SF, use of the rem yard as living area, concemed with compatibility with a neighborhood
of small houses with people who enjoy using their rear yards, there is a large Monterey Pine treeln the rear
yard, sun comes in from right side of the lot, addition will block sunlight into the rear yard.
Mr. Hudak noted that the property owner is sensitive to privacy, in the design he pulled the second floor
back as far as he could, the only way to address the neighbor's concem is to eliminate the second floor;
Commission asked what the proposed plate heights are, applicant noted that the first floor plate height is 8,-
5" and the second floor is 7'-6". There were no other comments from the floor and the prrUti" hearing was
closed.
Commission discussior': thisis a nice design, with a second story addition set back from the street the steep
slope on the lot is an exceptional circumstance for the height varian ce,7'-6" plate height on the second floor
is below normal, cannot deny the property owner the right to have u r""orrd story, this site is not in the
hillside area so there is no review for view blockage, ifwindows are eliminated will have a flat stucco wall;
still concemed with bulk, story poles would be helpful, property owner knew that height would be aproblem
when he purchased the house , concerned that the house will dominate the street, would like to see average
heights of adjacent buildings.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
information has been provided:
' Provide landscape plan; suggest adding additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to
screen the bare wall, something that has the crown mass above the window would be ideal;
' Provide story poles to help visualize the addition, suggest using orange netting when installing story
poles so mass is more obvious, should be installed no later than the Fridayprior to the ffanning
Commission action meeting;
l5
C ity of Burlingam e P lonning Commissi on Minutes January 14,2002
. Provide building heights and finished floor elevations of the adjacent houses (trvo houses to the left
and right ofthe subject house);
This motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Comment on motion: this is a well-handled design grven the site, view is blocked by what is there now, due
to the small lot sizes in Burlingame the Commission cannot guarantee privacy nor does zoning address
privacy, feel that the impact will be minimal.
Chairman Vistica called fora voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when
the requested information has been provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at I l:40 p.m
X. PLAI{NER
Review of City regular meeting of January 7,2002
CP Monroe review the planning items covered at the Council meeting.
Review of Special Commission Study Meeting on Housing Element of
December 19,2001, and Council Review.
There were no on this item.
Discussion of tozorungRegulations to c-l subareaA, Tenant Size, Definitions and
Timing on Permit
Commission and CP Monroe draft ofproposed zoning changes. After some discussion the
commission suggested that this back to the commission at study for additional
review. CP Monroe said she would try to item with the comments noted on the next
commission agenda.
XI. ADJOT]RNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Joe Bojuds, Secretary
unqurpsl.l4
t6
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
,fune 7, 1993
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council washeld on the above date in the City Ha1I Council Chambers. Themeeting was ca1Ied to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Bud Harrison.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Peter Campanile, Broadway merchant
ROLL CALL
COUNCIL PRESENT
COUNCIL ABSENT:
HARRISON, KNIGHT, LEMBI, OIMAHONT, PAGLTARO
NONE
PRESENTATION OF PROCI,AMATIONS TO STUDENTS TRAVELING TO AUSTRALIA
Mayor Harrison asked teachers Barbara Delbon and Kris cannon t,ointroduce students and telr about their upcoming month-long tsripto visit eight cities in Australia. The mayor presented eight '
proclamations to them t.o present t,o each city,s officials.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Regurar Meeting of May 3, 1993 were amended onthe fifLh page by Councilwoman Knight to show that councilapproved funding t.he l-01 freeway sign improvement from the 2percent TOT (hote1 t.ax) funds, Councilwoman O,Mahony'movedapproval with the_change. Seconded by Councilwoman lhight,carried unanimously. The minutes of the study Meeting 6r laay s,1993 were approved unanimousry on motion of councilman pagliiro,
second by Councilwoman Xnight.
PUBLIC HEARING - .APPEAL FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR A NEW HOUSE AT1359 BERNAL AVENUE
ciLy Pl-anner reviewed her memo of May 24, 1993 which recommendedcounci-I hold a public hearing and take action. pat o'Connor isrequesti.ng a height vari-ance in order to demorish the existingone story house with detached garage and build a nern two storyhouse with attached parking. The existing house is 1,26r_ sF (.29FAR), the proposed new house wj.11 be 3,870.5 SF (.G45 FAR). Thetwo story house will be built over a partially below_gradegarage. The 1ot slopes upward from front to back about six feet\^/ith most of the rise at front of 1ot including a three footretaining wall at-lhe front property l-j-ne. The change in slopeis less than the 25 percent which would entitle them t.o measureheight from the 15 foot front setback 1ine. On May 10, thePlanning Commission voted to deny the request for i tr"igttvariance of 39 feet 6 inches for a new two story singre famiryresidence. The applicant appealed t.o council. Two letters wlrereceived today in favor of the project. she responded. to coun-cirwoman Knight's-questions regarding FAR, about why this projectdid not go to a planning commission itudy and her d3sire t-o s6emore information on existing structures on the property. coun-cilman Pagliaro asked about decrining height measuiements.councilwoman o'Mahony noEed this application was received April 5and was not subject to the new FAR rules.
l4ayor.Harrison opened the pubric hearing. The applicant said hehad lived in the city-for r-5 years and has five i-hiIdren, needslarger home,' he int.roduced hi-s architect Jerry Deal . Deal ex-plained a variance is a method to arlow building on lots thathave exceptional circumstances which preclude d6velopment wi_thinestablished st.andards; he felt this 1ot had exceptional circum_stanceb,' because of the upward slope of this ]ot^ ii is difficultLo build a home under 35 feet in heigrrt when measured from t.hecurb. He said the existing house and the house to the northwoufd need variances to be built today. His crient is willing toreduce his roof to t.he same height as the two story house next
door. Councilman Pagliaro asked about. footprint. of bu.ilding;DeaI said it was 34.1 percent where 40 percent is allowed; Dealillust.rated how the roof line could be reduced in height.; heshowed overheads of plans and slides of houses in the area withsloPes and nonconforming height; he responded tso objections in aletter from a nej-ghbor to the Planning Commission, not.ed proposed
FAR is less than could be built under new law; he thought pro-posed height. was about Ehe same as neighbor house. Councilwoman
KnighE. asked if there was room in attic to expand house; Dealsaid attic area might be used for storage but is not. walk-inheight.
Richard Hoskinson, 1915 Broadway, said he was in favor of thisproject; commended the architect, and owner; liked to see thisEype of change for improvement
Speaking in opposition was Charles penner, l-3G4 Bernal, acrossthe st.reet. from project; he said the l-ots across the street fromproject are not downward sloping lots as Lhe architect claimed;he felt there $ras no justifi-ation to exceed code; project addsmass and bulk and needs a variance to build. ue re(uelcedcouncil denial.
Michael Bat.es, L373 Bernal, next door to site; said the buildingis sited forward of the 1ot and it will obst.ruct his view of th6neighborhood,' was concerned about the large rec.rining walr neededto build beLow grade garage, and hoped there was a fence aroundit,' this is a terrific neighborhood with a nice mix of houses,
-this.proposal is too big; he hoped council would deny. MayorHarrison closed the public hearing.
councilman-Pagliaro considered a variance shourd be for somethingexceptional abouE a property; as this project is proposed hecould find nothing except,ional,. he suggesled they reduce theheighL by changing angle of roof ana iaaiirg dormLr windows,. theycould move the house back on lot to reduce effect. on neighbor; '
could increase the footprint to compensate for reducing f,eighi;he suggested deniar without prejudile. council- memberE "g.E"a.councilman Pagli-aro moved to deny without prejudice. sec5nded byCouncilman Lembi, carried unanimously Uy rol1-caII vote.
City
of
to offer
Policereport the
equipment
department
The karaoke
Planning
noise, but si-ncethere have been
Diceytradi t
approvallist for for a 90
amusement
Mayor Harrison opened
and the hearing was c
use, he recommended
,t on t,he annual review
There were no comments
an amusement permit for Irishd by Councilwoman O'Mahony,
Councilman Lembi movedmusic and karaoke singcarried unanimously by
of
l-
vote
ciry Ar ewed his memo of May l-993 which recommendedcouncil ho public hearing and take on. The operators ofCasa Nostr sE an amusement permit f music desi gnedfor an o audience, stand-up comics and I ted karaoke They
P1
from 8:00 p.m. to L2:00 Wedne through Satu rday.
wit not.e possible parking and traffic particularbilliard club which was recently granted ngvarand approved for across the street from th ocationnote previous complaints about noise from a previous
2
ts
publ 1C
E,t rev].hiewed ofmemo 1orney 9 9I 39 whi hMay
c]-he1daho a r Land ake ct ].Thepublonang
s rl-I Pubsh rforme I Pothe C1 ub1ovILrhSmuand1Crnmodekaraokeing
L or hasowner not had anytar_ns I1 anded duse ou'Lbyprev
sed abouconcern t park
problems with a simily period, then pI
I caI
they also
1y
Item# 6
Action Meeting
1
<lr
l.
PROJECT LOCATION
1369 Bernal Avenue
'?i. r"
I
Item #
Action
City of Burlingame
Design Review and Side Saback and Height Vartance
for a First and Second Story Addition
Address: 1369 Bernal Avelue Meeting Date: 2llll02
Request: Design review and variance for a first and second story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-l
(C.S. 2s.28.040 and C.S. 25.28.060(a)(2)
Property Owner/ApplicanUArchitect: Gary and Mary-Claire Diebel ApN: 026_059_040
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential LotArea:6,000 SF
Date Submitted: November 5,2001 Zoning: R_l
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class t - (e) additions to existing structures
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50o/o of the floor area of the structures before the
addition.
Summary: Thc applicant is requesting design review, a side setback variance and a variance for height for a first
andsecond-storyaddition at1369 BemalAvenue,zonedR-l. Theexistingone-storyhousecontains 1,9g3 SFof
floor area (0.33 FAR), including a 534 SF detached garage and shed. There is an existingg4 SF basement area
(mechanical pit) that is not counted toward the overall FAR trnder C.S. 25.08.065OX3), because it is a mechanical
area that is under 100 SF.
The first floor addition would add'272 SF and the second floor addition would add 688 SF. The total floor area of
the remodeled house would increase to2,943 SF (0.48 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed.
The existing detached garage meets the parking requirement for this four-bedroom house. The family room proposed
at the rear of the first floor addition is defined as a bedroom, and is therefore counted toward thc parking
requirement.
The front porch ofthe subject house appears to have been enclosed many years ago and currently has bronze
aluminum, sliding windows. Part of the first floor addition includes restoring the front porch to its original open
state. The proposal includes removing the wall between the front entry stoop and the enclosed porch, removingthe
aluminum windows and framing at the front elevation and replacing them with wood columns, capitals and beams,
and removing the west side wall of the enclosed porch. The porch is flush with the side of the house, which has a
non-conforming side setback of three feet where a four foot setback is required. Since the proposal includes
demolishing and reconstructing portions of the porch a side setback variance is required
The subject property slopes steeply up from the sheet with an elevation change of approxim ately 20 feet from the
front property line to the rear property line. The height of the proposed second floor addition would be 41, -9,,
measured from the average top of curb (62'-1'),therefore the applicant is seeking a variance for height. The average
top of curb elevation is 21'-8" below the rear property line.
The applicant is a requesting the following:
o Design review for a first and second story addition;
o Variance for height (41'9" proposed where 36' is the maximum allowed with a special permit); andr Side setback variance (3'proposed on the right side where 4' is the minimum required side setback).
Design Review and Variance for Height I 369 Bernal Avenue
CURRENT
PROPOSAL
(11/5/01 with
A1.3 and
L-t u3tor)
ORIGINAL
PROPOSAL
(11/s/01)
EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ',D
SETBACKS
Front: lst Jlr
2ndflr
No change 37',-10"
53',-10"
37',-10"
N/A
l5'-0" or block average
20,_0,,
Side (left):No change No change 9',-0"4',-0"
Side(right)No change 3' front porch
reconstructionr
4'reat one-story
addition
3',-0"*4'-0"
Rear:lstflr
Znd llr
No change 15',-0"
3l'-0"
31',-0"
N/A
15',-0"
20'-0"
LOT
COVERAGE:
No change 39.5%
(2,374 SF)
3s3%
(2,123 SF)
40%
(2,400 sF)
FAR:No change 2,9425F1
0.48 FAR
3,420 SFI
0.57 FAR
PARKING:No change No change 2 covered
(21'-9" xzl,-6")
f I uncovered
2 covered
(20'-0" x 20'-0")
* I uncovered
HEIGHT:No change 4l'-9',;i 35',-2"2 1/z stoies 30'
whichever is less
DH ENVELOPE:No change No change Meets requirement See code
* Existing non-conforming condttion
'Side setback variance (3' proposed for front porch reconstruction on the right side where 4, is the minimum
required side setback).
2variance for Height (41'-9" proposed where 30,-0,, is the maximum allowed).
Staff Comments: See attached. Please see three attached letters from neighbors conceming this proposal.
January l4r2002 Design Review Study Meeting: On January l4,2oo2,the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposed first and second story addition for 1369 Bernal Avenue. The Planning Commission asked the applicant
to provide the following information:
o Landscape plan, suggested adding mafure landscaping with a crown mass above the window, at the front ofthe
house to screen the bare wall;
' Story poles to help visualize the addition, suggested using orange netting between the poles so the mass of the
addition is obvious, should be installed no later than the Friday prior to the planning Commission action
2
1,993 sF/
0.33 FAR
Design Review and Vaiance for Height I 369 Bernal Avenue
meeting; and
Building heights and finished floor elevations of the two adjacent houses to the left and right of the subject
property.
The architect submitted a landscape plan and elevation drawing showing the building heights and finished floor
elevations of the two houses to the left and right of the subject property. The landscape plan includes planting two,
24" box size, Italian Cypress trees, (one on each side of the front door), planting one,24" box size, fruitless olive
tree in the front yard, and planting one, 15 gallon Japanese maple tree at the rear of the house, (in between the
bedroom and the new family room addition), in addition to other shrubs and vines proposed. Story poles were
installed on Saturday February 2,2002, and are to remain up until at least the date of the action meeting, Monday,
February 11,2002.
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:
l. 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 Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the
following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d):
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that
do not apply generally to property in the same district;
(b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a subsrantial property right
of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship;
(c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience;
(d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing
and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
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 variance for height. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At
the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
l. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
November 5,2001, sheets Al.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and sheet L-l
3
aJ
4
Design Review and Variance for Height I 369 Bernal Avenue
and Al.3,landscape plan and adjacentbuilding elevations, date stamped January 30,2002;
2 that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5, 2001 shall
be met;
that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first
or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the strucfure, replacing or
relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
design review;
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition,
as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Catherine Keylon
Planner
c:Gary Diebel AIA, applicant/architect
4
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 5, 2001
TO:_Citv Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal
-Y' Recycling Specialist
_S.. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBIECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058-040.
STAFF REVIEW:November 2001
*"M-
, (2-,*l t
l-,u1 a Eea*e.>f
N"("'* {'
Reviewed By:Date of Comments:t(c)
9/---qL-5,-b-+Aoru*Jfu
(
ROUTING FORM
DATE:November 5,200L
r/ City Engineer
_Chief Building Offtcial
_Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
TO:
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBIECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-058-040.
STAFF REVIEW:November 5 2001
01! 6,,-- v*a ,l.J! k f
Reviewed By:uN.Date of Comments:(,
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 5,200L
TO:_City Engineer
,,Chief Building Official
y'Fire Marshal
-n""y"ting Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attomey
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBIECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R.1, APN: 026-058.040.
STAFF REVIEW:November 2001
irJo (*-^""t
Reviewed By:Date of Comments:l'[ -m-o
ROUTING FORM
DATE: November 5, 2001
TO:_City Engineer
/Cni"t Building of{icial
_Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBIECT: Request for design review and side setback variance for a first and second story addition at
1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R.1, APN: 026-058.040.
STAFF REMEW:November 5 2001
trJ a CO-*t ^a.y'1
Reviewed By:Date of Comments:o
12.
City of Burlingqme Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 14,2002
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion
passed on a voice vote 6-l (C. Keighran dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m.
1369 BERNAL AVEI\ITIE - ZOI\IED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL,
DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (6I NOTICED)
PROJECT PLA CATHERINE KEYLON
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter was submitted after preparation of
the staffreport by Laurie and Jim Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, dated January l0,2}Oz,which expresses
concems they have with the proposed project. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, attomey representing the applicant ,2l6pnk
Road, and Gary Diebel, architect and property owner, were present. Mr. Hudak noted that this is the
architect's personal residence, slope on the lot 20' from front to back is an exceptional eircumstance for the
height variance, would like to open up the existing porch at the front of the house, proposed floor area ratio
is under the maximum allowed by 500 SF, adequate on-site parking is provided, detached garage will remain
at the rear of the lot, this lot is raised substantially above top of curb level, side setback variance is justified,
existing house was built in the I 920's with a 3'-0" side setback, there was an existing front porch but it was
enclosed, the applicant is now restoring the porch to it's original design which is located in the side setback,
restored porch will reduce the existing living area, proposed addition at the rear ofthe house complies with
the required side setback, neighbors not in opposition to the side setback variance; in regard to the proposed
height, the Commission recently reviewed a similar project at 1219 Vancouver Avenui, this projectiad a
similar problem with measurement of height, first floor is approximately2}'above average top olcurb, lot
rises approximately 30', if house was measured from ambient ground level it would comply with height
regulations, as measured from average top of curb as the code requires, proposed house exceeds the
maximum height limit by more than l0'; there are two other 2-story houses in this neighborhood at 1360 and
1361 Bemal Avenue and therefore the proposed 2-story house will not be out ofplace, can't see second floor
addition from street level, will not block views from the uphill side; would like to address two letters of
opposition received from neighbors to the Ieft and right of the subject property, on the right side 3 of the 4
windows are stairway windows, fourth window is in a laundry room whichis between tlre wilsher and dryer,
there is a planter box proposed under the laundry window, plants in the box will help screen the view into
the neighbor's yard.
Further comment: Mr. Hudak addressed concern about reducing the light and air into neighbor's properties,
second story is set back l0' and will not be disruptive, the existing large tree at the rear of thi property
probably creates more shade than the proposed addition would; architect has designed the secondfloor so
that it cannot be any less intrusive into the neighbor'syards, the existing tree at the rear yard of 1365 Bemal
Avenue will screen their ymd, new second floor is set back and will create a fhysical separation.
Commissioner noted that he did not receive a copy of a letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Cunningh;, staff
noted that it will be in the staff report for the action hearing; like the porch on the front elevation, can
something be done above the arched windows, need to decrease the mass in that are4 south elevation is nice,
east elevation is a flat plane and needs more articulation, applicant noted that there are vines growing on that
side of the house, vines grow over the first story parapet; north elevation is barren, would suggeJadding
additional mature landscaping at the front ofthe house to screen the bare wall, a tree that has the
"rowr, -^,above the window would be ideal; concerned with the first floor addition at the rear of the house reducing
t4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Jamtary 14,2002
the size of the rear yard, applicant notes that there two patio areas at the rear, building is set back l5' from
the rear property line, rear yard is shaded by the large pine tree; concerned about height and in general the
mass ofthe addition, suggest placing story poles to help visualize the addition from the street, and relative to
the neighbors, think the house will be tall, but would like to see the story poles before making any
conclusions, applicant noted that if measured from adjacent grade, the house would measure 26'-3" in
height.
Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue, Patrick and Debbie Cunningham, 1365 Bernal Avenue, and Jim
Hyman, 1373 Bernal Avenue, spoke concerned with the proposed height, there was a similar application
before the City Council at this site in 1993, variance was required to exceed 36' inheight, at thattime City
Council indicated that it could approve the project if the height were lowered to 35'-9", current proposal is
increasing the height from 35'-2' to 4l' adding 6' to the existing height, this is not a flat lot, will affect
sunlight on the low side of Bernal Avenue, second story addition includes a689 SF master bedroom, feel
that this area can be adjusted, his house is lower than the foundation of the subject property; objection is to
height, this site is higher than theirs, existing mature landscaping provides privacy, house wasbuilt in the
1920's,landscape has matured and created privacy in their yard, will loose privacy with this addition, will
block sunliglrt in the aftemoon, backyard is now damp, additional shade from addition would increase the
problem of keeping the rear yard dry, will loose some view of the sky and will see only second story, sees
no justification for variance, does not oppose the first floor addition, invite the Commission to I 365 Bernal
to view impact from house; property is similar to subject property, entire yard is landscaped, will loose
privacy and sunlight, applicant referred to four windows on my side but one window is actuaily 3 windows,
house is only I 600 SF, use of the rear yard as living area, concerned with compatibility with a neighborhood
of small houses with people who enjoy using their rear yards, there is a large Monterey pine treeln the rear
yard, sun comes in from right side of the lot, addition will block sunlight into the rear yard.
Mr' Hudak noted that the property owner is sensitive to privacy, in the design he pulled the second floor
back as far as he could, the only way to address the neighbor's concern is to eliminate the second floor;
Commission asked what the proposed plate heights are, applicant noted that the first floor plate height is g,-
5" and the second floor is 7'-6". There were no other comments from the floor and the puUti" healng was
closed.
Commission discussion: this is a nice design, with a second story addition set back from the street the steep
slope on thelot is an excepional circumstance for the height varianc e,7'-6" plate height on the second floor
is below normal, cannot deny the property owner the right to have a r".ord story, this site is not in the
hillside area so there is no review for view blockage, if windows are eliminated wili irave a flat stucco wall;
still concerned with bulk, story poles would be helpful, property owner knew that height would be a problem
when he purchased the house , concerned that the house will dominate the street, would like to se" *"rug"
heights of adjacent buildings.
C- Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
information has been provided:
' Provide landscape plan; suggest adding additional mature landscaping at the front of the house to
screen the bare wall, something that has the crown mass above the window would be ideal;
' Provide story poles to help visualize the addition, suggest using orange netting when installing story
poles so mass is more obvious, should be installed no later than thi Friday prior to the planning
Commission action meeting;
l5
City of Burlingome PlanningCommission Unapproved Mimles January 14,2002
. Provide building heights and finished floor elevations of the adjacent houses (two houses to the left
and right ofthe subject house);
This motion was seconded by C. Bojuds.
Comment on motion: this is a well-handled design given the site, view is blocked by what is there now, due
to the small lot sizes in Burlingarne the Commission cannot guarantee privacy nor does zoning address
privacy, feel that the impact will be minimal.
x.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when
the requested information has been provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at I l:40 p.m
PLAIYNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of J*roury 7,2002.
cP Monroe review briefly the planning items covered at the Council meeting.
Review of Special Planning Commission Study Meeting on Housing Element of
December 19,2001, and City Council Review.
There were no comments on this item.
Discussion of Amendments to ZorungRegulations to C-l Subarea A, Tenant Size, Definitions and
Timing on Permit Expiration
Commission and CP Monroe discussed draft ofproposed zoning changes. After some discussion the
commission suggested that this item be brought back to the commission at study for additional
review. CP Momoe said she would try to get this item with the comments noted on the next
commission agenda.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairrnan Vistica adjourned the meeting at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Joe Bojuds, Secretary
rrNAppRovEDMrNurrs I . I 4
t6
RECEIVED AFTER PACKET
PREPARATION
Item /112 - 1369 Bernal
PC Meeting L.L4.02 - DR Study
RECEIVED
JAN 1 4?OOZ
t'l',f,[*?,Ys'JU3+Y'
Laurie & James Hyman
1373 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
650.340.9123
January 10,2001
City ofBurlingame
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Regarding: 1369 Bernal Avenue Design Review
Dear Planning Commission:
We live at 1373 Bernal Avenue, next door to 1369, and wanted to voice our opinion of
the proposed changes being reviewed by the Burlingame Planning Commission. The side
setback and height variances for the proposed second story at 1369 Bernal create two
concerns regarding our property.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of our property is that it is set back and up from the
street level, affording us a greatdeal of privacy. Our backyard is also well protected
from line of site of other properties and the surrounding aria. This privacy is one of the
primary reasons that we purchased our home. The proposed second story along with the
set bach would create a line ofwindows facing directly into ouryard and'thur Lkirg
away the privacy.
Our second concern is regarding the decreased zunlight that will reach our yard due to the
additional height ofthe addition. Our garden was designed to thrive based upon the
sunlight it now receives- Additionally, we much enjoy the sunny afternoons.
While overall the plans look very reasonable and it appears that the owners of 1369 have
taken great care to maintain the look and feel ofthe are4 the proposed addition much
redrtces the privacy and sunlight our yard receives and will greatiy detract from its use
and enjoyment.
Thank you very much for considering our views upon your review of the proposed
addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue.
Sincerely,
Laurie & JimHyman
1373 Bernal Avenue
FROi'1 : KAIT *1/Fn FAX NO. i475-W2-42?2
Novonbc 20, 2OOI
To: Brulingunc PlEuftts Commission
Fm: Ptick & Deb,rs Crumfughsn
1365 Bemal Avenue
Nov. n m\ @6:52Pn PZ
REC EIVE D
Nov 2 1 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT
. Rc: 1369 Bcrnal Avsnuc Vuimcc Application
we rcccivcd orrr first noticc of thc ryplication for variancc by ury ofpo$cr4 rcccivcd sdurdzy Novcnrbcr 17. DrIc to thc qrpHdioar,s
schrduline immcdiatcly following thc Tlantsgiving Hofiday, on
opporhmity to respond it qoitt rushcd. We will do oru bes' to cxprcls ou'
concefns !o you.
we urdcr*ard thd oru neighbors The Dicbets, of 1369 BEraI Aveirue
hevo ,fd" m ryplication to build a second srory addition !o thsir h;,
incrcasfug thc currcnt hsighr by anothcr l0 fcct, rc$riring both hcight ad
sct b6ck codc vrisnccs.
Wc rc opposcd !o nry hclght incrcasc on thc cxistrrg struchlrc. \[Ic arcvcry conccrncd thd thc hcight inrcasc of this propcrty wmld block liglq
sir circulstion ardgr^ca! invade our cwrsnt *ac of prirncy. or d*,od backyqd fsce the home of 1369 Bernal -i it *orrla b. ,"*inhusivc !o hsw e I0 foot second story addition.".ptctc "il[fr,,;;,looking into ouruoncrg. Th9 rrivry urd liglu -a o,y ,i*;lhd;
hgve nw andwtich our house hss hsd?or sn rnty yesrs, wns emsin reasotrwc dccidcd lo buy qrr housc. Thc chaon and anrbiarcc of our homc is partof thc socluion rc fccl in our beckyrrd ad dlrcr living arc6r. tt wouta uvcry unscfiling_to hcvc this takcn arv ry from ru. our uu"t vard witrr-n"i,, i,m Grilcnsion of our homc, wtich is srnslt and a singlc *"rv.
.. UST thc prqosed vsisrce we wo,ld hsvc a w-,.yry high w.tt frcingdirectlv Tb g*pdio, fonily living rq,m urd ffi;ffi"Th"proposcd vari,cc wqld allow tlrc hmse a 136g Bc,,r,l ti'riorr" h*I-re*rictions, which were enwted for thc mutuel b-rfit;fu'#;;ifh"nqr-conformitv with rcglrd to.hcight restriaions would t rye""i.,c"ly Iofca. rhis *oou fi*.i;;;6 ap*t"* *;6 fislil, air cirqddionand prirrcy ari" titrralfit -iuirc "
ghadovr ov"" ourpropcrty.
,
FRI}I :K9IT tr.l,Fn Fpx, t'8. i 475-P€,2-4222 tk:,.l. tu Mt g6: S2pfi p3
rh'in',,' of thc non-conf.orrning structurc is cx&cr*cd by thG factthc orc Dicbcl,s lot sits e etrigh' Js,rd.io'tha'rl*rs, dric,h nalccs,Ircproposed ncr_confomm! sddi6g.n Wner w-en higfiaover ow hqree thanwould be thc casc if wc wcre on thc sanrc "1";-_r:
I wo,rd arso like to say thd in Igg3-lgga, o,rerncighbors qr orr br,ockopposd s simit' *,.o;La.sr,rt J. -H;; ffi;'bil," does onc orahcr naighbors havc !o continuc-lo op.posc "n#J,'*-g st., tu'c onrthis tor? nds hornc is errca{ | frd-fi};;h;tr_ia_ria acs[,guide'linrr ofBurringmrc .,riLtrrr *r". .;fi;" r".rr" !o allotr, thrrcqucsrcd vciancc, ,k .iT: v_i** *iri ,Irgfrroly impact our usc andcqoymcnt of o,rprqpc[ty a*a rcdrcc it's vauc. "rlrc prolroscd v[i,rcc wirlryset the fimctionol end eesthetic hrmonf -*JtriJ* 0tc has exist€d
m "'* two ftrc B,rlingane homei r"" zol"-, end $o.ldnot bc
*#flH#r*e the proposed grourd lwel fanily room eddition in rlrc
Wc thank you for your corsidcrtion in this matrcr.
Sinccrclv.
\*.^^L t Io-t^.-Q
^^
l$ft & Debrs Cunninghsn
(650) 343_0322
(4ls) ete-1133 (poick)
(4ti)2%44ta @cbra)
1
RECEIVED
Nov 21 2001
''ll^'^i,i#8'JISi"
rage r or r
Fes€d}
Ms. Keyloru ,
@teetrdieeseio*seE**4q"}r* 1+aber*Hem-1+e+bnigh#e+lmring€orng{s€$on qenda Thisis the
appffefioo for dg{gn re\dail, dde setback ard height yariances for a frst ard second Shry addlion at 1369
( Gary EXebeh apdcam )
sidesf BerrdAve.
ard buors o\rer q,rpropsty dk€cdy ffioss the silreet The heightraiarrce, if ui[ adversely affect
the exisling hejght by
over six feet and furthen Hocfts the sfl..ul €xi it nrorcs tqmd tte uresfi.
t+pe?rsffidnndif'r-drYF.st.tld be mada r..rha d..ciEil'ln idrifii-bfrehEirhr ard +sfy the mncetns of hose
of usufrowurld beffi.
A:ftqrarrequecr forvadr.neec+ansurmifraa *a+edtltin +gelya furnmer_offi36gfernd:Aye. tiltd.
lime,.&e-City Council dkidad to $mit Ure dlmaHe heightto 35'9!if an arparBim rrrc.b be apprwed. This yrasin-re+q'4sefb-the€m€rctrrcer,nsfromthB on. Ttre cunerilreques*
is tu alrdghtd 41'9.
!um@ and #tpreoxe-itityar*r*tt-ir+uaerrrycommerGinlheirfornaton given b the
Comnis*oners. Thanks br your help.
Ct*te+Penner
13An BerC Ave. Burlingare, GA
Pfione: 65G342-9807
Uledaesdsv--Ic-onllrr-16 2O02 A-'*, fhfine (]I pemner,
jst bi
jft*--
tlk
; LfE
I
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNINC DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD p (650) 558-7250 F (650) 69G3790
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application: Design Review_ Conditional Use Permit_ Variance_
Special Permit_ Other_Parcel N
Project 7b EBMAL n YENU
APPLICANT
a 4u CL tllE despL
"b? b,RU L
cl
Phone (w): ( sn mo tS nbo r B \
(h
Ci bu NotnE cft
Phone (w)6 s5g.B98g
b,5o - s,g. 989
(. ss?. oE86
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name : AFY pteAEL/ nt,X /.b)EeEL rttlp canpOtty
Address 2?*
LI
PROPERTY OWNER
Name: Catm E fts tf P Yr otr,,r>
Address:_
to CitylStatelZip:
Phone (w):
(h):
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
(
PROJECT DESCRIPTION nR6r ANb AEaD tvO s R v ftDot norl
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the infonrration
given herein is true and correct to best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature
I know about the proposed
application to the Planning
application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
Property owner's tt/r /d t
RECEIVED
NO\/ - 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
PCAPP.FRM
y,*", ty'r/ol
Date submittea: rt ) s f ot
,.\i-.fIE-.T3 CITYOT'BT]RLINGAME
VARIANCE APPLICATIONee
orr or BUnUIiEAMB pIANNtNc DEPARTMENT 5Ol PRIMROSB ROAD p (65{') 55&7250 F (69}) 69Gr?90
NOV - 5 26s1
b.
The planning commission is required by raw ro make findings as defined o, *"
";ilf^i'',,f#f?Irtf
"
ordinance (code Section 25.54.020 a-d), your answers to the following questiois can assist
the Planning c,ommission in making the decision as to wherher tbe lindLis can be made foryour request Please t}ryc or write neatly in ink. Refer to the bsck of this form for assistance
with these questions.
o- Describe the *capttonat or draordinary circumsraaces or conditions applicable toyourpruperq,lrhich do not opply to other pruperttes ln this area.
The site is exceptional ftom the neighborhood norm in its steeply sloping topography. overa[, the lot
slopes up from front to back at 17-2o%. The slope in the front yard is 25- 3o%. Without the existing fiont
retainingwalls, the slope would be approximat€ly 46% in the front setback.
Eryloin why the variance rqu*-is aecasaryfor the praenotion and enjoyment ofa substantiol property right yd-what anreasonabre property to* o, oii"cosofi
hardshlp might result form the denfut olthe application
A variance is required on the steepry sroping rot to alrow a second story addition. Many neighborhood homes
have a second story whether original or later additions. Also many houses have several bedrooms and
the maximum floor area' our program simpry ca[s for adding a third bedroom, bath]oom, and famiry room.
The first story family Ioom will bring the lot coverage to within about forty square feet ofthe maxim;m lot coverage.
Therefore, the third bedroom requires a second story. The proposed desiin is about 5oo square feet below the
maximum allowed by the EA.R. The height limitation seems unreasonable for this proiect and limits the house to
one story.
Explain why the proposed use at the proposed locatlon wlll not be detrimental orinjurious to_ -popefiy or lmprovenen* in the vicinrtlt or to pubtic heahh, safery,gmeral welfarc or convealencz
The proposed design is intended to mitigate the impact of changes on the street and neighbors. The second story additionwill be buitt above the existing footprint. lt will not affect views. Numerous trees, including city street trees limit;iews in
the area. Th€ Declining Height Envelope is much more restrictirre on this site due to the stiep slope than ret"tir"ty nat tots.
The second story is well inside the envetope- it is roughly in the center of the site. Any impacts on neigtruors; tigtit anaprivdcy are greatly limited. The structuret ovenlt height is also limited by design. Th; firri una .".onjrtof p'1u't" t
"ight,are 8'-5' and 7'-6' respectively. Many recently approraed houses have pdte heights ofgro, on the first story iiJe.o,,on
the second story. Additionally, water runoffwiI be directed to the street through an una"rg.rna aruin"g" sy;i.
H3w will th9 4noposed projea be compdble with the eestha/la,, mass, bulh aadcharucter of the dsting ond potentlol uses on odJotatng prupeia in;he g;;vicinity?
The main change visible from the street will b€ the restored porch. The porch alterations will reduce the apparent bulk andmass ofthe house and significantly improve the ftont facade. The porch details develop a scale appropriaiJto ii" rit" ""0neighborhood' The house is simltar in height, mass. scale and setback ofneighbors. th" p,opor"l ,uintains grii harmony.The second story addition willonly be visible flom certain angles and is desilned roughly inihe centeror1," irt". c"r" t ",been taken to fit the additions lYith the.existing house in tenru of massing siale, detiirs, ana spirit. itre airign'"ir"rp,. ,oblend the new construction with the existing. lts goal is to be a reasonabli'and creative architeaural extensioln.
c
d
RECEIVED
CITY OF BI]RLINGAME
NVARIANCEStAe s cE
cITy oF BTTRUNoAMB pLtNNrMl DEPARTME{T 50t pRtltf,og8 nON) p (650) 55&7ZrO F (650) 6963?90
RECEIVED
NoI/ 15 2001
''ll^"f*i#8,JISi*
b.
The Planning commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the city's
ordinance (code section 25.54,020 ad). your answers to the foltowing questions can assist
the Planning commigsion in mat ing the decision as to whether the findlngs can be made foryour request. Please tlpe or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance
with these questions.
a- Describe the xception-al ot &raordkary circumstances or conditlons applicabte toyour propergt which do nu apply to other prcperties ln this arca.
The photo board ofthe existing house shoi,s indentations in the stucco at the extents ofthe porch. This reflects where
lhe porch was enclosed many years ago. Currentlythe porch has dark bronze aluminum, stidingwindows. The windows
clearly are out of place and do not match the originat wood windows oflhe remainder ofthe house. The design proposes
to restore the porch to lts original state, which is compatible with others ofthe neighborhood of the same time period
(r9zo's). The porch was designed to be flush with the side ofthe house. The existing setback is three feet.
ry nh! lhc valdzlrrf tqu6t- ls rrecessory lot thc paendon ond enJoymat ol
i *Y -*ry !*pq dght ?nd_whot atreosonable poperty tou o, iniecas"ry
hardshtp night raaltlont thc dantal of the appltmdon -
The variance is required forthe side setback to restore the porch, Without the variance, the work cannot be performed
in adherence with the originallg2ot design.
Erylain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrlmental orlniurioys to_ -propefty or lmprovemenb ia the vicinlty or to public health, sa;feg,general welfare or conventence.
The design will not affect views or privaty, but will improve the light quality both inside the porch and outside it byrestoring its originat open state. ln addition, the restoration will improve the general environment through significanflyimproved design.
c
d.Eow w-tll thy gtoposd proJca be conpdblc lfrh the odhd6, moss, balh aadct o?ctcr of ,hc d$fng and porerdal wa on adJofafng prupefti* in iAc gcnaolvicintty?
The porch ls not large, but affects the ftont facade greatly. lt lmproves the characterand decreas€s thc apparent massand bulk. This is ref,ected in the renderingwhen compared to tire photos ofthe eristing i'ouse. rhe Jesili iriorp"tiur"with porches on other houses built in thesame tlme period. The porch details are desilrea to aevetop a"siaie apfropriateto the nelghborhood. llo alternative could be more compatible io character with the neighborhood and originaillsign.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) s58-7250
1369 BERNAL A\IENUE
Application for design review, side
setback and height variances for a first
and second story addition at 1369 Bernal
Awenue, zoned R-1. (APN: 025-058-040)
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission
announces the following public hearing on
Monday, F-l^ruary LL, 2OO2 at 7:OO P.M. in
the City HaIl Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed February 1, 2,12
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Acopy ofthe
to the meeting
Burlingame,
If you
raising
described
at or prior
Property
tenants
558-7250.
Margaret
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
be limited to
hearing,
to the city
their
call (650)
(Please refer to other side)
__1
rtlA
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIBW AND VARIANCE FOR HEIGIIT
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exerrption has been proposed and application has been made fordegg
review and variance for heisht for a first and second story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1, Gary
Diebel and Mary C. Lee,owner, APN: 026-058-040:
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
February 11, 2002, at which time it reviewed and considered the staffreport and all other wriffen materials
and testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Plaoning Commission that:
1. On the basis egtht Initial Study and the docume,nts submittrd-and reviewed, and comments received
and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set
forttr above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Ce<ie articte
19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 1-(e) additions to existing structures prwided the
addition will not result in an increase ofmore than 50% of the floor area of the stuctures before the addition.
2- Said design review and variance for height are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review and variance for height are 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, Joseph Boju6s , Secretary of the Planning Commission ofthe City of Burlingame, do hereby certiry
that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular -""tirg of the planning Commission
held on the l lth day of February, 2OO2 ,by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
SECRETARY
.t,..-
EXHIBIT IIAI'
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and variance for height.
1369 Bernal Avenue effective February 2O,2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Departrnent
date stamped November 5,2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plar; floor plans and
building elevations, and sheet Ll and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations,
date stamped January 3O,2002;
that the conditions of the city Engineer's and Recycling specialist's memos dated November
5, 2001 shall be met;
1
2
3
4
that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope
ofthe first or second floors, which would include expanding the foo@rint or floor area of tire
shucture, replaciig or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof
height or pitctq shall be subject to design review;
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the catifomia Building and Fire codes,
1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
{:
v
,
i'f
d
.,
v.'
''*i,
/..
\r.
,{
*&
6
t'.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROYING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANTCE T'OR IIEIGHT
RESOLVED bythe CITY COI-INCIL of the Cityof Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made forlgqlg
review and variance for height for a first and second story addition at 1369 Bernal Avenue. zoned R-1.
Ga{v Diebel and Mary C. Lee. property owner. APN: 026-058-040;
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council_ and a hearing thereon held on March 4.
2002 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other wriffen materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that:
l. 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 theproject set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemptiorl per
CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Sectibn: 15303 - Class l-(e) additions to existing ,t o"tur",provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50Yo of the floor area of the structures
before the addition.
2' Said design review and variance for height are approvgd, subject to the conditions set forth inExhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review und v*iun"e for height are 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, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifr that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on tfrelL a"y of ftf*"t . iOOZ .and adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
I
EXHIBIT ''A''
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and variance for height.
1369 BERNAL AVENUE
effective MARCH 4,2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped November 5, 2001, sheets Al.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building
elevations, and sheet L- I and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped
January 30,2002;
2
3
that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Recycling Specialist's memos dated November 5,
2001 shall be met;
that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope ofthe,
first or second floors, which would include,expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,
replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review; and :
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
4.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BUFILINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1369 BERNAL AVENT'E
Appeal of a Planning Comnr-ission approval
of an application for design review, side
setback and height variances for a first
and second story addition at 1359 Bernal
Avenue, zoned R-1. {APN: 026-058-040)
The City of Burlingame City Council
announces the following public hearing on
Mond.av, March 4 , 2OO2 at 7:OO P.M. in the
City HaIl Council located at 50L
Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed February 22, 2OO2
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy ofthe
to the meeting
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
I
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
limited to
hearing,
to the city
their
call (650)
Burlingame,
If you
raising
described
at or prior
Property
tenants
558-7zsu.
Margaret
City Planner
PU E
{A{-!f(}:{,A
(Please refer to other side)
ILr I,TIII
7
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 22,2002
FRoM: Randy Schwartz (55&7307)
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 3-4-02
5c
BY 4
BY
SUBJECT! Appeal of the Burlingame Beautification 's Decision to Deny the Removal of a
Protected Dawn Redwood Tree @ 1360 Vancouver Avenue.
RECOMIVTENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council uphold the denial of the appeal, or that the City Council return the
appeal to the Commission, directing that it be reheard based upon the property damage suffered by the
neighbor at 1356 Vancouver Avenue with submittals from the applicants strongly *.ourugid.
BACKGROUND:
On February 7,2002, the Beautification Commission denied the appeal to remove the Dawn Redwood Trec at1360 Vancouver Avenue and recommended that the applicants employ pruning/maintenance options to
address the problems presented. The applicants were invited to submit urott Lr treeiemoval application if thepruningimaintenance options did not adequately address the issues.
In the Fall of 2001, the Parks Division received an application from Gary and Mary Blythe for a permit toremove the private, protected Dawn Redwood tree at 1360 Vancouver Au.nre. The stated reason for theapplication was due to current and prospecJive damage to their driveway and that of their neighbors at 1356Vancouver Avenue. Steven Porter, the City Arborist, denied the appliiation citing mitigatioi options. Hisdecision was appealed to the Beautification Commission. The Blyth-e;s appeal added u n * elemint: damage
to -the neighbol's ploperty caused by the accumulation of tree d-ebris in iheir drains and gutters. The CrtyArborist's denial did not address debris and &ainage, since neither was cited in the original application
The first of two hearingswas held by the Commission on December 6, 2001. The City Arborist was attendinga scheduled Arborists' Conference and was, therefore, unavailable to answer qu"riionr. The Commissionheard anecdotal information from the applicants and from Maria Cava, ttre nlighbor at 1356 VancouverAvenue. The Blythes described the root problems. They also reported that they had performed only minimalmaintenance on the tree. Mrs. Cava cited drainage/gutter blockage problemr, *hich sire attributed to leaf dropfrom the tree. There were no submittals from third party experts/professionals. The Commission believedthat it lacked sufficient information to rule on the appeal. It iequeited that the Blythes obtain a report on thetree from a certified arborist. The Commission also wished to question the City Arborist.
At the second hearing, on February 7,2002, Mr. Blythe reported that he had consulted an arborist, whodetermined that roots from the tree were not presenttyitreatening his driveway. No written arborist,s reportwas received from Mr. Blythe. At this point the appeal became almost extlusively based upon property
damage suffered by the neighbor, which she attributed io the debris from the tree. Mri. Cava again presentedcompelling anecdotal information about drainage problems and resultant damage. City parks bivision Staffdoes not have drainage expertise and could not professionally assess those issues. Arborist porter did suggest
pruning options that might alleviate the leaf drop problems. There were no third party submittals relative to
the drainage issue. Lacking a means of assessing the drainage issues, the Commission denied the appeal.
ATTACH}IENTS:. Arborist's guidelines used for protected removal permits. Memo to Council from Gary and Mary Blythe dated 2120102 requesting a hearing. Letter from Parks Superintendent noticing denial of appeal by Commission. Minutes of Commission meetings on 121610l and2l7l02. Memo to City Arborist from Gary and Mary Blythe date 1 ll0ll0l requesting appeal to Commission. Letter from City Arborist denying application to remove Dawn Redwood tree at 1360 Vancouver
Avenue. Permit application including photos
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
DATE: OCTOBERB, 1999
TO:B EAU TI FICATI ON CO MMIS S ION
FROM: STEWNPORTER-CERTIFIEDARB0RIST
CONSIDERATIONS/GAIDELINES ASED FOR PROTECTED TREE
REMOVAL PERMITS
V
IV
The following guidelines are used when I conduct site inspections on permit applications for
private tree removal in the City of Burlingame.
[. Aesthetics
a) Not a consideration
1) Example, palm trees: The primary consideration is health, sound
strucurg and degree ofpresent or potential future property damage.
II. Eealth
a) Ifthe reason for decline cannot be determined, i.e. insects/fungus, the residentwill be required to submit an arborist report from a certified arborist.
m. Sound Structure
a) Consideration is given as to whether a poor structure can be corrected by pruning.
In extreme cases, certain factors may change a determination.
.RE..
Property Damage
a) Removal permiJted if high cost, unsafe, or visible damage is being caused to
. . -foundation of house/garage or roof -- Actual struchlral damage.
-
b) unless the damage is extreme and no other justifying factors exist, removal is nor
. permitted for damage to walkways, planterboxJs, -il grtt.r., or lawns.c) Removal is zot permitted for shade or leaf litter issues.
Undesirable Species
a) Monterey Pine
1) Insect infestations
2) Fungus @ine pitch canker)b) Black Acacia
1) Unstable during high winds particularly when soil saturated
2) Severe root problems (invasive)
Dale:
To:
cc:
02t20/2002
Burlingame City Council
Mike & Muia Cava: Onelia Becher
'1356 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame
Gary & Mary Bllthe
1360 VancouverAvenue
Burlingame
iIONOBASLE MAYOR AND CITY COI]NCII
PLEASE SET AN APPEAI HEARING
FOR TEIS ITS,I ON TEE I'IARCE 4TE
AGEMA.
Ann Musso, City Clerk
From:
RE;Request to Appear Before City Council to Appeal Beautification Commission Denial
I am requesting a hearing before the City Council of Burlingame to appeal the decision of the Beautification
Commission, which denied us a permit to cut dowE our Dawn Redwood tree. My initial writteu request was
denied. I appealed in order to meet pcrsonally with the commission. My personal appeals were denied at the
commission meetings, as well. My neighbor, Maria Cava, was present at both meetitrgs before the commission,
and presented her concems about property damage to their house caused by my aee.
I was denied the permit for the following reasons:
r The hee, a Da*'n Redwood, is healthy and in protected status
. The roots cao be trimmed, per the commission's Arborist
. Trees are naturally a nuisance to some degree and, therefore, not a good reason to allow the permit
I appealed this decision for the following reasous:
Roots were spreading, some appearing 15 feet away from the trunk in an area only about 7 feet wide
between our driveways. It appeared that the tree had caused damage to my driveway.
This tree is deciduous and sheds its needles with mosl of the debris falling into our neighbor's yard each
fall and winter, clogging their gutters and drainage pipes such tiat water goes into their garage area causing
mildew and mold. Maria Cava spoke to this point, particularly about health problems caused by mold.
We eujoy trees for their beauty, shade aud privacy and would replace the dawn redwood with a new tree,
selecting one that did not have such spreading surface roots. A]so, we wanted to have a tlee that was more
neighbor-friendly than the Dawn Redwood.
Thank you,
racs vancot>w-.
vk
Permitto Remove Tfee
Therefore, please put us on the docket to discuss this issue with City Council. We love trees and support the
Tree City, USA program in Burlingame, but we do fear that this particular tree will continue to cause daEage to
both properties if not taken out.
BURLINGAME BEAUTTTTICATION COMMISSION
F'EBRUARY 7.2002
The regularly scheduled rneeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by
Chairperson Locke.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Staff:
Absent:
Guests:
Chairperson Locke, Commissioners Carney, Lauder, McGowan, and Webb
Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, City Arborist Porter, and
Administrative S ecretary Harvey
Commissioners Ellis and Hesselgren
Gary Blythe, Maria Cav4 and Gary Bucci
MINUTES - Minutes were approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Gary and Mary Blythe, 1360 Vancouver Drive, informing them that the appeal of the denial to
remove aprotectedDawnRedwoodtree attheir address has been continuedto theFebruary 7ft Commission
meeting.
Letter to Eric and Jean Adler, 2111 Easton Drive, informing them that the appeal of the denial to remove a
protected Yew tee at their address has been contihued to the February 7e Commission meeting.
Memorandum from City Attomey Anderson to All City Commissions and Boards regarding the Ralph M.
Brown Act.
FROM THE F'LOOR
BurlingameresidentGaryBuccicommentedonthe natweoftheryclonefencingontheEastsideofCalifornia
Drive, South of Oak Grwe; thaf not only is it very unattractive and an invitation for graffiti artists, the large
,equrprnent exiting from that site is a safety hazard. He also commented that when-the City posts signs or
barricades from City sponsored work or events, signs and barricades should be removed in a timely -Irrrr.
Superintendent Richmond stated that the fencing had been approved by the City Council at the request oftfre
Public Works Department, and Chairperson Locke noted that Mr. Bucti's comments could be diricted to theCity Council and or the Public Works Department. At ttre request of the Commission, Superintende,t
Richmond will obtain further information frorn the Director of Public Works regarding the status of the
ryclone fencing and item will be placed on the March 76 agenda for further discus-sion.
OLD BUSINESS
4DDe4 of ,the Denial tg Remove a Profeqted Dawn Redwood Tree @ 1360 Vancouver Avenue -
Superintendent Richmond stated the Commission pos@oned th.
from the City's fuborist and also requested applicants to submit an independent Arborist report. lr. ."qu.rt
to remove the protected tree was based on root damage to the driveway and debris from the iee clogginjroofgutters and drairu.
Arborist Porter stated the damage to the neighbors driveway is caused by the roots from the neighbors private
Camphor tree. If the_property owrer plans driveway replicement, theioots on the private Dawn Redwood
Td$. private Camphor tree can be cut without undue harm to either ofthe trees. .{rborist porter stated that
the Dawn Redwood is a healthy, beautiflrl trge and is approximately 35-40 years old and is only half way
through it's life cycle. Arborist Porter concluded that he dinied removal of this tree because root drrug".r,
be mitigated and leaf litter and tree debris are not justifiable reasons based on the criteria used tJgrart
removal pennits.
I
A,u-ata 6r: aa- 88C-
FROM THE FLOOR
There were no comments from the floor.
OLD BUSINESS
Chairperson Locke reviewed the following items withthe Commission to be held over to future meetings.
Sprine Garden Seminar - Saturdav. March 23. 2002 - Chairperson Locke reported that Tamara Lewis
of Landscape By Designwill attend the next Commission meeting and review her topic with the Commission.
Tree Plantins on Old Bavshore Boulevard - Status Renort - Commissioner McGowan asked that this
item be reviewed at a later point in the meeting, to accommodate ttre applicants appealing ttre denials of
protected tee removals.
Tree Planting on Howard Avenue - Stafus Reportand LandscapeAward Program for Commercial
Properties - Cornrnission Consideration - In Commissioner Hesselgren's absenc.e, Chairperson Locke
asked if these items could be carried forward until further information may be obtained. Commissioner
McGowan moved that these items be tablcd and. moveil ta afuture agenda when dala can be maile
available to the Commissiory seconded Motion carieil 5 - 0 - 2 (absent).
Ifansins Planter Baskets in Downtoym Retail Areas - Commission Consideration - Commissioner
Lauder asked that this item be tabled and moved to afuture agenda^
NEW BUSINESS
Appeal of the Denial to Remove a Protected Daum Redwood Tree @. 1360 Vancouver Avenue -
Superintendent Richmond informed the Commission that Arborist Porter would not be available at the
Decernber or January Comrnission meetings but could submit a staffreport on either of the appeals currently
beforethe Commission.
SuperintendentRichmond statedthatapplicant's appeal forthe removal ofthetree at 1360VancouverAvenue
is based on section 11.06.O60-(d) (2) and (d) (7) of the Urban Reforestation Ordinance; to allow for the
economic enjoyment of the property and the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to
remain. He added that the applicant cited concems about damage to the driveway from the tree's roots. The
City Arborist determined that the tree is healthy and that any future root problems could be mitigated by root
pruning and the placement of root barriers witrout compromising the structural integrity of *re tree.
Commissioner Ellis stated that the tree appears to be healthy; that the driveway is very old and appears to be
original to the house.
Commissioner Camey commented that it is a pretty fiee and is not very close to the neighbors house; that the
damage to the driveway appears to have been there for quite some time.
Chairperson Locke noted that the tree is in the middle and very close to both driveways but speculates that
the volunteer Privet tree may be causing the driveway damage.
Superintendent Richmond replied ttrat hairline cracks in concrete can occur naturally and can be
found in other driveways as well. He added that the Dawn Redwood is a deciduous conifer and is not very
common in Burlingame. Ele noted that there is a large one in the City's Washington Park.
Commissioner McGowan remarked that he was raised in the neighborhood of where this tree exists; the fiee
has been there for approximately 25 years. He added trat Dawn Redwoods are very long lived and since it
is planted in a restricted area , it has probably reached its mature size. He commented that it seemed unusual
that this request for removal would come after the resident had lived with the tree for over 25 yea$.
Chairperson Locke asked ifthe anyone wanted to address the Commission regarding this appeal.
,)
Permitto Remove Tree
Date:
To:
CC:
From:
RE:
tLt0t/2001
Arborist, Burlingame Park & Recreation Department
Mike & Maria Cava; Onelia Becher
1356 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame
Gary & Mary Blythe
1360 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame
Appeal to Denial of Permit to Remove Tree
My request to have a tree removed from my properry was denied because:
. The tree, a Dawn Redwood, is healthy and in protected status
. The roots can be trimmed
I am appealing this decision for the following reasons;
I have roots appearing fifteen to twenty feet away from the trunk of the tree and believe that continued
damage will occur to my driveway and to my neighbor's driveway, thus causing unsightly, if not
damaging, cracks in both driveways. You already have the photograph and can see the damage to my
driveway.
a
a Lowered property values due to unsightly or broken driveways. I am hesitant to spend thousands ofdollars
on a new driveway that I fear will be damaged by roots within a couple years. The driveway poses a safety
hazard as well due to the unevenness caused by the root damage.
This ree sheds its leaves, or needles, and most ofthem fall into our neighbor's yard and gutters and, due to
their small size, causes their gutters to get clogged, potentially causing property damage to their house from
rain water that can't flow properly away.
We plan to replace the dawn redwood with a new tree, one that doesn't have such spreading roots, but one
that provides shade and privacy and enhances our property. Further, a tree tlat is more neighbor-friendly
than the Dawn Redwood.
Therefore, please reconsider your decision to deny our permit to remove the tree. We love trees and support the
Tree City, USA program in Burlingame, but we do fear that this particular tree will continue to cause damage to
both properties if not taken out. We also want to be good neighbors, growing trees that are pleasing to look at
but that do not create extra yard work or property concerns for our neighbors.
Thank you,
a
a
c,,ut //BLW|
J csz - 4;/- zc, jc (..,)
CETY OF' BURT.NNGAME
FARKS & RECREATION trEPART&,{ENT
8 50 Burli ngame Avenue. E url in-qame, Californi a 940 1 0-2 8 99
Telephone (650) 558-7300 " Parks i Trees (650) 558-7330
Fax {650) 696-7216 . E-mail: burlrec@aol.com
October 19,2001
Gary & Mary Blythe
1360 Vancouver Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF A DAW REDWOOD TREE @1360 VANCOAWR
AWNUE. - BURLINGAME
I reviewed your request to remove a Dawn Redwood tree tnthe front yard at the above address
and have made the following determination:
1) The Redwood tree is mature and healthy.
2) Sited r o o t damage can be mitigated with root pruning and or installation of
root barriers.
Based on the following facts, the permit application requesting the removal of said tree has been
denied. This decision may be appealed to the Burlingame Beautification Commission by filng q
written apoeal bv November 5e, 2001.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330
Sincerely,
N,#J-{^*
City Arborist - (ISA #WC-3073)
SPIKh
PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT APPLICATION
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
850 BARLINGAME AWNUE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
(6s0) 5s8-73s0
TREE CITY USA
The undersigned owner of the
l,Tol)
property at:
\/o^ Lol-:v<a AR,ADDRESS
(print or type)
hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than l/3 of the crown or roots of the following
protected tree(s):
SPECIES a,wW
LOCATION ON PROPERTY
WORK TO BE PERFORMED
REASON WORK IS NECESSARY
-l)Rerlwoul
NOTE: APHOTOGRAPH
oF TrrE TREE(S) MUST BE
SUBMITTED WITH THIS
APPLICATION
CIRCI.JMFERENCE
a-
t/
de
/lAa Bt
0 -rru,
v\bor r tl{ L,
(please use back of form for additional comments)
OWNER
ADDRESS 3 o
PHONE dgt 3+3*734.{
icl{tr
(*)o
PERMIT
This pennit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the
provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter I 1.06).
81' signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11 06, and agrees to
comply u'ith its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been
resoived.
N
CONDITIONS:
DATE PERI\{IT EFFECTIVE
OWNER
CITY
24 - inch box size tree(s) required If conditions are not nrct witlrin tlrc
allofred time as spec{ied tn Section 11.06.080, paln ent of $100 for eaclt
tree into the tree replacementfund will be required.
NO reptacenrcnt(s) required. Contact tho Parks Ditision ot (650) SSB-7330
when rennval(s) conryleted
PERMIT EXPIRES
A copy of thk pernfit nrust be available at the job site
at all tinrcs when work is being perfornrcd
t
ir
.3_t
'tU:
'd
..:
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 3t4t2002
5d
STAFF REPORT
TO:Honorahle Mawor and
DATE: February 21.2002 APPR
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SI-IBJECT:
ADOPT ORDINANCE TO LIMIT THE NOISE LEVEL AND FTIRTHER LIMIT THE HOURS
OF OPERATION OF LEAFBLOWERS
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the proposed ordinance to further restrict the operation of leaf blowers in residential districts of the City
and direct Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance no more than 15 days after adoption.
DISCUSSION:
On February 20,2002, the City Council introduced the attached, proposed ordinance to further restrict operation
of leafblowers.
The standards proposed are as follows:
A. Effective May 1,2002, hours on Monday through Saturday would be limited to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
B. Effective May 1,2002, hours on Sunday and holidays would be limited to 12 noon to 4 p.m.
C. Effective July l,2002,leaf blowers would have to meet a 65 dBA standard by manufacturer's
specification and have all mufflers and extension tubes attached.
A copy of the proposed ordinance has been provided to the Bay Area Gardeners' Association (BAGA), which
has worked with Palo Alto and Menlo Park in the drafting and implementation of their leafblower ordinances.
We have checked manufacturer's specifications and found that there are a variety of blowers available that meet
the 65 dBA standard. Some are electric and some are gas-powered. Because this is a first step, staff is not
recommending that the restrictions be extended to the commercial districts at this time; most complaints have
come from the residential neighborhoods.
Other cities do not allow the use of leaf blowers on Sundays and holidays; that may be too restrictive for
homeowners when the decibel standards are in place. Burlingame currently allows use by "owners or residents"
on Sundays and holidays, but staff does not believe that is an enforceable standard that the Police Department
could effectively apply.
BY
Mayor and Council
Re: Adoption of Ordinance Restricting Operation of Leaf Blowers in Residential Districts
February 21,2002
Page2
As in Palo Alto and Menlo Park, enforcement of the leafblowers restrictions will depend entirely on the Police
Department, and training and implementation will be needed.
Attachment
Proposed Ordinance
Summary Table of Ordinances
Distribution
Chief of Police
City Planner
ORDINAIICE No._
ORDINANCE OF'THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 10.40 TO LIMIT THE USE Of,'
LEAFBLOWERS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Section 10.40.037 has governed the operation of leafblowers in the city for
the past seven years. The cityhas received requests from citizens seeking a shortening of the hours
of operation of leafblowers and controls on the decibel levels of the leafblowers. The City of palo
Alto has done extensive work on this issue and in cooperation with residents and business owners,
pito ,q.tto has developed standards that have worked well in that city. This ordinance is modeled
after the Palo Alto standards.
Section 2. A new section 10.04.005 is added as follows:
10.04.005 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms are defined as follows:
(a) "Emergency" mean an essential activity necessary to restore, preserve, protect or save
lives or property from imminent danger of loss or harm or to restore essential services.
' O) "Holiday" means those days set forth in section 13.04.100 of this code.
(c) "Local ambient" means the lowest sound level repeating itself during a fifteen-minute
period as measured with a precision sound level meter, using slow response and "A" weighting.
The minimum sound level shall be determined with the noise source at issue silent, and in the same
location as the measurement of the noise level of the source or sources at issue. If a significant
portion of the local ambient is produced by one or more individual identifiable sources which
would otherwise be operating continuously during the fifteen-minute measurement period and
contributing significantly to the ambient sound level, determination of the local ambient shall be
accomplished with these separate identifiable noise sources silent.
(d) "Leaf blower" means any portable machine used to blow leaves, dirt and other debris
off sidewalks, driveways, lawns or other surfaces.
1
(e) "Noise level" means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak sound
level, produced by a source or group of sources as measured with a precision sound level meter.
ln order to measure a noise level, the controls ofthe precision sound level meter should be arranged
to the setting appropriate to the t51pe of noise being measured.
(f) "Precision sound level meter" means a device formeasuring sound level in decibel units
within the performance specifications in the American National Standards Institute Standard S 1.4,
"Specification for Sound Level Meters."
(g) "Residential district" means a district that is zoned R-1, R-2, R-3, or R-4 pursuant to
title 25, but does not include a district that is zoned C-R.
a
(h) "Sound level," expressed in decibels (dB), means a logarithmic indication of the ratio
between the acoustic energypresent at a given location and the lowest amount of acoustic energy
audible to sensitive human ears and weighted by frequency to account for characteristics ofhuman
hearing, as given in the American National Standards Institute Standard S1.1, "Acoustic
Terminology," paragraphz.g,or successorreference. Allreferences to dB inthis chapterutilize the
A-level weighting scale, abbreviated dRA, measured as set forth in this section.
Section 3. Section 10.40.037 is amended to read as follows:
fO.qO.OZl Poweredequipment.
(a) No person shall operate any lawnmower, lawn edger, riding tractor or any other
mechanical or electrical machinery equipment or device which creates a loud, raucous or impulsive
sound, within any residential district except between the hours of 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. on Monday
through Saturday, or l0 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays.
(b) Sweeping of city parking lots or city streets and emergency work or repairs by public
agencies or utilities shall be exempt from these regulations.
Section 4. A new section 10.04.038 is added as follows:
10.04.038 Leaf blowers.
(a) On and after July 1, 2002,only leafblowers that produce a noise level of sixty-five (65)
2
I
)
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
1t
t2
13
t4
15
t6
l7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dBA or less shall be allowed to be operated in residential districts in the city.
(b) On and after May 1, 2002,leaf blowers shall only be operated during the following
hours:9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Mondaythrough Saturday, and 12 noonto4p.m., on Sundays andholidays.
(c) In a residential district, no person shall operate any leaf blower which does not bear an
affixedmanufacturer's label indicatingthemodel numberofthe leafblower and designatinganoise
level not in excess of sixty-five (65) dBA when measured from a distance of fifty (50) feet utilizing
American National Standard Institute methodology. Any leaf blower that bears such a
manufacturer's label shall be presumed to comply with any noise level limit of this chapter
provided that it is operated with all mufflers and full extension tubes supplied by the manufacturer
I
for that leaf blower. In a residential district, no person shall operate any leaf blower without
attachment of all mufflers and fulI extension tubes supplied by the manufacturer for that leaf
blower.
Section 5. Subsection 10.40.039(d) is deleted.
Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day
of February, 2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of 2002, by the following vote
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\lealblowers.cdf wpd
City Clerk
3
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COLTNCILMEMBERS:
CURRENT
BURLINGAME
PROPOSED
BURLINGAME
HILLSBOROUGH FOSTER CITY MENLO PARK PALO ALTO SAN MATEO
LEAF BLOWERS
HOURS
Weekdays 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. in
residential zones
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in
residential districts
9 a.m. to 5 p.m 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
in residential
zones and within
I 00 feet of a
residential zone
8 a.m. to 5 p.m 9 a.m. to 5 p.m
No internal
combustion
blowers after
7112002 in a
residential zone
8 a.m. to 5 p.m
in residential
zones
Saturdays l0 a.m. to 7 p.m. in
residential zones
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. in
residential districts
l0 a.m. to 5 p.m. -
no gas-powered and
homeowner/resident
only
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
in residential
zones and within
100 feet ofa
residential zone
Residents/owner
s only:
I I a.m. to 5 p.m.
- electric
I I a.m. to 3 p.m.
- gas-powered
l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.9 a.m. to 5 p.m
Sundays l0 a.m. to 6 p.m. -
owner or resident of
property - in
residential zones
Noon to 4 p.m. in
residential districts
None None in
residential zones
or within 100
feet of a
residential zone
No gas-powered
Electric 9 a.m. to
5 p.m.
None None
Holidays Same as Sundays in
residential zones
Same as Sundays
in residential
districts
None -- based on
Hillsborough holiday
calendar
Same as
Sundays in
residential zones
or within 100
feet of
residential zones
No gas-powered
Electric 9 a.m. to
5 p.m.
None None
1
CURRENT
BURLINGAME
PROPOSED
BURLINGAME
HILLSBOROUGH FOSTER CITY MENLO PARK PALO ALTO SAN MATEO
DECIBELS None 65 dbA in
residential districts
70 dB 50-65dBin
residential zones
60-70dBin
commercial
zones
Gas-powered
65 dB
Electric - 85 dB
65 dBA
STANDARDS FOR
LEAFBLOWERS
None Manufacturer's
label required;
mufflers and
extension tubes
must be affached
70 dB measured
ftom 25 feet
Applies to gas-
powered blowers
only
Certification
required for gas-
powered
Manufacturer's
label required;
training required
for commercial
operators;
mufflers and
extension tubes
must be attached
Equipment
required
2
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
5e
?l__4_l_2oo2
TO:Honorable Mavor and
BY
DATE Fehnrarv 2 -2002
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Larrv E. A Citv Attornev
ADOPT ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 9.04 TO PROVIDE A 3.YEAR LICENSE FOR
DOGS AND TO UPDATE LICENSE AI\D FEE SCHED ULE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt ordinance to amend Chapter 9.04 to conform to County Animal Control Ordinance for dog licenses and
fee schedule and direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adopt-ion.
DISCUSSION:
The County has recently adopted an ordinance making it possible for owners of dogs to purchase a3-year
license with some cost savings to both the owner and the County. An annual license would also be available.
In addition, the County fee schedule provides a senior discount for persons who are 60 years of age or older to
encourage seniors to have pets.
Finally, the Municipal Code does not reflect increases in fees for transportation and boarding of impounded
animals.
The proposed ordinance would bring the Municipal Code provisions into conformity with the County's fee
schedule and provide a 3-year license option to dog owners. It should also be noted that some impound fees
will be based on whether the animal has been altered or not, or whether the animal is licensed and tagged or not.
Although not required to do so, owners of cats can obtain licenses and tags for their animals so that in case of
loss, the animal can be more readily returned to its owner.
Attachment
Proposed ordinance
Distribution
Chief of Police
BY
ORDINAIICE NO.
ORDINAI{CE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 9.04 TOPROVIDE FoR 3-YEAR LICENSES FoR Docs ArtD To UpDATE -fE r,tcrNsp AttDFEE SCHEDULE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The County of San Mateo has provided the animal licensing and oversight services
for the City of Burlingame for a number of years. As part of the County's efforts to provide a more
effective but less intrusive program, the County has instituted a license for dogs for 3 years, rather than
a strictly annual program. This program is optional and dependent on proper vaccination clearance.
In addition, the county has updated its license and caring fee schedule.
section 2. A new section 9.04.045 is adopted to read as follows:
9.04.045 Three-year licenses for dogs.
Notwithstanding section 9.04.045 above, a tbree-year license may be obtained for a dog,
excluding wolf-hybids, by submitting to the licensing program adequate proof of a three-year rabies
vaccination of the animal to be licensed and payment of the applicable fees as set forth in this chapter.
Section 3. Section 9.04.031is amended to read as follows:
9.4.031 Schedule of fees and charges.
Fees and charges under this chapter shall be as follows:
(a) License fees and penalties:
(1) Unaltered dog
(A) l-year license $21.00
@) 3-year license $63.00
(C) l-year license with senior discount $11.00
(D) 3-year license with senior discount $33.00
1
I
(2) Altered dog
(A) l-year license $11.00
@) 3-year license $30.00
(C) l-year license with senior discount $ 6.00
(D) 3-year license with senior discount $15.00
(3 ) Wo lf-hybrid registration
(A) Unaltered l-year license $21.00
(B) Altered 1-year license $11.00
(4) Additional Penalties and Fees
(A) Late penalty $ 5.00
(B) Duplicatetag $ 5.00
(b) Redemption and shelter charges
(1) Type A (large-size animals - horses, cows, etc.)
(A) Impound cost $50.00
@) Board cost per day $16.00
(C) Transportation cost $50.00 per animal
Q)fype B (medium-size animals - hogs, sheep, etc.)
(A) Impound cost $30.00
(B) Board cost per day $12.00
(C) Transportation cost $50.00 per use
(3) T1,pe C (dogs/wolf hybirds, cats)
(A) Impound cost (Altered / Unaltered)
(i) First offense, licensed & wearing tag $20.00 I 40.00
(ii) First offense, unlicensed or no tag $30.00 / 60.00
(iii) Second offense $60.00 / 80.00
(iv) Third offense $90.00 / 100.00
(v) Fourth offense $120.00 / | O.OO
(vi) Fifth offense and up $150.00 I 170.00
2
I
2
J
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
t1
t2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
l
281
@) Board costs
(i) Dogs/wolf hybrids $10.00 per day
(ii) Cats $ 7.00 per day
(a) Type D (small-size animals - birds, hamsters, etc.)
(A) Impound cost $5.00
(B) Board cost per day $ 2.00
(c) Quarantine fee $35.00
(d) Dangerous animal permit fee $100.00
(e) Field return fee $25.00
. (f) Property inspection fee $25.00
(g) For purposes of this section, "senior discount" is given only to persons who are sixty
(60) years of age or older and who provide proof of their age in accordance with licensing
directions.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law
Mayor
' I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20ft day of
February, 2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the Cify Council held on the _ day
of _,2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
J
City Clerk
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 3-4-02
7a
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY GOUNCIL
DATE: FEBRUARY 25,2002
FROM: EXECUTIVEASSISTANT(558-7204)
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: GOMMISSIONER TERM EXPIRATIONS (Planning)
ln April, the term of the below-listed commissioners will expire
Commissioner
Ann Keighran
Stan Vistica
Gommission
Planning
Term Expires
4t7t,02
Terms Served
1
1
Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply
in the same manner as all other candidates. The attached table is provided for council members to quickly
reference those commission candidates interviewed within the past 2-year period.
Council may choose one of the following or other option(s) and direct staff accordingly:. Reappoint the above-listed incumbent commissioners;. Appoint recently interviewed candidate(s)from the attached list; or. Establish a filing deadline of Friday, March 29,2002, for accepting commissioner applications; and. Select a council interview team for eventual commissioner interviews.
V [B:coMMISSIoN\CoMMTERM]
Attachment
il*lr"-,^'-
lnterview TeamGommissionNameAddresslnterviewed
Commissioner Candidates 2-Year List
24-month
P Date
Katz, Dorothy 1110 Douglas Ave #1 Beautification 11-2-01
9-26-00
11-19-01
nla
Janney/Spinelli
incumb reappt'd
Nov 2003
Sep 2002
Garcia, Bill 1148 Cambridge Road Civil Service 10-30-00 1 2-1 8-00 Galligan / Spinelli Dec 2002
Fuchs, Elaine 1 '1 17 Hamilton Lane Library 6-13-00 10-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan Oct 2002
Hipps, Carolyn 1649 Balboa Way Library 6-13-00 10-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan Oct2002
Morton, Mary Lou Forest View Library 6-13-00 10-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan Oct2002
Dec2OO2Cottrell, Richard 1685 Hunt Drive TSPC 10-30-00 124-00 Coffey / O'Mahony
Dec2002Page, Howard 111 Central Avenue TSPC 1 0-30-00 12-4-OO Coffey / O'Mahony
Dec2002Winkler, Erik 36 Victoria Road TSPC 10-30-00 12-4-00 Coffey / O'Mahony
Apr 2003Dobiles, Bruce 524 Oak Grove Ave Planning 4-17-01 5-3-01 Coffey / O'Mahony
Apr 2003Ernst, Jay 1434 Capuchino Planning 4-17-01 5-3-01 Coffey / O'Mahony
Apr 2003Friedman, [Varc 748 Walnut Planning 4-17-01 5-3-01 Coffey / O'Mahony
Grandcolas, Mark 1432 Alvarado Planning
Planning
11-6-01
4-17-01
11-26-01
5-3-01
Janney/Coffey
Coffey / O'Mahony
Nov 2003
Apr 2003
Jacobs, Ruth 2965 Arguello Planning 4-17-01 5-3-01 Coffey / O'Mahony Apr 2003
Nov 2003
Apr 2003
Keele, Chris 21 Hayward Court Planning 11-9-01
4-17-01
11-26-01
5-3-01
Janney/Coffey
Coffey / O'Mahony
Apr 2003Popin, Richard 760 Walnut Avenue Planning 4-17-01 5-3-01 Coffey / O'Mahony
Nov 2003Brownrigg, Michael 1524 Columbus Planning 11-7-01 11-26-01 Janney/Coffey
Nov 2003Conway, Daniel 14 Highland Avenue #8 Planning 10-23-01 11-26-01 Janney/Coffey
Nov 2003Grange, Randy 21 Dwight Road Planning 1 1-9-01 11-26-01 Janney/Coffey
t
AGENDA
ITEM #7b
STAFF REPORT MTG.
DATE 3t4t2002
TO Honorahle Mavor and SUBMITTED
BY
DATE Februarv 22-2002 APPROVED
BY
Larrv E. Anderson. Citv ttorney
APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM
BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FROM:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism BID
DISCUSSION
With the concturence of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau Board, the San Mateo Hotel
Council has submitted a list of nominees to complete the Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism
Business Improvement District.
Last May, the Council approved appointment of 15 nominees representing the participating communities in the
District
- Four from Burlingame hotels
- Two from San Mateo hotels
- Two from Millbrae hotels
- One from a Foster City hotel
- One from a Half Moon Bay hotel
- Three from hotels in Belmont, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, or the unincorporated
County
- Two representing tourism-related businesses in San Mateo County
Since that appointment, Daly City has been dropped from the District, and South San Francisco has become a
full participant and thereby entitled to 2 representatives on the Board. The Hotel Council has also filled the two
vacant positions representing tourism-related businesses in the County.
A copy of the relevant sections of Ordinance No. 1648 is attached.
Mayor and Council
Re: Appointment of Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism BID
February 22,2002
Page2
Attachments
Advisory Board Nominees
Terms of Office
Portions of Ordinance No. 1648
Distribution
Anne LeClair, SMCCVB
Stan Moore, San Mateo Hotel Council
EXHIBIT A
FEBRUARY 2OO2 NOMINEES TO
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BID ADVISORY BOARD
Representing Burlingame hotels
Stan Moore, SFO Maniott
Colman Conneely, Sheraton Gateway
Bill Rizzuto, Hyatt SFO
Dave Costain, Doubletree Hotel
Representing City of San Mateo hotels
Phil Brezinski, San Mateo Marriott
Michael Sturm, Hilton Garden Inn
Representing Millbrae hotels
Michael Scott, Clarion Hotel
Mohammed Virgi, Comfort Inn
Representing Foster City hotels
Scott Castle, Crowne Plaza
Representing Half Moon Bay hotels
John Bemdt, Ritz Carlton
Representing hotels in Belmont, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and unincorporated San Mateo
County
Ken Landis, Landis Shores, County of San Mateo
Daniel Rodriguez, Holiday Inn Express Belmont
Stephanie Boyd, Hotel Sofitel, Redwood City
Representing South San Francisco hotels
Michael Palmer, Embassy Suites
Paul Herbert, Grosvenor Hotel
Representing tourism-related business in the County
John Root, San Mateo County Expo Center
Sandra O'Toole, South San Francisco Convention Center
Len Almalech, Enterprise Rent a Car
Jon Martin, San Francisco Intemational Airport
San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau
Terms of OfEce
2002
Michael Sturm, Hilton Garden Inn - San Mateo
Colman Conneely, Sheraton Gateway
Stan Moore, SFO Marriott
Sandra O'Toole, SSF Conference Center
John Root, San Mateo County Expo Center
Stephanie Ryan, Hotel Sofitel
2002-200?-2004
Scott Castle, Crowne Plaza
Peter Marshall, Doubletree Hotel
Bill Rizzuto, Hyatt Regency
Daniel Roilrigues, Holiday Inn Express Hotel & Suites
Mike Scott, Clarion Hotel
Mohammed Virgi, Comfort Inn
Michael Palmer, Embassy Suites SSF
2002 - 2003
Len Almalech, Enterprise Rent A Car
John Berndt, Ritz Carlton
Phil Brezinski, San Mateo Marriott
Ken Landis, Landis Shores
John Martin, SFO
PauI Herbert, Best Western Grosvenor
David Costain, Doubletree Hotel
EXCERPT FROM ORDINANCE 1648
Section 14. Advisory Board.
(a) An advisory board of seventeen (17) members is established to advise the City of
Burlingame on the conduct of the District, including the level of assessments to be levied each
year, the services, activities, and programs to be conducted by the District, and the progress of
the District in meeting its purpose and goals. The City Council shall appoint the advisory board
from a list of nominees submitted by the San Mateo Hotel Council. To be eligible to serve on
the advisory board, a person shall be an owner or manager of a hotel or a property occupied by a
hotel or an owner or manager of a company or business located in San Mateo County that is
directly related to tourism in San Mateo County. The board shall consist of persons from the
following geo graphical areas :
(1) Four (4) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in
the City of Burlingame; and
(2) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in
the City of San Mateo; and
(3) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in
the City of Millbrae; and
(4) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Foster City; and
(5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Half Moon Bay; and
(6) In total, three (3) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by
hotels in the Cities of Belmont, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and the unincorporated
area of San Mateo County; and
(7) Four (4) owners or managers of companies or businesses located in San Mateo County
and directly related to tourism in San Mateo County.
(b) On January 1,2002, the membership on the advisory board shall be increased to
nineteen (19) bV the addition of two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property
occupied by a hotel in the City of South San Francisco; and
(c) Terms of membership on the advisory board shall be three (3) years and until their
successors are appointed and qualified. However, the initial members of the advisory board shall
be staggered terms, with five (5) members serving a one-year term, six (6) members serving a
two-year term, and six (6) members serving a three-year term. Initial terms under this section
shall be run from May 1 ,2001. The initial length of term for each member shall be chosen by
lot at the first advisory board meeting. As to the two (2) members representing the City of South
San Francisco, one shall serve an initial length of term to May 1,2003, and the other an initial
length of term to May 7,2004; the initial length of term for each such South San Francisco
member shall be chosen by lot at the first advisory board meeting in the year 2002.
(d) Vacancies on the advisory board shall be filled by appointment by the City Council of
the City of Burlingame upon nomination by the San Mateo County Hotel Council. Vacancies
occur upon resignation of the member or when the member is no longer an owner or manager of
a hotel or property occupied by a hotel or of a tourist-related company or business, whichever is
applicable, in the geographical area from which the member was appointed.
Section 15. Advisory board under the Political Reform Act (Califomia Code of
Regulations, title 2, section 18707.4). The members of the advisory board are appointed to
represent and further the interests of the hotel and tourism industry in San Mateo County
pursuant to this ordinance.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
8a
3-4-02
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 2312002
tr'RoM: Randy Schwartz (55&7307)
SUBJECT: LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY BURLINGAME AND THE
BI]RLINGAME GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAGUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CERTAIN FACILITIBS AT RAY PARK
RECOMMENI}ATTON:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the License agreement between the City and the Burlingame
Girls Softball League (BGSL) to allow for facility improvements and the continued use of Ray ParL for
softball play.
BACKGROUND:
Ray Park has been the home field for the BGSL for many years. Last fall, BGSL approached the City with a
request to make some improvements to the facility, at the League's cost. These improvements included the
installation of two scoreboards, a new patio adjacent to the snack shack and a new flagpole; reduction in size
of the infield area of diamond one; leveling the grass portion of the field and adding storage space for league
equipment.
The City is currently working on replacing the Park's restroom facility to bring it up to A.D.A. standards.
Extra space would be added on to this facility to provide storage opportunities for both the City and BGSL.
BGSL would pay for the portion of the storage facility dedicated to their needs. BGSL or their contractors,
under City direction, will perform the other improvements.
ATTACIIMENTS:
* License agreement between Ciff of Burlingame and Burlingame Girls Softball League for the
construction, maintenance and operation of certain facilities at Ray Park
BUDGET IMPACT:
Io1.. The improvements to be made to the Park by the City (restroom, tennis court resurfacing) are already
budgeted and underway. BGSL will pay for the improvements that will affect softball play.
BY
BY
RESOLUTION NO - 2W2
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE
BURLINGAME GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAGUE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF CERTAIN FACILITIES AT RAY PARK
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, Ray Park has been the home field for the Burtingame Girls Softball League; and
WHEREAS, Burlingame Girls Softball League approached the Clty with a request to make
some improvements to the facility at the League's cost; and
WHEREAS, these improvements included the installation of two scoreboards, a new patio
adjacent to the snack shack, a new flagpole, reduction in size of the infield area of diamond one,
leveling the grass portion of the field, and adding storage space for league equipment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The Agreement between the City and Burlingame Girls Softball League contained in
Exhibit A hereto is approved, and the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute that
Agreement by and on behalf of the City.
2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
Mayor
I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CouNcII-rrlEMBERs:
CouNclruEMBERs:
CouNcrr.uEMBERS:
City Clerk
LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CMY OF BT]RLINGAME
AND BtiRLTNGAMtr GIRLS SOFTBALL LEAGUE (ASA)
FORTHE CONSTRUCTION,
MAINTENANCE, AIYD OPERATION OF CERTAIN FACILMMS AT RAY PARK
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
-{ay
of ,
_zby and between the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Burlingame Girls Softball League, a
-
hereinafter referred to as "League".
WTII\-ESSETH:
WffiREAS, City owns cer&ain real property developed as a part of Ray Park within the
City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, which is shown in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a
part hereof by this reference ('?remises"); and
WHEREAS, League and City agree it is reasonable and desirable that League, an
established and recognizedorganization of citizens, construct, improve, maintairq and operate
certain recreational facilities on the Premises as described below; and
WHEREAS, under this Agreement, City intends to grant a License to kague for the
purposes of constructing, maintaining and operating certain recreational facilities on the
Premises pursuant to the terms of this License; and
Wffi,REAS, the City intends to construct a new restroom and storage facility at the
Premises, and if that new facility is built, to provide the League with a storage area in the facility
as generally shown in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, under this Agreement, kague also agrees to reimburse the City for the
City's actual expenses in constructing a storage area as generally shown in Exhibit B hereto,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties mutually agree as follows:
l. Purposes. The purposes of this License are:
A. To allowteague to construct or improve the facilities as generally shown in
Exhibit B hereto and described as the following:
i. Installation ofa new patio adjacent to the snack shack.
ii. Installation of 2 new scoreboards.
1wDr200t
iii. Installation of a new flagpole.
iv. Reduction of infield to regulation softball size.
v. kveling of outfield area.
vi. Installation of additional irrigation in the outfield.
B. To provide for League's sole management and operation of the following
recreational facilities at the Premises and the conditions under which it will oprate them during
the term of this License:
i. Two scoreboards and associated scoreboard equipment.
ii. Flagpole.
iii. Snack shack and associated patio.
iv. Storage container.
(hereinafter collectively "Softball Amenities").
C. To provide for the transition of the lrague's current storage in a container on the
Premises and the reimbursement of the City's expenses in providing a new storage area on the
Premises.
2. Term. The term of the License granted under this Agreement shall be for ten (10)
years from the day and date above written. At the expiration of such term, this agreement shall
automatically be extended for terms of five (5) years, unless either the City or the League
provides written notice to the other at least six (6) months before the end of each term of this
agreement that they wish to renew or terminate this agreement, but no more than three (3) such
extensions, for a total of 25 years. Should City observe that the Facilities are unused by kague
for one full year, City reserves the right to require kague to demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the City why License should not be terminated.
3. Consideration for License. ln consideration for the License granted hereby, and if
Ieague satisfies all of the conditions set forth below, Ieague agrees to construct or improve the
recreational facilities described in paragraph 1(A) above at its own expense and to perform the
additional duties set forth in the License.
4. Construction and Imorovements.
2LUL2n@r
A. League shall construct the recreational facilities as generally described in paragraph
l(A) above and as generally shown in Exhibit A attached hereto. League shall be responsible for
all construction labor and costs and shall obtain all necessary building permits and approvals (no
City fees shall be charged for such permits and approvals). All plans and specifications shall be
approved by the City Parks & Recreation Director ("Director") before any work is begun. Once
work is begun, construction project must be completed to satisfaction of City within 30 calendar
days, without the express written consent of the Director. The work shall not interfere with other
City programs using the Ray Park nor with any Burlingame Elementary School District programs
using Ray Park, without the express written consent of the Director.
B. League shall not make any changes or improvements to the Softball Amenities or any
other portion of the Premises without the written approval of the Director.
5. Damaee orDestruction.
A. In the event the Softball Amenities, or any portion thereof, are destroyed or damaged
by any cause that renders the Premises unfit for the purposes designated in paragraph l@) and if
the Softball Amenities are so badly damaged that they cannot be repaired within 90 days from
the date of such damage, either party may terminate this License by giving to the other party
written notice within thirty (30) days of the occurrence.
B. League understands and agrees that the City does not and will not carry any property
insurance or self-insurance of any kind to provide for the replacemen! repair, or reconstruction
of the Softball Amenities nor of any contents, equipment, or fixtures contained in or on the
Soffball Amenities, including any picnic tables or similar items, nor shall the City be obligated
to contribute in any way to the replacement, repair, or reconstruction of the Softball Amenities
or replacement or repair of any contents, equipmen! or fixtures contained in or on the Softball
Amenities, at any time, regardless of the reason for the need for repair, reconstruction, or
replacement.
6. kague Maintenance Duties. League shall maintain the Softball Amenities in
accordance with all City laws and regulations and applicable safety standards. The roof and
structure of the snack shack shall be kept in good repair and in an athactive condition at all
times. City shall have the right to enter upon and inspect the snack shack and other Softball
Amenities, subject to reasonable advance notice, to determine whether League is complying with
this License and whether the site is being maintained in a reasonably safe manner.
Notwithstanding the above provisions, League shall also be responsible for damage or repair to
Ray Park resulting from League's construction of the project or League's other use of Ray Park,
and not occasioned by normal wear and tear.
7. Failure to Maintain. If kague fails to maintain or to make repairs or
replacements as required herein, City may noti$r League in writing of said failures. Should
League fail to correct the situation within ninety (90) days thereafter, Director may make, or
3w0nwr
cause to be made, the necessary corrections and the cost thereof, including, but not limited to the
cost of labor, materials, and equipmenq plus a l5%o charge for City administration of the repairs,
shall be paid by League within ten (10) days of receipt of a statement of said cost from Director.
Crty may, at its option, choose any other remedies available herein or by law to secure such
payment. Ifkague fails to correct the situation within ninety (90) days thereafter, City may
consider League in default, and, ten (10) days after notification to League, at City's option and
City's cos! demolish some or all of the Softball Amenities or cancel this License, or both.
8. League Use of the Property. The league shall have the exclusive control over the
use of the Softball Amenities, and City authorizes League or its approved users to use the
Softball Amenities. League may permit City, Burlingame High School, Burlingame Intermediate
School, or other user groups to use the Softball Amenities for games or practices, at its
discretion, on a time available basis.
The League is solely responsible for determining what safety requirements for use of the
Softball Amenities are appropriate. The League warrants that it shall not discriminate in
permitting or allowing use of the Softball Amenities on the basis of age, sex'color, race, marital
status, sexual orientation, ancestrS/, physical or mental disability, national origrrU religion or
medical condition, unless based on a bonafide safety limitation founded on manufacturer or
Consumer Product Safety Commission guidelines.
It is agreed that it is not the intent of City or League to create for-profit facilities open to
the public on a fee basis. Rather, it is the intent of both parties to create a facility to be used by
nonprofit community groups. League may charge bona fide Burlingame youth groups or other
user groups rental fees to cover the direct cost of necessary supervision and wear and tear on the
Softball Amenities and equipment. Such fees shall be approved in advance by the Director. Such
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
9. Ownership of Improvements. All improvements constructed erected or installed
upon the Premises must be free and clear of all liens, or liability for labor or material and shall
become the property of the City and remain upon the Premises upon termination of this License.
Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 107.6, the properly interest created by this
License may be subject to a propedy or possessory interest tax under California law, and League
agrees that it shall be solely responsible for payment of any such tax.
10. Utilities. City shall be responsible for and shall pay, prior to delinquency, any
charges for utilities supplied to the Premises.
11. Insurance. The League shall obtain and maintain the following insurance
throughout the term of this License:
A. Minimum scope of insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
4Dlnna$t
l) Insurance Services Offrce form number (GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and lnsurance Services Office Commercial General Liability;
or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form GC
0001).
2) Workers Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability insurance.
B. Beginning of License. League shall maintain limits no less than:
l) General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily
injury, personal injury and property damage. This coverage shall include Products and
Completed Operations coverage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with
a general aggregate limit is use{ either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
Project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be truice the required limit.
2) Workers Compensation and Employers Liability: Workers compensation limits as
required by the Labor Code Of the State of Califomia and Employers Liability limits of
$ 1,000,000 per accident.
C. Deductibles amid self-insured retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by Crty. At the option of City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its
officers, offtcials, volunteers; or the League shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses
and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses.
D. Other insurance orovision. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain
the following provision:
1) General Liabilitv Coverages.
a. The City, its officers, offtcials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as
insureds as respects: liabilities arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of League,
products and completed operations of the Contracts, premises owned, occupied, or used by the
League. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to
the City, its offrcers, officials, employees, or volunteers.
b. The League's insurance shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its
offrcers, officials, employees, or volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the
City, its officers, ofiicials, employees, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the League's
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
trL2/12r200r
d. The League's insurance shall apply separately to each insured aginst whom
claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
2) Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall
agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the League for the City.
3) All coverages. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage
or limits after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt required, has
been given to City
E. Acceotabiliry of insurer. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's
rating of no less than B+.
F. Verification of coverase. League shall furnish City with certificates of insurance
and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and
endorsements for each insurance policy and to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer
to bind coverage on its behalf The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms provided by
the City. Where by statute, the City's workers compensation-related forms cannot be used,
equivalent forms provided by the State lnsurance Commissioner are to be substituted. All
certificates and endorsements are to be received amid approved by City before work
commences. The City reserves the rigtrt to require complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, at any time.
G. Other user groups. League shall be solely responsible for obtainingany insurance
coverages it may desire from other user groups, but this insurance shall in no way affect the
responsibility of the kague to the City for obtaining League's own insurance. Insurance
coverage required ofother groups by League shall not be excessive or onerous.
H. Contractors. League shall require all contractors that it may engage to perform
work on the Premises pursuant to this License to provide insurance in conformation with this
paragraph (10).
L Increases in Limits. At least six (6) months before the end of the term of this
License, or each extension thereto, City may give written notice to League that the insurance
limits under this License are to be increased, and so long as the limits are not increased by more
than fifty percent (50o/o), such notice shall not be considered a notice of termination under this
License.
6L2/t2tac0t
c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect
coverage provided to the City, i* officers, officials, employees, or volunteers.
I l. Revocabilitv. Notwithstanding Paragraph (2) above, either party may terminate
this License on six (6) months written notice at any time after January L2A03. This provision is
in addition to any other right of termination contained in this License.
12. No precedent established. This License is granted with the understanding that
this action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent on the question or expediency of
perrritting any certain kind of encroachment or structure or facility to be erected upon the
property of the City of Burlingame.
13. Notice prior to commencing work. Before commencing work or use under this
License, League shall notify the Director or other designated employee of the City. Such notice
shall be given at least (3) three days in advance ofthe date work or use is to begin.
14. Use of the Storage Area. The storage area shall only be used for storing
equipment of the Budingame Girls Softball League, and for no other purpose whatsoever
15. Hazardous or Poisonous Materials. At no time shall any hazardous or poisonous
materials of any kind be stored or used on the Premises by League without the express written
permission of the Director.
16. Permits. League shall comply with all legal requirements for the construction,
improvemen! maintenance, and operation under this License, including any health permits for
the operation ofthe snack shack.
17. Protection of thg public. Adequate provision shall be made for the protection of
the public. All work shall be planned and carried out so that there will be the least possible
inconvenience to the public.
18. Clean-up. Upon completion of the construction and improvement work under
this License, the League shall ensure that the Premises are in as presentable a condition as before
work started.
19. Satisfaction of City. All work shall be done subject to the satisfaction of the City
that the terms and conditions of this License have been met.
20. Care of drainase. If the work herein contemplated shall interfere with the
established drainage, ample provision shall be made by the League to provide for it, as may be
directed by the City.
21. Maintenance. The Facilities shall be painted a neutral color approved by the
Director. No signs shall be placed upon them except for identification as approved by the
Director. All grafiiti or similar markings upon the Facilities shall be removed within five (5)
days ofoccrurence.
7LZlQnW
22. Indemnity. League hereby releases and agrees to protect, defend, hold harmless,
and indemniry Clry, its City Council, its oflicers, employees and elected officials, boards and
commissions, from and against all claims, indemnity, liability, loss, costs and expense, or
damage, however same may be caused including all cost and reasonable attomey's fees in
providing the defense to any claim arising therefrom, or any loss or damage to properly (real
and/or personal) amid for personal injury to or death of any person or persons arising out of,
occurring by reason of, or in any way connected with use of the Facilities, unless the claim arises
from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers or employees.
23. Assignability. This License is personal to the League because of its unique role in
the community and long-term working relationship with the City. This License is only
assignable by the League to another non-profit entity that can demonstrate to the City that is
purpose, financial well-being, and service programs are equal to or better than the League's, and
then only with the wriuen approval of the City.
24. Amendments. This agreement may be amended or modified by written
agreement signed by both parties, including the continuing or changing of the maintenance or
operations programs for the Facilities in subsequent years. Failure on the part of either party to
enforce any provisions of this agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of the right to
compel enforcement of such provision or provisions.
25. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered to in person or transmitted
by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage paid:
Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed:
Parks & Recreation Director
City of Burlingame
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Notices required to be given to League shall be addressed:
frebgq:heew,,,r
b,tZut4tA{er&, ?fulo
These persons shall be representatives of City and League for all purposes of this agreement.
26. Existing Encroachment Permit. This License is intended to and does supersede
any and all previous encroachment permits for Ray Park that have been granted by the Clty to
the League.
BLULZNNI
yasy
By
27. Intemretation. As used herein, any gender included each gender, the singular
includes the plural, and vice versa.
28. Applicable Law. The applicable law for any legal disputes arising out of this
confact shall be the law of the State of California and the forum and venue for such disputes
shall be the appropriate Superior or Municipal Court in and for San Mateo County.
29. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement between the parties regarding the
Facilities.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the day
amid year first written above.
CMY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME GIRLS SOFTBALL
By
ATTEST:
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
9n/12r200t
City Clerk
B AV
rRaNctsco5ANF-co
IxtrJ
N
ul
22
HII.LEBO
COMMUNITY RECREATION AREAS
T - Tlnnlt Courtt A - Tot Appar.tu3
CITY OF BURLINGAME
nHo .4
+
t!b
_ESIIEEE5EI
o
t^t IAIEO COUttY
clLt ?oitll
co
+J
-o
!x
UJ
A0
Ao
,r(D
R eatroom F..ilitiee Cerrporation
'r-800-447-65704OO WESTERN ROAD. RENO NEVADA.89506
,m,$SW-212-CN
FIROT{T ELTVAIION HORIZONTAL CLAP EOARO
REIR ELEVAIIOII HORIZONTAT CLAP BOARO
SPLII F/ICE BTOCK
SIDE ETEVATION - STUCCO
FLOOR PI,IN
BRICX rr-[
sIrmrmrE nEE rll
l|r'TE
SPLIT FACE BI.OCK &HOMZONTAL Cl.lF BOAND OR TI.1]EOARO & BATTEN
!i)rI'L r.or tr tlarlogugEo rtn{ol,t wti?rtl '€'J|tglo,. s tx' opici 'lt'f'c"
69L
ttoiltL,ffi TI
rlx
n
A(DA0
gUOOO-TrESfFErr:}lusno..mAYi'"'REteoPt''lvO'. sffif!"lnl!'Cry,c'otbi'A'JE
-.....IiElr
|]
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
February 22,2002
PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
Bb
3t4to2
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
suBJECr: TENTATIVE AND FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 12-IT CONDOMINIUM, PARCEL
A, BLOCK 17, MAP OF BURLINGAME GROVE - 1237-41 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, PM 99-02
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve this map as both a tentative and final map with the
following condition:
The conditions, covenants and restrictions for the condominium shall be approved by the City Attorney and
conform to all approved conditions and City codes.
BACKGROUND: The Council approved the original tentative condominium map in December of 1999. However,
the tentative map has expired and as a result, it is necessary that Council approve the tentative map again. Because
the construction is substantially complete and is conformance with the condominium permit, staff also recommends
that Council approve the final map at the same time. Staff will then have the map properly recorded.
EXHIBIT: Condominium Map
T. Chang, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
(650) ss8-7230
c: City Clerk, ASCI
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\l237capuchino.wpd
a
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
February 21,2002
PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
8c
3l4lo2
TO:
DATE:
FROM
SUBMITTED
BY
BY
a
a
a
a
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A REEMENT WITH ROMAN &
LOUGEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS - WATER OUALITY ESSMENT, JOB 9953
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached agreement for services with Roman
& Lougee Consulting Engineers in the amount of $142,950.
BACKGROUND: The firm of Roman & Lougee Consulting Engineers has been providing professional engineering
services for water quality assessment and water system modeling for several years. This agreement includes:
Completing a unidirectional water main flushing program
Installing and monitoring several additional water quality monitoring taps in the mains
Water quality modeling based on monitoring results
Storage tank water quality monitoring
These services are essential for preparing the City to receive water from San Francisco in 2004 that will be
disinfected by chloramines rather than chlorine. These services are also important in establishing priorities for capital
improvement projects that address potential bacteria (coliform) issues regarding the City's water system.
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement
BUDGET IMPACT: The project budget 326-79530 has sufficient funds for this effort.
C., P.E.
Asst. Director of Public Works
(6s0) ss8-7235
c: City Clerk, Finance, Roman & Lougee Consulting Engineers
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\953.2stf.wpd
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
ROMAN & LOUGEE CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WATER OUALITY ASSESSMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 9953
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this
Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in
the title above
2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and
on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certi$/ that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meetmg of the City Council held on the_
day of ,2W2, and was adopted thereafter by the ;e[[ev,ring vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAIJ ENGIIIEERTNG CONEI'LTING SERVICES
ROMAN & I|oI'GEE. CONSI'LTING SERVICES
crTY PROaTEeT NO. 9 953
THIS AGREEMEIIT is ent.ered into this day of , 2002,
by and between the city of Burlingame, State of California, trerein ca1led the
'City", and ROMAN & LOUGEE CONSITLTING ENGINEERS, engaged in providing
PROFESSIONAI ENGINEERING consulting services herein cal1ed the "Consultant'r.
RECITALS
a The City is undertaking activiEies for Water quality Assessment.
B. The City desires to engage an Professional Engineering ConsulEant !o
provide consulting services in conjulction with Water Quality Assessment, because
of Consultant's experience and qualifications Eo perform the desired work.
C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and will-ing to
perform the desired work pursuant Eo this AgreemenE.
AGREE!{ENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOTLOWS:
EXfiIBTT A SIIAI,I. BE UADE AS PART OF TIIIS AGREEUEN!.
L. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide a1l services as set forth
in Exhibit A of this agreement.
2. Time of Performance. The servi.ces of the Consultant are to commence upon
the execution of this Agreemenc with compl-etion orr or about June 2002.
3. Complialce wittr Lavrs. The ConsultanE sha1l comply with all applicable
laws, codes, ordinances, arrd regnrlations of governing federal, state and loca1
laws. ConsulEants represenEs arrd warrants to Cily that. it has all licenses,
permit.s, qualificationa and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legatly
required fo! Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and
warrants tso City that Consultan! shaII, at its sole cosE and expense. keep in
effect. or obtaj-n at all times during Lhe term of this Agreement any l-icenses,
permits, and approvals which are lega11y required for Consultant Eo practice iEs
profession. Consultant shall maiotain a City of Burlingame business license.
4. Sole Responsibilitv. Conaultant shalL be responsible for employing or
engaging a1I persons necessary Eo perform the services under this Agreemeat.
Revised: February 21,, 2OO2 Page 1 of 5
CONSITIT . CON. wRD . doc
5. Information/Report Handlinq. AII documents furnished to consultant by the
Clty and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this
Agreement are the City's propertsy and shalI be delivered Eo the City upon the
completion of Consultant's services or at the City'B written request. A11
reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assehbled by Consultant in
connection with the performance of its services pursuanE Eo this AgreemenE are
confidenEial unEil released by the City to tshe public, and the consultant shall
not make any of the these documents or information available to any indlvidual
or organization not employed by the consultant or the ciLy wibhout the written
consent of the city before such release. The City acklrowledges that the reports
to be prepared by tshe consultanE pursuant to this Agreements are for the purpose
of evaluating a defined project, and city's use of the informaEion contained in
the reports prepared by the consultant in connection with other projects shall
be so1e1y at Citsy's risk, unless ConsulEant expressly consenEs to Euch use in
wriEing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or
technj-que of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by ConsultanE
to be a trade secret of ConsultanE. ConsultalrE may retain a copy of such
confidential documents for i-ts records.
6. ComperrsaEion. Compensation for Consultant,6 professional services shall
not exceed $142,950, and pa)ment shaU be based upon City approval.
BiUing shall be accompaoied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by
vrhom at whaE rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifj-cations, documents or
other pertinent mat.erials shall be submitstsed for city review, even if only in
partsial or draft form.
7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting
Lhis billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work
under this Agreement. Consultant. sha1l make ttrese records available to
authorized persornel of the citsy at the CoDsuLtant's offices during business
hours upon written requeat of the City.
8. Pro'iect Manaqer. The Project Manager for the consultant for the work under
this Agreement shall be wiIlia.m RoEan.
9. Assiqnabilitv and Subcontractinq. The services to be performed under ttris
Agreemenb are unique and personal tso the Consultant. No portion of these
services sha11 be assigrred or subcontracled without the written consent. of Ehe
City.
10. Notices. Any notice required tso be given sha1l be deemed Eo be duly and
properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To CiEy:Frank Erbactrer/Asst. Di.rector of Public Works
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94 010
Revised: February 21,, 2OO2 Page 2 of 5
CONSULT - CON. wRD - doc
To Consultant :william Roman/Roman & Lougee consulEing Engineers
311 Hara'thorne Avenue
Loa Altos, CA 94022
Tel: 650-941-0916 / Fax: 650-941-0916
or personally delivered to consultant tso such address or such other address as
consultant desigrrates in wriLing tso city.
11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the consultant, in the
performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be
an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an
independent cooEractor he/she shall not obtain arly righEs to recirement benefits
or other benefits which accrue to citsy employee (s) . with prior writt.en consents,
the consultanE may pexform some obligaEions under this Agreement by
subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or
assigzr or transfer interests under Ehis Agreemenu.
ConsultsanE agrees to lestify in any li.tigation brought regarding the subject of
the work to be performed under this Agreement. ConsuLtant sha11 be compensated
for its costs and expenses in preparing for, tsraveling to, and tsestsifying in suctr
matters at its ther currents hourly rates of compensation, unless auch litigation
is brought by Consultant or is based on allegaEions of consultant.rs negligents
performance or wroagdoing.
L2. conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional
responsibil iEies is solel-y to the City. The ConBultant has and shall not obtain
any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no
business holdings or agreements with any individual men ler of the staff or
managemenL of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such
holdings or agreements. In addition. Consultant warrants that it does not
presenEly and sha1l noE acquire any direcE or indirecE interest adverse to those
of the City in Ehe subject of this Agreement, and iE shaI1 immediaEely
disassociate itself from such an interest should iE discover it has done so and
shall, at the City's sole discreeion, divest itself of such interest. Consultants
shall not knowingly and shal1 take reasonable steps to ensure that it does noE
employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement.
If after emplolment of a person, ConsuLtant discovers it has employed a person
wiEh a direct or indirect intserest Ehat would conflict with its performance of
this Agreement, ConsultsanE shall prornptly notify City of this emplo)ment.
relatioaship, and shalI, at the City's sole discretion, remove such person from
the proj ects.
13. Ecrual EmplovmenL OpporEunitv. Consultsant warrants that its is an equal
opportunity employer and shall, compJ"y with applicable regulations governing equal
emplo)rment opportunlEy. Neither Consultsant nor iLE su.bcontractors do and neither
shall discriminaEe against persoDs employed or seeking employment with them on
the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientat.ion, ancestry,
physical or mental disabillty, national origin, religion, or medical condition,
unless based upon a bona fide occupatsional qualification pursuanL bo Lhe
California Fair Employment & Housing Act.
Revised: February 21,, 2OO2 Page 3 of 5
CONSULT . CON. wRD . doc
i. ConsulEant agrees to have and maintaiD, for the duration of the
contract, ceneral Liability i.nsurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm
to an amouru noL less ltrarl: one mil,Iion dollars ($1,000,000) cornbined single
limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal- injury and property damage.
ii. Consu1EanE agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring hi-m,/her and his,/her
sEaff to an amounts not less than one mitlion dollars ($1,000,000) cotnbined single
limit per accidenE for bodily injury and property damage.
j-ii-. consultant sball provide Eo the city all certj.ficates of
insurance, witsh original endorsements effecting coverage. consulEant agrees that
all certsificates aDd endoraements are to be received and approved by the City
before work connences.
ceneral Liabilitsy:
i. The citsy, iEs officers, officials, employees and volunteers are
bo be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the consultanb i products and completed operations
of consultants, premises owned or used by the consultanE. This requirement does
not apply to tshe professional liability insurance required for professional
errors and omissions.
ii. The consultant's insurance coverage sha1l be primary iBsurance
as respect.s the city, its officers, officials, employees and volunEeers. Any
insurance or self-insurances maintained by tshe City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers sha1l be excess of the ConsulEant's insurance and shall
not contribuEe with it.
iii. Any failure to comply v.ith reporting provisions of Ehe policies
sha11 not affect coverage provided tso the city, iEs officers, officials,
employees or volurteers.
iv. The consultant's i.nsurance sha1l apply separately to each
insured against whom a claim is made or suit. iE broughE, except. with respect to
the limits of Ehe insurerrs liability.
C. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item ahall be
endorsed to stale that coverage shal1 not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced
in coverage or in limits except after thirty (3o) days' prior written notice by
certifj.ed mai.I, returl receipt requested, ha6 beert given to the City. currerrt
L4. Insurance.
A. Minimum scope of Insurance:
iv. ConsulEant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract. professional liabiliEy insurance in amounts not lees than $L,000,000
which is sufficien! tso insure CoasuLtant for professional errors or omissions in
the performance of the particular scope of work rllrder this agreement.
Revised: February 2L, 2OO2 Page 4 of 6
CONSUL? . CON. wRD . doc
D. In additi.on Eo these policies, consultant shall have and maintain
workersr compensaLion insurance as required by California law and shall provide
evideoce of such policy to the citsy before beginniag services under this
Agreement. Further, consulEanE shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by
Consultant provide the required workers' Cornpensation insurance for their
respective employees.
15. IndennificaEion. The consuftsant shaIl save, keep and hold harmless
indenmify and defend the city its officers, agent, enployees and volunLeers from
aII damages, liabilitsies, penalties, costs, or expenses in 1aw or equi.Ey Ehat may
at any time arise or be set up because of damages to properEy or personal injury
received by reason of, or in tshe course of pexformi.ng work to Ehe ext.ent caused
by a willfut or negligent act, gIIglg or omissions of the consultant, or any of
che Consultant,s officers, employees, or agents or any slrbconsu1EanE.
L6. waiver. No failure on the part of either parEy to exercise any right or
remedy hereunder sha1l operate as a waiver of ally other right or remedy that
party may hawe hereucder, Iror does waiver of a breach or default under this
AgreemenE constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of Ehe same or
any other provi.sion of this Agreement.
a7. covernins Law. This Agreement. regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and consErued Eo tshe laws of the State of california. venue for any
action regarding this Agreement shall be in the superior or Municipal CourE of
Ehe CounLy of San MaEeo or SanEa Clara.
19. Termination of Aqreement.. The city and the consultant sha11 have the right
to terminate this agreement wj-Eh or vrithouE cause by giving not less Ehan fifteen
(15) days written notice of Eermination. In Ehe event of Eermination, the
consultsanE shaII deliver to the city all plans, files, documents, reports,
performed to date by the ConBultant. In the event of such termination, City
shall pay Consultant art amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contxact
price as the work delivered co the city bears to completed services contemplaEed
under this Agreement, unless guch tsermination i,s made for cause, in which event,
compensation, if any, shalI be adjusted in light of the particular factss and
circumsEances involved in such termination.
L9. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual terminaEion, or amendment of
chis Agreements is effective unless maile in writing arrd signed by the City and Ehe
ConsultanE.
20. DispuEes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing
party shalI be enEitled to reasorable attorneyls fees, as well as costs not Eo
exceed $7, 500 in total.
Revised: February 21, 2OO2 Page 5 of 6
CONSULT . CON. wRD . doc
certification of such insurance shaIl be kept on file aL aLl times during the
term of this agreement with the City C1erk.
2L. Entire AqreemenE. This Agreement constitsutes the cornpl,ete and exclusive
staEement of the Agreement between tshe City and ConsultanE. No terms,
cond.itions, understandings or agreements purporEing to modify or vary this
Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and sigmed by the party Eo be bound,
shall be biDding on either party.
IN wITNEss WHEREoF, tstle CiEy and consultant have executed this Agreement
as of bhe date indicated on page one (1).
ClEy of Burlingame
Bv
consulEant: Roman & Lougee
Print Name
Title
ATTEST :Approved as to form:
City clerk CiEy Attorney
Revised: February 2L, 2Oo2 Page 6 of 5
CONSI,LT . CON. wRD . doc
ciEy Manager
Citsy of BurLingame
sL/zo/OZ trED L0:18 FAX 5S0 2tS 9048
941{tpl6
cdl (5s0) 302{3rs
Romau & Lou8ee
Exhi bi t rrA"
Febnrary ?4,2402
+++ DILL SOil.tt'l Q ooe
o{trsil: wrou#n@p4f bclluet
Mr. G. Bagdou
Direotor ofPublic trrorts
Ctry HaIl
501 kimoseRoad
nlifrgame, CA 95010
Subject Water Qualiry lvionitoriry: Iau- Jure 2002
W. Ronsq
Rome"&IoUgee
De5:It r. Bagdor
Euelosed is oru propoEpd hrtgEt for the-om* six mputlqg dsvEloped withs-stst'*"
"f Nfr: ffi*h*: Ai* ;b#d 8e oopi* of tbe Exeafiitre Sumnary of TM 3,
;ffifri G "hiac;titc
aill tEctls ofthe vec 2001'
T'sis past ypar Ro'ma & L'otrglee ad-tle Oly's W*er Inqly.'t"t* cor&rontcd wilh th
wl,oproble,o omCn*irfr* t'6e oo**oces tEstsi both Ronsn & Longee ad
cB Ur:G r*ru-"* G iryterrermioa of rerw pog.*, inclrdiog Boost€c
Ctrlsranin*i,on, Ihitessoml [frsh;pg, ard Norl.reguldory Total Cotfrrm fedfo&
AII of tbese eftrts
"flI
b" .1o*ry mrt ii*O ,Dd rc*t,d upon in tlu Thclmical
Meuratunhths fill of2002
We apreide tbo opporrtunity of cmttlng flirh rruu ud prn *afi io thns rglrhrrkiug'
Yours trul;,
4/fud**n-'
3r1O4 Eccbclli IiL, Sufte q Iedrting, CA G{dh, AQUALOG @ AOL cu
r , .Rotreril &rl-ougee ::
Crmsuldw Engineerc
Jan. to June 2002
BURUNGAITTE WATER QUALIW PROGRAM
lurl102qsa6 A19Dz &Consultants TOTAL
Stetson Stetson R. Couoer U.K.Eouio.
Task Sched.Months Name R&L,hrs Mlsc, $Total. $WP,hrs wP,$Sr T .hrs SrT.$Jr.T.hrs Mlsc.$JrT,$Mlsc,$Total.$$83 l.s.Vendor $
No.No.Oistribulion Svstem $r 10 $30 $80 $45 ACAD
J/Feb Loc/hstafi'll taps 32 500 4020 4
Jan Tap dwgs 6 100 760 16 6 100 i'|10 $2.510
2 J/Jun Deploy/read SoecSc 60 6800 10 36 50 SpecSn 6000 $14,770
3 J/Jur AnAbzOPSIEPANET 32 150 3670 I MC solar t3.910
/t Jan Model MilHAlcazar 16 200 191 6 10 I 2500 2500 $5,800
5 FlMar tlilblde Database l8 I 980 2 12 sr00 $2.680
6 J/Mar Pabma Baselhe 15 tl00 2051 1l $100 MC+Dr $4.14s
7 Jtm EPANET:Calib.Aoued 24 600 3240 I 10 $2.500 2500 $6.660
I Jan&Jun 40wo 12 300 16,4 12 4l $300 Derek $4,800
$6,120
$3.73517
59,270Check
Storage Tanks
$6.6705450
$o0
0
'150r $/+,04010$100 $s501230FebMill deeo (wint)10 3l 2 $60.00 l0
1 500 $/t,1551230Feb$60.00 1l i0 $200 $650Hi$ deep fuint)10 /t5 1 145 2
$1.100Thamess0$0 $0CFDHi[s Tk]tuiahrcls ;1.100 $0.0010
sd'l
-
U.K.
$4,320$50010$s06$180.00 1013AprIOPS24200 $1,420$1e0.00 $180 $360411
24
28 Jan lmorov.-Budoet'02 880 6
45 $2.025 $4.05025$750.00 210't5 DedFeb UDF subzones 200 7350 Teloo$2.20040$40030($0.00 3162512
$2,500$240.00 $20 $245301726wU-tests&rerun 10 I 100 I
5 $225 $450Order Subzs&UDFManua ,(700 ($180.00 201827Feb40300
0
5
'(]
.
TOTAL
-'l
STAFF REPORT
Burlingame Public Library
AGENDA rTEM #_,fu!_
MEETING DATE: 3-4-02
February 14,2002
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY
FROM: Alfred H. Escoffier, City LibrarianAPPROVED BY:
SUBJECT: Status of Easton Branch Renovation Project
Next Milestone in the Easton Project
The Easton Branch renovation project is moving forward with an architectural presentation to the
community at an open public meeting on Saturday, March 9,2002,10 AM- Noon at the Easton Branch,
1800 Easton Drive. Architect Hal Brandes, who will present 3 conceptual approaches to the renovation,
will lead the workshop.
Accomplishments to date:
l) Development of preliminary feasibility plan.
2) Development of preliminary cost plan.
3) Completed site survey, including site elevation, setbacks, etc.
4) Received approval to move forward with the Project from City Council.
5) Determined funding options to accomplish the project.
6) Held a public survey on services local residents would like to see offered.
7) Developed some preliminary press releases on the project.
8) Scheduled a meeting and assigned a liaison from Engineering/Public Works to monitor the
progress of the project.
Project Funding:
The estimated $ 850,000 cost will be borne primarily by donated funds. The Marshall Trust, a
posthumous gift of the Thomas Z. Marshall estate, for the betterment of the library, will pay the largest
portion: $ 650,000. The Burlingame Library Foundation has pledged to raise another $ 100,000. The
City will support the design and oversight costs.
Attachments:
Q & A on Easton Project
Easton Branch Library Renovation Project
Some Questions about the Project
February 2002
1) How old is the Easton Branch Library Building?
The Easton Branch Library building is a 73-year-old building of wood frame
construction designed in the "Pueblo Mission" style. It was built as the
North Burlingame Woman's Club in 1927 and was purchased by the City
and converted to a Library in 1943.
2) Why k the renovation being considered at this time?
Recently, during a routine building inspection, it was found that the building
had significant dry rot, as well as termite infestations. The windows leak and
the building is not handicapped accessible. In addition, the building is not
seismically braced for protection against earthquakes.
3) What other changes need to be made to the buildtng?
The preliminary plan is to lower the "stage" portion of the building to make
the entire 3,000 square feet more usable and accessible for all. We are also
looking at ways to open up the central space for programs and story hours.
4) Will there be new lighting?
In early discussions, the emphasis has been on bringing in more natural light
from the windows, as well as improving the electrical lighting. The concept
is to make the space a more inviting place to study, read and enjoy library
programs.
5) How will the technology be improved?
The current plan is to increase the number of computer workstations to
provide greater access to the catalog and other databases that are used to
access information. In addition, a high-speed data line as well as other
improved technology should increase speed and information service
delivery.
6) What about the library collection?
In reviewing the library collection, staff has determined that the most
heavily used portions of the collection are children's books, especially
picfure books and books in support of school curriculums. For adults, the
new and popular materials are the most used. We will continue to emphasize
collections for these groups, as well as broadening the scope of the Branch
by introducing new collections in other media.
7) Will the restrooms be improved?
To meet City code, the facility requires two restrooms, both of which must
be handicapped accessible. In practical terms, this means a wheelchair must
be able to turn 180 degrees in the restroom.
8) What work has been done on the project sofar?
In addition to the building inspections, the City has completed a preliminary
plan for the renovation, which was approved by the City Council in
November 2001. The Council agreed to Option #2 which was to modernize
the facility. This modernization will include: seismic, electrical, plumbing,
termite, dry rot and foundation work. A site survey of the property has also
been done. A Library Consultant has worked on the project to assist staff
with functionality issues.
9) What will the project cost?
The preliminary cost plan brings the project in at about $ 850,000, including
new shelving and furnishings.
10) How will the project be paidfor?
The Library has been fortunate to be the beneficiary of the Marshall Trust.
Mr. and Mrs. ThomasZ. Marshall lived in Burlingame for nearly 50 years
and upon their death left% of their estate for use by the library. This trust
should fund 80% of the project. In addition, the Burlingame Library
Foundation has pledged to raise funds to furnish the building. The City
General Fund will pick up design and planning costs.
11) lVhat will the project look like on the outside?
The project team is anxious to retain the cozy, comfortable feeling of the
branch and to bring it back to its "Pueblo Revival" architectural roots. The
exterior ofthe building will change very little, though handicapped access
and re-landscaping will be necessary at the front.
12) What will the building look like inside?
Inside, we are hoping to bring back the character and feeling of an original
mission style building of the period. The concept is to create comfortable
areas to read, write and study. A fireplace element will be included, along
with wood furnishings, warm comfortable colors, light and a variefy of
comfortable seating. We are discussing creating a special gathering area just
for young children .
13) lYhat will the timeline of the project be?
The approximate timeline will be l8-20 months. Design work will take place
during2002; construction will likely take place in 2003.
14) What can I *peet when the library opens?
The Easton Branch was a full service branch before the results of the
passage ofProposition l3 in 1978 cut the hours and services by half. In
November, the City Council pledged to look at expanding the hours and
staffing at the Branch upon completion of the project to make it even more
accessible to the community.
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
February 21, 2002
PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.3t4t02
8e
DA
TO:
DATE:
FROM
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ROLL!NS RO
RESURFACING PROJECT - CP 8023(2)
D SKYLINE BOULEVARD
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council accept the Bayshore Highway, Rollins Road and Skyline
Boulevard Resurfacing Project by resolution in the amount of $1,413,791.
DISCUSSION: On June 18, 2001 the project was awarded to G. Bortolotto & Company in the amount of
$I,341,396. The construction was completed successfully for a total cost of $1,414,596. The increase of $73,200
is mainly due to quantity adjustrnents such as asphalt base repair and asphalt overlay. There were no change orders
issued for this project.
The City has received the necessary l0% maintenance bond and staff recommends acceptance at this time.
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Progress Payment
BUDGET IMPACT:
The following is a financial suflrmary of the project:
Expenditures: Funds Availabiliw:
Construction
Consultant Inspection
Engineering Administration
County of San Mateo
Total:
Staff will transfer the remaining funds to other resurfacing projects at a later time.
Donald T. Chang,
Senior Civil Engineer
(650) ss8-7230
c: City Clerk, Finance, G. Bortolotto & Company
$1,413,781$ 45,800
$ 46,t2t$ 19.298
$1,525,000
Streets CIP Budget
Total:
$1.830.000
$1,930,000
S:\A Public Works Directory\Sraff Reports\8023(2)accept.wpd
RESOI,I ON NO.
A D
SKYLINE BOULEVARD RESURFACING PROJECT
BY G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council
does hereby find, order and determine as follows:
1. The Director of public works of said city has certified the work done by G.
BoRToLorTo & coMPANYunder the terms of its contract with the city dated JUNE 1g, 2001, has
been completed in accordance with the plaru and specifications approved by the city council and to the
satisfaction of the Director of pubtic Works.
2. Said work is particularly described as Ciry projecr No. 8023(2).
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
Mayor
I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certit/ that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the city council held on the---.- day of
sY
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
,2002, aad was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
S:\A Public Works DiIc!!0ry\PROJECTS\PROJECTS\RESOLUIN.ACC.Wpd
City Clerk
CITY PROJECT NO. 8023(2)
G. BORTOI,OTTO I COUPANY. INC
580 BRAGATO ROAD
sAN CARIOS, CA. 940?0
TELEPHoNE: (650)-595-2591 FAX (650)-S95-O?18j*jr+*ftt*,r++1***ara*a**]***a+l{}*+J}ir*, +
ROI.TDIS RO,AD
r .4.C. Digout Repai!
: Conclete Base Ren@al
r Agglegat€ Base
: A.C. I€veling Course
: A.C. Ov€rlay
: A.C. Cold plane
: i{edge crinding
: Paving Reinforce Fabric
: Install Paving nepalr t{Enbrue
: Adjust Manholes
: Adjurt Valves, Monuents Lep-holes I Etc.: fraffic SignaL Loop Detecto! Syetil
: Tlrpe rAn C "Ay'i (pavem€nt Markers)
: Type "D", "ct! r Blue (pavsent llalkers)
:6$ Solid Lin6 -- paint
: 8!' So1i.d Line -- paint
: tlr! Solid Line -- paint
: 12" SoLid Line -- paint
: Parking Tees -- paint
: Lcgeads c .Arrils -- paint
: Hmdicap lJegends -- paint
llluN tnfi [a Erroutlor 0x rffit! E:
: ReB@e a RepLace A. C.
: Aggrogate Base
: R{ov€ Railrqd Track
: Concrete Sidowalk
: Concrete Curb ud cuttar
: Concrele Whe€lqhair Rup
: Conclete Valley Gutter
3
SKTLI}IE BLI'D
; -4.C. Dj.gout Repah
r Conc!6te Bas€ ReDwal
: Aggregat€ Base
: A.C. LeveLing Course
: A.C. Ovellay
: A.C, Cold plee
: 9ledge Grinding
: Paving Reinforce Fabric
: Install paving Repalr t{abrue
r Adjurt Manholos
:.ldjust Valves, t{oDuents Lmp-holes e Etc: Traffic Sj.gnal Loop Detecto! Syst@
: q.F)e "A" ( "Ay" (paven€nt Halkers)
: T)rfE rtD., .c,,( BJ,ue (pavilelt Malkers)
: 6" Solid LinB -- pai-nt
i 8'! Solid Line -- paint
; {" So1id Line -- paint
3 12i Solid Li-n6 -- paint
: Parking fees -- paint
: Legends I Arlds -- paint
: Hildicap Legends -- paint
C), BIXSHORE ALVD
1 : A.C. Digout nepair
CITY OF BURIINGAME
PROGRESS PAYMENT 5 (FTNAL)
STREEI RISURI'ACING PROGRAM.
RO',LINS RD. SKYLINE BLVD, BAYSHORE BLVD
*'******+*1'*rt * l**t**r*i*** + r*,+1* .t'-1.,11o.'i.TXo;--;##*-a--.-..r1* + l+*+***+*a** { }**r}}}+r***++
DATE:
rOR THE }IONTH OF:
PURO'ASE ORDER *
t
PAID
N.IOT'NT
TO DATE
PREVIOUS
PAID
February-19-02
DECEI.{BER
leou
ITE}I
*ITEI.,I DESCRIPTION
A).
I
2
{
6
1
I
9
1{
15
15
17
18
19
20
2l
22
24
25
26
50
300
1
800
0
B).
I,
{
6
1
I
q
1{
15
16
1?
18
19
20
2l
22
2l
26
UNI?
PRICE
BID : IrNIT :
QUANTITY : sIzE :
BID
.AMOUNT
I QUANTITY :
: TO DATE :
1**+1*11*+++r***
AI.'OUNT
THIS PI{T.
* * * + * * * I * ++ a { * * }
90. 00
s0. 00
90.00
$8{ - 00
920. 00
92 0. 00
s5 8. 00
957.5't
92.6't
91.35
90.89
90. ?s
929 0. 00
$170. 00
9500.00
91.50
92-25
90.{0
91.00
91. 00
$2-20
9{ 0. 00
92.50
9100. 00
s90.00
s2 0. 00
111.00
I 15. 00
9r 0. 00
$8{. 00
920. 00
133 :
20:
6,L01 t
1?,733:
1{,666:
41,600 z
2,138:
28 1
7il :
5:
t,284 |
!51:
3,500:
?5:
15:
600 :
1r
800:
TONS
c. Y.
TONS
TONS
roNs
s. Y.
s. Y.
L. F.
$11,166.12
9t 00. 00
9{62.t0
$66, ?90. { I
s351,566.1?
${7,347.11
919,?99.10
942, 364 . 00
92, 053. 50
$8,120.00
$12,580. 0 0
$3,000.00
96, t26.00
91, 01{ . ?5
91, { 00. 0o
9?5,00
975. 00
91,320.00
s{0.00
s2,000.00
9100.00
r32.9!'
0.00
23.72
1. 151.56
6,706.7 6
37 ,251 .00
2.5t4 -1 O
47,600.00
2, ?38. 00
28.00
?4.00
0. 00
3, 213. 00
33 8. 00
0. 00
0, 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
600.00
0. 00
100. 00t :
0,00t:
100. 00t :
100.00t:
100. 001 :
210,10i :
17. 15t :
sL!,166.t2
90.00
s452-r0
$56,790.{8
935r., 556. 17
$9 9, { 76. 19
$3,39{.85
s4 2,36{ , 00
92,053.50
98. 120. 00
I 12,580. 00
s0.00
94,819.50
s?50.50
90.00
s0. 00
90.00
s0. 00
$0. 00
9r, 500. 00
s0. 00
$11,166.12 :
s0. 00 :
9{52.i!0 :
966,790.t8 :
9351,566.1? :
999, {?5.19 :
93,394 . 85 :
9t2,36t.00 ;
92,053.50 :
98,120.00 :
912,580.00 :
90.00 :
9{,819.50 :
s760.50 :
90.00 :
90.00 :
$0.00
s0. 00
90.00
90.00
s0. 00
90.00
$0.00
s0. 00
90.00
90.00
90, 00
s0.00
$0.00
90.00
90.00
$0. 00
90.00
90. 00
$0.00
90. 00
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
EACH
L. F.
I. F.
L. F.
L. F.
EACH
EACII
1 00, 00t
100. 00t
1 00. 00t
100. 00t
0. 00t
?5.001
?4.9!r
0. 00t
0,00t
0.00t
0. 00t
0. 00t
75. 00r
0.00t
91,500.00
90.00arEEt EawrcIro toE s5?8,099.63 90.00
s0. 00s605.0s3-1t s605 053
1
3
I
5
6
1
s12,150.00
9{ 00. 00
921, 111. 00
s3, 000.00
94, 000. 00
91, 600. 00
$1, 700. 00
9{3,95L00
$t,2t0.80
9{ 00.00
921,111.00
90. 00
90.00
90. 00
s0.00
925, ?51. 80
90.00
90.00
90. 00
90,00
90. 00
90.00
$0.00
90. 00
s 1, 500. 00
st ?. 00
u:nm tEI tdE :
ROI.LNTS ROID IO1AT :9622.060.53 :s630.805.51 s630,805,51 s0,00
s20. 00
s58. 00
$s?. s?
92.61
91.35
s0.89
90.75
s290.00
91?0.00
9500. 00
91.50
s2.2s
90.110
st. 00
91. 00
92.20
94 0. 00
$2.50
$100.00
1?9.57t
11{.2{8
0. 00t
0. 001
0. 00s
75. 00t
0.00i
sr10.821.t6
90.00
912 t 12r.20
920,33t.28
$0. 00
90. 00
s5, 950. 00
90.00
I 6. ?50. 00
$?{{.is
90. 00
90.00
90.00
90.00
90. 00
91, 500. 00
90. 00
s0. 00
s0.00
90. 00
s0.00
s0. 00
90.00
s0.00
s0. 00
s0,00
90.00
90. 00
90,00
90.00
90.00
90.00
90. 00
$0.00
90. 00
90,00
90.00
90. 00
170 :
10;
272
3,316:
51 z
5.000:
20.000 t
20t
20t
6,000 :
142 .
1,000 :
TONS :
TONS ;
TONS :
?oNs :s.Y.:
s.Y. :
I.F.:
EACH :
EACH :
EACH :
B.AOI 3
EACII :
L.F.:
L.F.:
!. t. :
L.F.:
EACH :
s.F.:
EACH :
s1d,28s.88 :
9200.00 ;
9537.50 :
91,185.52 :
s190,915.9{ :
9152.19 :
96, 750. 00 :
917,600.00 :
556.25 :
s5,800.00 :
s3,t00.00 :
91,500.00 :
99,000.00 :
999{.50 :
srl00. 00 :
s50.00 :
950.00 :
9660.00 :
940.00 :
$2, 000- 00 :
90.00 :
15{.50
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
2,961.30
0. 00
8,978.6'l
22,8t1 .50
0. 00
0. 00
35. 00
0. 00
{,500.00
331. 00
0. 00
0, 00
0.00
0. 00
0.00
600.00
0.00
913, 818. 00
90.00
s0. 00
90, 00
$710,821 -16
90.00
9r2, r21,20
$20 .334.28
$0.00
$0.00
95,950,00
$0. 00
$6,750. o0
$?ll.?5
90.00
$0. 00
90. 00
90. 00
90.00
91, 500. 00
s0. 00
913,818.00 :96.72t
0. 00t
0. 00t
0. 00t
89.48t
0.00t
0. 00t
0. 00t
175. 00t
0. 00t
75.00t
?4 .89t
0. 00t
0. 00$
90, 00
$0. 00
90.00
SKTLINE BLVD TOTAT :
197! IONS: S16,5{8.00
Prge,E pryrnad
045.69 :
512.02 . 2?5.Ut : ${5,529.68 :
???. 88 s.69 :
s8{ .00
9{5,529.68 :
P.CE I
$0,00
135 r TONS :
20:C.Y.:
1:C.Y.:
200: S.F. :
100: S.F. :
1: EACH:
100: S.E. :
:
17.L2 z
20.00:
1.00 :
0.00:
0.00 :
0.00:
0.00 :
:!
31.901: ${,2t0.00 :
100.001 3 S{00.00 :100.001: 921,111.00 !0,001: 9O.OO i0.00i: 90.00 :0.00t: 90.00 :0.001: 90.00 :
: 925.751.80 :
G. BORTO]OTTO { CoTP.ANY. INC
580 BRAGATO ROAD
sAN CARIOS, CA. 9tO?O
TELEPHoNE: (650)-595-2591 FAx (650)_595_0718I + + + + + * * * r , + r * * * J + i * * + + * * * a * * * + + * * I a * * * ) + * * + ] l 1 + + * + i r i +
ITE}I :
* : IIEI,T DESCRIPTIoN
1** +r I * * Ji t * * * t 1* * t a * * t l a * * { } + 1* * * t, + * * * * a
CITY OF BURIINGN{E
PROGRESS PAYHENT 5 (FINAI.I
STREET RESURFAC]NG PROGRAM.
ROLIINS RD, SKYLINE BLVD, BAYSHORE BLVD
**a]*++a*+.+*ri * a*+r**a+**+0 * *+***+ ."rrT.,rr1111.,1l;_.;yfJ2r*.. **.i * **+j..r.++JJ'rr
DATE:
FOR THE MONTH OF:
PURCHASE ORDER *
February-l 9-02
DECEMBER
12611
UNIT3BID:UNI?:BID:oUAN?ITY
PRICB : QUANTITY : SIZE : N{Ot}tT r To DATE1****+******+1* + 1+**1**f .*++ * ++*l+* , **t+*a.***+**
: PREVIOUS
: PAID
* 1+*****{1*+*r}r*
: .AUOUNT
: rHIS PI,T.
* i*.1i*ia.a+**+a+
s0. 00
90. 00
s3 1 8, 189. 39
9'11.82r.69
93, 095. 00
$39, ?98. 13
s78?. s0
sl , 060. 00
913, 600. 00
s35, 500. 00
99, 159.50
s{ , 567.50
s0. 00
s0. 00
s0.00
90.00
90. 00
92,625.00
90.00
PAID
A{OI'NT
TO DATE
920. 00
$20. o0
9s8. 00
957 .5?
92.67
s1.35
2
3
4
5
6
'l
I
9
1{
15
16
L7
18
10
20
2L
22
2l
26
: Concrete Base Rehoval.
: Aggregate Bale
: A.C. Leveling Courle
: A.C. Or'erlay
: A. C. CoLd P.tane
; Hedge clinding
: Paving neinforce Fablic: Install paving Repai! t{eubrue
: Adjust Manholes
: Adjust Valves, Monuents 1.up-holes { Etc.: Tlaffic Signal L@p Detector Systen: Type nA" & "Ay" (pav€nenl ltarkels)I Type tD", "G' c Blue (pavem€nt llarkers): 6" Solid Lin€ -- paint
: 8" Solid line -- paint
: In Solid LiDe -- paint
: 12't Solid Line -- paint
: Parking fees -- paint
: Legends & Arrws -- paint
: Hudicap Legends -- palnt
CHANGE ORDERS:ORIGINAL BID
:::
:i:
: : CTiNGB ORDERSr *+*t+*+******t+ a ****+1*it*+t * **+****
DATE
0, 00
5,521.00
29,746 -10
2,293 -33
tt,'177 .00
x, 050. 00
90.89:
90.?5:
9290.00:
91?0.00 :
s500.00;
92.25:
$0.{0:
$1.00 ;
91.00:
92-20 :
${0.00:
92.50:
9100.00:
90.00
$0.00
90. 00
90.00
90.00
90.00
$0. 00
s0.00
90. 00
90, 00
s0.00
s0. 00
90.00
s0.00
90. 00
90. 00
90.00
90. 00
90.00
s0.00
20
50
oo
5,692
110
19,33{
50,500
3, X8?
22
26
7
8,151
2,1 o7
3,500
?5
73
600
1,400
1
C.Y.:
TONS t
TONS :
IONS r
s.Y. :
L. F. :
EACH :
EACH :
EACH I
EACH !
FAro .
L.F.:
L.F.:
L.P.:
],.F. t
EAC}I :s. F. :
EACII :
0.0s:
0.00 :
90,00
90. 00
$0.00
s318,189,39
917,821.69
93, 0 96, 00
s39. ?9 8. 13
9?87.50
9{,060.00
$13. 600. 00
935, 5 00. 00
99, 169.50
sr , s6?. s0
$0.00
s0. 00
s0.00
$0. 00
$0. 00
92, 62S. 00
$0. 00
s0.00
+ * J r ** +1* * * r * *+ + * +
0.009
0,00t
0. 00t
97. 10t
254 97. 00t
11.86t
101{.29t
75. 00t
?{ .99t
0.00t
0.00t
0. 00t
0.00t
0. 00t
?5. 00r
0. 00t
s1, { 17, 595. 58
0. 001 :90.00
1**J+***j.r*r,*
4t1 59s. 58
: 91,{17r595,58 ;
: (9141,759.56):
97,275 ,836.02
s10.81{.96
$7,265 ,027 -06
90. 00
88. ss*
32. 95t
63.6{t
307,69t
1{.00
80. 00
?1. 00
6,113.00
2, 03 0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
050. 00
0.00
BIXSEORE BLvD TOIAI ,
9o' 00
s1 .05
suBroTAr. * $1,3{1,395.05
LESS TEN PERCENT RETENTION
*+**+a+**++*
SUB?OTA! I{ITHOUT DEDUCTIONS
AI{OI.,NT DUE FRO}{ CONTRACTOR
. ++***t*****t .
. *.t**la*,*rr ! 91,{1?,595.58r ++*+*l***+*+ : $o.oo. *t++*ir***+. .
.*i+*ra*+1.*1: 91,117,595.59
co
co
PRBPARED BY: MohNed.Asfour
APPROVED BY
$0.00
**+ta*+*rt+.***
CI?Y ENGINEER:
APPROVED BY
COISULUTT:
Februarv-1 9-02
90. 00
$14 1,759.56
$1{1,759.56
($7,000.00) *
61{8,759.56
$3, 814 .96
?OTAL IHIS PERIOD
r ch@k ryr! for d-,-g.d ti!a, fr@ A\g. 22,2001 CLdr.* witttDld Slo,ooo foE Imh-li.t ito rork. Dcduct 83ooo for cut-b.ck dgDgcs @ Rotu.s Rd.
ProCB Paymait P.ga2
9{00.00 :
91,000.00 :
$5,10{.00 :
$32?,688.{4 :
s293,70 :
$26.100.90 i
9{!,9{5.00 :
92,390.25 :
96, 380, 00 :
9{, {20.00 :
s3,500.00 :
912,226.50 :
s6,090.75 :
91,d00.00 :
s75.00 :
$75. 00 :
91,320.00 t
$0. 00 :
93,500.00 :
9100.00 :
: s0.00
STAFF REPORT
ro: HONORABLE MAYOR AI{D CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 2112002
FRoM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager
650-558-7222
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 3-4-02
Bf
BY
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Signatories to City Checks and
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution.
BACKGROUND: With the hiring of the new financial services manager, the resolution required by the Bank
of America must be updated. This resolution accomplishes that purpose.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
C: Mary Asturias, Financial Services Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF'THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING SIGNATORIES TO CITY OF'BURLINGAME CHECKS AI\D DRAFTS
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHERIAS, the Bank of America requires the City to adopt a resolution in order to
allow City finds to be deposited with the Bank of America, and this Resolution is intended to
meet that requirement,
NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Funds of the City of Burlingame maybe deposited in the Bank of America subject to
the terms'of the signature card, rules of the Bank, including all amendments or additions thereto,
all applicable laws and regulations and practices of the Bank in force from time to time, and all
service charges now or hereafter established and allowed by law.
2. The following persons are hereby authorized to sign checks, drafts, or other orders for
and on behalf of the City; the signature of one of these persons shall be required for checks,
drafts, or other orders under five thousand and no/00 dollars ($5,000.00); the signature of two of
these persons shall be required for checks, drafts, or other orders offive thousand and no/00
dollars ($5,000.00) or more.
#s
#6
#7
#8
#t
#2
#3
#4
Chris H. Rogers
James M. Nantell
Rahn A. Becker
Ann T. Musso
Linda Freitas
MaryAsturias
Sharon L. JacksonElizabeth A. Whittemore
3. Each of these people is hereby authorized to endorse checks, drafts, and other orders
for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame for deposit, encashment, or otherwise, and the Bank
of America is hereby authorized to honor and pay on account any and all checks, drafts, or other
orders signed and/or endorsed herewith, or if presented unendorsed for deposit to this accountwith the Bank of America, to supply the required endorsement.
4. The City agrees that any sum at any time in this account with the Bank of America
shall be subject to right of offset for liabilities of the City of Burlingame to the Bank of America
to the extent legally permissible, and agrees further to pay the Bank of America on demand the
amount of overdrafts on this account and of Bank of America current schedule of account fees
and rates.
1
5. The Bank of America is authorized to hold all statements and vouchers until called for,
and if not called within thirty (30) days, the Bank of America is authorized to mail statements.
MAYOR
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the CityofBurlingame, do herebycertifythat the foregoing
resolution was intoduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held o., th" _duy of -
.2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERKa
z
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
February 25,2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the February 25, 2002, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at7:12 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioner Boju6s
III. MINUTES
staff Present: city Planner, Margaret Monroe; planner, catherine Keylon
The minutes of the February ll, 2002 meeting regular of the planning
commission were approved as mailed. The commission agreed to carry over
the approval of the February 19,2002 special meeting minutes to the next
Planning commission meeting to allow additional time for review.
IV. APPROVALOFAGENDAITem number 7, 1204 Cabrillo Avenue was continued until additional
information is provided to the Planning Department and can be reviewed by
staff the item may be on the March ll, 2OO2 calendar. The item will be
renoticed when it is scheduled for a commission meeting.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1409 ROLLINS ROAD - ZONED M.l - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND EXPAND RENTAL FLEET FOR AN
EXISTING AUTO RENTAL BUSINESS (XABIER BERRUETA, ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR,
APPLICANT; HONERLAN TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
KEYLON
Planner Keylon presented a sunmary of the staff report. Commissioners had the following questions and
comments:
o Noted that staff report states that the site is non-conforrning in landscaping, however the existing
landscaping on the site is not maintained, applicant needs to address how they propose to maintain
the existing landscaping ;
' Applicant is requesting approval for storage for 60 vehicles, what is the average per day;o How many trips are anticipated, provide trip counts for the a.m. and p.m. peak periods;o Going north on Rollins Road there is a double yellow line and it is dangerous to make a left tum into
the site, can the customers also use North carolan for ingress and egress;o There are designated customer and employee parking spaces, please label them and call out the
Iocations on the site plan;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2002
What percentage of customers use the free pick-up and drop-off service, how does this work for trip
generation at the site; and
This appears to be an appropriate use ofthis site, applicant can provide traffic information, no need
for full traffic study.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CINSIDERED To BE RIUTINE. THEY ARE
ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLYIINLESSSEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/ORACTION IS REQUNTED BYTHEAPPLICANT,
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PNOR TO THE T]ME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION
TO ADOPT.
Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item offthe
consent calendar. Commissioner had a question about the proposed item.
2.11OO BURLINGAME AVENUE _ ZONED C.1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO
EXTEND THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND INCREASE THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (ROBERT
SANDERS, LEFT AT ALBUQUERQUE, APPLICANT; NATFIAN SCHMIDT, PROPERTY o WNER) (32
NOTICED)PI,ANNER: RI JBEN HI]RIN
Commission asked if the Police Chief had looked at this request since it does involve late night hours and
alcohol sales. CP Monroe explained that this request had been reviewed by the Police Department as a part
of a recent amusement permit request to extend the hours and have live entertainment on for this site- At
that time the Planning Department identified the need for the applicant to amend the use permit for the site,
resulting in this application. There were no other questions on the item.
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with the conditions in the staff report and by resolution.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-l
(C. Boju6s absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3.1225 CABRILLO AVENUE _ ZONED R-I - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
GARAGE SIZE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE LENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (BRET BOTTARINI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY owNER) (63
NOTI PROJECT PI,A RI]REN HI IR
Reference staff report,02.25.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Brett and Sue Bottarini, property owners, were available to
answer questions' Commission had the following comments and questions for the applicant: where is the
2
a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Februory 25, 2002
boat currently stored; commission expressed concern with the plate height of the proposed garage and asked
the applicantif a9 foot plate height was necessary; how tall is the boat; is it necessary to have l2 foot wide
door; and is there going to be new paving in the driveway. Applicant stated that the boat is currently parked
in the driveway behind the gate, and explained that the boat is7'-4" tall and there is about I foot between the
garage door track and the roof of the garage,would like to have room to be able to get into the boat when it
is inside the garage for maintenance. Need to have 9 foot wide garage door to allow access for boat and
trailer width (trailer is more than 8 feet wide), did not think two different sized doors would look
aesthetically pleasing so put two wider doors in. There is currently a problem with storm water drainage on
site, so at some point they plan on doing new paving in the driveway to level off and correct the drainage
problem. Do not think they will do it at this time. There were no further comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: 9 foot plate height is too tall, dropping it down to 8'-6" would help reduce the bulk
of this structure; can see the need for height within the garage to allow for maintenance, but will be difficult
to do maintenance inside the garage whether there is 2 footclearance or 18 inches clearance; compliment
owners for getting boat out of the driveway.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: l)
that the accessory structure shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped January 30,2002, Site Plans, Building Elevations, Window and Door Detail, Electrical and
Plumbing Plan, with a maximum overall height of l4'-10" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge; 2)
that the accessory structure shall never be used for accessory living, sleeping, or recreational purposesi shall
never include a kitchen, and shall not include a toilet or shower without an amendment to this conditional
use permit; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's January 14, 2002 memo, and the Recycling
Specialist's January l4,2002,memo shall be met; 4) that the plate height of the accessory structure shall be
reduced To 8'-6" as measured from adjacent grade; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of
the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Buringame. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: depth and area of accessory structure are necessaryto store boat and vehicles off
of the street; reducing the plate height ofthe building would reduce the mass and bulk ofthe structure; note
that the applicant has stated that the concrete work at the driveway would not be done immediately and
should be removed from the plans.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the garage as amended with the
reduction in plate height. The motion passed on a 6-0-l (C. Bojuds absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at7:39 p.m.
1436 DRAKE AVENUE . ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT; DANIEL STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERIKA LE
Reference staffreport ,02.25.02, with auachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff if it was
possible to encourage the City to replace the street tree in front of this property, it is out of scale with the
house and the proposed landscaping. Staff noted that they could speak withthsCity Arborist and see what
the policy was and whether this area was scheduled for tree replacement, and report back to the commission.
aJ
4.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25,2002
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Dan Strambi, property owner, and Alan Olin, architect, were
present and were available for questions. Mr. Strambi noted that after looking around the neighborhood, he
picked the (craftsman) style of his house because it picked up components of existing houses and
complimented the neighborhood. Commissioner noted that there is a lot of second story roof exposure on
the sides of the house and not a lot of second story fagade exposed in order to reduce size ofthe house from
the street. Attempted to address the Commission concems from the last meeting, and have eliminated the
need for a special permit, and now the roof works better and the mass is reduced with a better roof pitch,
thanks to the Commission. Right now landscaping is overgrown, new landscaping planned will enhance the
house. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: l) that the
project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submiued to the Planning Department date stamped
February 15,2002, sheets I through 5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area ofthe building shall
require and amendment to this permit;2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or
second floors, 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 design ..rG*; 3) that the
conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist,s
January 7,2002, memos shall be me! 4) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and
construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 5) that the project shall meet all
the requirements ofthe Califomia Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended bythe
City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on the motion: Commission thanked the applicant for acknowledging the value of Commission
guidance on the project; lowering the height of the structure helps reduce the bulk; good job.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-l (C. Boju6s
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52p.m.
17 CHAIINING ROAD - ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ATANACIO RODRIGIJEZ,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;
Reference staffreport,02.25.02,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There *"re rro questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Atanacio Rodriguez, property owner, stated that as requested
by the Commission, a landscape plan was submitted. There were no further comments from the floor and
the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: l) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Departmerridut" stamped December
18, 2001, sheets Al and A2,date stamped January l8,20o2,sheet A.3 and date stamped February g,2002,
sheet L-1, with the entire exterior to be covered in stucco and all windows for the existing house and
proposed addition to have divided lights, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area ofihe building
shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the Building Department shall not schedule a final
inspection for the project until a 24-inchbox size Magnoli4 a 24-inch box size Raywood and three l5-gallon
Maytenus Boaria are planted in the front yard, and one 15-gallon Maytenus Boaria is planted in the reai 5'-0"
4
5
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25,2002
setback to screen the addition to the house; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope ofthe basement, first
or second floors, 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 design review; 4) that the
conditions of the Fire Marshal's October 30, 2001 memo, and the CityEngineer's, Chief Building Offrcial's,
and Recycling Specialist's November 5, 2001 memos shall be met; 5) that the project shall comply with the
proposed demolition and construction recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 6) that
the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998
edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: landscape architect responded well to the Commissions reques! like the condition
added by Staff that the Building Department hold off on final inspection until after the trees are planted.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-l (C.
Bojuds absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:57 p.m.
120 COSTA RICA AVENUE _ ZOIIED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
TO AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT;TROY AND TRACY OTUS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER:CATHERINE KEYLON
Reference staff report ,02.25.02, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, architect, and Tracy and Troy Otus, property
owners, were present. They stated that the approved windows in the master bedroom and bathroom were
installed and they realizedthat the windows aligned with those oftheir neighbors about five feet away and
there was a privacy issue for not just them but also their neighbors. There is a non-conforming side setback
with only 5 feet between the properties, so reducing the window size seemed to be the best solution,
particularly in the master bedroom. This meant a change to the front window to provide a required egress
window, the front elevation does not change, only the window changes for egress. Commission asked how
this project ended up back with them, applicants explained that the building inspector notified them that the
changes would have to go back to the Planning Commission. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: l) thatthe project
shall be built as shown on the original plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 2,
2001, Sheetl, and Sheet 3-8, and Sheet 2,datestampedFebruary 15,2001, siteplan, floorplansandbuilding
elevations, approved by the Planning Commission on February 26,2001,as modified by the plans submitted
to the Planning Department date stamped February' 4,2002, Sheet l, 3 and 6, , includin g a) removing a two
panel, double hung window tn the first floor master bedroom, on the south elevation; b) changing a three
panel, double hung mullioned window to a three panel awning window to preserve privacy in the master
bathroom; and c) changing the 4'0 x 4'2 glass window on the front elevation on the first floor, master
bedroom, from a fixed window to a casement window (same size) in order to meet emergency egress
requirements;2)thatthe conditions ofthe City Engineer's and ChiefBuilding Offrcial's December 18,2000
memos shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or
envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the
structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall
be subject to design review; 4) that the basement area.4ower level of the house with a 7'-0" ceiling height
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25,2002
shall never be finished or converted to living area of any type. The unimproved area shall be walled offfrom
the habitable basement area and shall be accessed through a door no larger than 5' x 3' whose design meets
all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes for separation between two occupancies,
living and storage; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Comment on the motion: the applicant did a lot of work on this project the first time through the design
review process; this is a gem of a house with a nice design; the addition really does fit in with the
architecture on the block; good job.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review amendment to alter
the windows as requested. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Boju6s absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m.
7 1204 CABRILLO AVENUE _ ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
AND REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE MLSON, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR.,INC., DESIGNER)(6I NOTrCED)
PROJECT CATHERTNE YLON
8.
This item was continued until the applicant submitts additional required information requested by the
Planning Department, staff reviewed the information and public notice will be sent.
ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR BUILDING SIZE IN BURLINGAME AVENUE AND
BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS, NEW CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BURLINGAME
AVENUE COMMERCTAL AREA, AND CHANGE TO ZONINGACTION EXPIRATION (NOICEDBY
NEWSPA PROJECT PI,ANNER : MEG MONRO E
Reference staff report,02.25.02,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed the proposed
code changes and changes suggested by the Comrnissionat study.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the public on this item and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission comments and discussion noted
Code does not currently have a square footage Iimitation on permitted uses, fear that by adding
language regarding square footage limits on conditional uses will create an ambiguity in the code. if a
permitted use goes in, but it is over the maximum square footage allowed, would it need review?
The code changefor size would only apply to new buildings with afirstJloor gross squarefootage of
6,000 SF or more in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area and 5,000 gross squarefeet or more in
the Broadway Commercial Areo. Any new building more than these squari Tootogrt would be
required to applyfor a conditional use permit, regardless of the use. A new buildtng iould also be
required to go through the Commercial Destgn Review process. No ombiguity is created because the
purpose of conditional uses is to identify the uses which, with review, can be allowed in the zone. This
requirement applies to new construction only, not a change in tenant or use in an existing building.
a
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2002
Concerned with limiting semi-private group classes to 6 people with retail component, especially in
areas below the first floor, where the only concern is parking; are we micro-managing businesses; in
Pilates case there are only a few people in each class and there is no real impact on parking; does 3
people per class include the instructor.
A group instruction use in Subareas A and B and on Broadwoy now requires a conditional use permit
and must be incidental to retail activity (not mare than 25% of the business revenue). Ifwe identified
Health and Beauty Spas as a personal service retail use and allowed spa that wished to have group
tnstruction to applyfor a conditional use permit tt would clarify the definitton. Presently the definition
as written exempts Health and Beauty Spas from conformtng to the definition of group instruction.
This could create a code administration problem in the future. But toking the exemption out would
eliminate yoga class, for example, as a Health and Beauty Spa personal seryice use, since yoga is
primarily a group activity not incidental to a primary retail use.
Notice that health and beauty spa definition states that there should be a retail sales component which
includes "substantial" taxable sales, why is this not included as part of the definition for graphic arts
and design business?
o
o
City Council looked at the definition of a graphtc arts and design retoil business and determined that
these businesses already pay a substantial tm. Their concern in defining Graphic Arts and Design
Businesses as retail was focused on these businesses hoving a retail appearonce on the streetfrontage.
Commission noted that to be determined to be retail the Graphics Arts and Design Business would
havetohaveatleast25%oftheareaofthefirstfloornotonlyvisiblefromthestreetbutalso devoted
to retail sales.
Do not agree with changing Planning Commission approvals to two years without extension; if
someone is serious about a project one year is enough time for an applicant to get building permit
issued; should keep one year approval with option of one year extension.
Agree with need for two year approval, some projects are very complex and need that time to put the
project together for submittal.
To clariff the recommendations to Council, the action on the zoning amendment recommendations
were split up and three separate votes were taken.
Health and Beauty Spa definitionL/class size
Chairman Vistica moved to recommend the zoning code amendment to City Council, to allow establish a new
personal service use, Health and Beauty Spa, as a pedestrian oriented use below the first floor only in Subarea A
of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, and when the business has substantial retail taxable sales and a
business need for group instruction require an accompanying conditional use permit for a group instruction.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
7
, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2002
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to City Council addition of a new personal
service use, Health and Beauty Spa, which could include group instruction with a conditional use permit. The
motion passed on a 6-0-l (C. Boju6s absent) voice vote.
Planning Approval Term
Chairman Vistica moved to recommend to City Council that the provisions for extending planning commission
actions as presently defined in the zoning code remain unchanged and that the Planning Commission approval term
of one year, with the applicant option of requesting a one year extension be retained. The motion was seconded by
C. Keighran.
Chairman Vistica called for a roll call on the motion to recommend to City Council that the provisions for extending
planning commission actions as presently defined in the zoningcode remain unchanged. The motion passed on a 5-
1-1 (C. Auran dissenting, C. Bojuds absent) voice vote.
Building Footprint in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and the Broadway Commercial Area
Chairman Vistica moved to recommend the zoning code amendment to City Council to require a conditional use
permit for any new structure in Sub Areas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area which has a first
floor gross floor area of 6,000 SF or more and require a conditional use permit for any new structure in the
Broadway Commercial Area which has a first floor a gross square footage of 5,000 SF or more. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the zoning code amendment requiring a
conditional use permit for buildings over a given size in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadwaycommercial areas to
City Council. The motion passed on a 6-0-l (C. Boju6s absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 8:38 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REYIEW STUDY ITEMS
1236 PALOMA AYENUE _ ZONED R-l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ASHLEY MCNEELY AND
ELISA ODABASHIAN, PROPERTY OWNERS (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
KEYLON
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Elisa Odabashian, property owner, 1236 Paloma Avenue,
and Jerry Deal, project designer,1226 Paloma Avenue, were present. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns to be addressed by applicant and noted on the
plans:
Noted that on the special permit application for declining height envelope, the applicant comments
that the ordinance allows encroachment into the envelope where appropriate to retain the
architectural character of a structure, where is this in the ordinance;
9.
o
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2002
Plans indicate that the eave dimension will match existing, the dimension for the existing eave and
proposed eave should be shown on the plan;
o Difficult to add a second story to this style house, why did you choose to have an 8'-4" plate height?;. Applicant should provide a planting plan for trees which will screen the second story, show species
and size at maturity, as well as location on site;
a
a
Are there cathedral ceilings inside; and
What type of windows are proposed.
Commission discussion: second story adds height, would like to see landscape plan with plants that can
screen the taller portion of the structure; design is fine, understand the 8'-4" plate height; difficult to add to
this type of house, applicant seems to be cheating a bit by reducing lot coverage with deck and rebuilding
with a portion of the new deck under 30" so it will not count toward lot coverage; nice to see a project that is
not at the maximum limits of the code.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the issues noted have been
addressed by the applicant. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed and staff had reviewed the information. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-l
(C. Boju6s absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded
at 8:53 p.m.
10. 834 WALNUT AVENUE - ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (scoTTAND
LESLIE urITH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS, JERRY DEAL, JD &ASSOCIATES,(7I NOTICED)RUBEN HURIN
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Scott and Leslie With, property owners, 834 Walnut Avenue,
and Jerry Deal, project designer,1226 Paloma Avenue, were present. There were no other comments from
the floor and the public hearing was closed.
The Commission had the following comments and concerns:
' Inconsistent roof pitch; main roofpitch at center is steep l2ll2pitch, not a flat craftsman style pitch;
everything else on the roof has a 5ll2 pitch; main pitch is competing with others;
o Roof is odd; all parallel lines;
o Could roof be simplified over the porch; west elevation, steep pitch, l2llL, comes down over
existing 5ll2 pitch on porch roof can that pitch break over the existing lower peak;
9
a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25,2002
This steep pitch is on the side of the housg and will not be as prominent as it appears on plan; have
seen a similar design and it looks o.k.;
Roof plan has not been provided, would help to give a better understanding of the roof and sense of
the pitch; and
Would also like to see landscape plan, looking for added large scale trees that will grow to two-
stories in height, add at the rear and also the front, should visually make a statement.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the issues noted have been
addressed on the plans and a landscape plan has been prepared and submitted. The motion was seconded
by C. Auran.
Comment on motion: design is fine, nice articulation and detailing; not in favor ofthe motion, concerned
with steep roof it is very prominent, think that the applicant can address the style concem with something
better, stylistic issue; this project should not go right to the consent calendar, should go to regular action so
there will be a chance to review revisions and comment; is there a benefit to having this project go to a
design reviewer.
The maker of the motion agreed to amended the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar
when the roof pitch has been addresses and a landscape plan and a roof plan have been submitted and plan
checked by the Planning Department. The second agreed to the amended the motion.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-l (C. Boju6s absent). The Planning
Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
X. PLANNERREPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of February 20,2002.+
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 20,2002
Discussion of Tree Handout
CP Monroe noted that the handout provided includes the City approved street tree list along with a
list of pest resistant trees, provided by the STOPPP (San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention
Program). Commission noted that it would be useful to applicants to identiff which were medium
and large scale trees on this list. Also the list includes site locations of example trees in the City so
applicants could get a good idea of the size and appearance before they made a selection. These lists
are guides only, and do not limit the applicant. Project at 1436 Drake raises the issue whether the
commission can required that a street tree be replaced. Could staffcheck the policy with the City
Arborist and report back to Commission.
Discussion of STOPPP (San Mateo Countywide Pollution Prevention Program) Presentation
Handout
CP Monroe noted that there are a lot of changes that were recently made to the Santa Clara County
stormwater discharge permit, and that based upon what has been said by the regulatory agency, San
Mateo County is anticipating the similar changes to our requirements in the next two years. The
l0
a
a
o
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 25, 2002
STOPPP program is working to educate Commissioners and Council members about crrrent
requirements and potential changes. The presentationprovided gives an overview ofthe STOPPP
program and some of these anticipated changes. As a result of these changes, the Planning
Commission will see more standard conditions of approval attached to projects that could affect
storm water. Please look over the materials, staff will be happy to follow up on any questions you
might have.
Commission inquired about the reason for the continuance of 1204 Cabrillo Avenue.
CP Monroe explained that after the item had been set for and noticed for tonight's meeting, staff
received additional information which indicated that there may have been other changes to the
project that were not included in the noticed for this hearing. The site was red tagged and item was
continued until all the changes to the building could be documented for review and Commission
action. Staffanticipates that the applicant will try to have the necessary information to staff for the
next Planning Commission meeting. The item will be set on a subsequent agenda and renoticed
when staff has received and reviewed all the information requested.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjoumed the meeting at9:28 p.m.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Ann Keighran, Acting Secretary
TJNAPPROVEDMINUTES2 25
ll
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the February 19,2002, meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at7:40 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Boju6s, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioner Keele
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, City Attorne y, I-arry
Anderson, Planning Staff Catherine Keylon, Erika Lewit, Ruben Hurin.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. STUDY SESSION
l. Planning Commission Rules, Procedures and Process
CA Anderson reviewed the highlights of his memos on the Brown Act and Political Reform Act as they
apply to the Planning Commission. The discussion was general and included experience and practical
application of some of the guidelines.
Commissioners noted that it would be more time efficient for the chair to note at the beginning ofeach item
after the staffreport, for the record, that all the commissioners had made a site visit. Commissioners who
had not visited the site could indicate so at that time. Commission felt that the public was not always aware
of the fact that a part of their individual review includes a site visit. The commission also discussed when
under the Brown ,a ct they could employ the three minute rule for those testiffing. Concem was expressed
that rigorous, continuous use of this tool might be "offputting" for the public. It was also noted thai part of
the Commission's role was to give people a hearing before an item went to City Council. No rol" *at
adopted. The Chair will discuss the need to employ the three minute rule with staff when he reviews the
agenda before each meeting and he can make a decision at that time. The testimony time issue really
becomes an issue when the agenda is long and complicated.
Commissioners asked if staff could be even more clear at the counter about the fact that variances must be
based on physical hardships on the property; the personal desire for a larger bath tub does notjustifi such an
exception to the regulations. Staff noted that there are annotations which clarifi the intent of the required
findings on the back of the Variance Application forms; staff will review them and see if it can be made
clearer that the exception must be based on a physical hardship. Commission suggested that we might
consider altering the order of the questions on the handout and put the physicat hards6ip one first.
(Jnapproved minutes - Special Meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission February 19,2002
2. PlanningCommissionCommunications
CP Monroe handed out a copy ofthe staffreport format and discussed with the Commissioners the purpose
of the various sections. The commission reviewed briefly how they use the staffreport. It was noted that on
some occasions the project which goes forward to the city council is not the same one that the Commission
reviewed; on one occasion the "new" project was one which would have been acceptable to the
commissioner and that concern was not in the record because the revised project had not been reviewed by
the Planning Commission. Staff noted that it is required that the same project go forward to the Council.
However, the applicant sometimes goes before the City Council and presents a different project; This
concerns staff because the "new" project has not been reviewed for code compliance and because the
Commission's action (which is a recommendation to Council) does not have meaning if the project is
different. In the case of the applicant introducing a new project at City Council, stafftries to suggest to
Council that they deny the request without prejudice and send it back to the Planning Commission for further
action.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjoumed the meetingat9:25 p.m.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Joe Boju6s, Secretary
2
uNAPPRovEDMrNurps2. I 9
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 7.2002
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m.by
Chairperson Locke.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Locke, Commissioners Camey, Lauder, McGowan, and WebbStaff: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, City Arborist Porter, and
Administrative S ecretary Harvey
Absent: Commissioners Ellis and Hesselgren
Guests: Gary Blythe, Maria Cav4 and Gary Bucci
MINUTES - Minutes were approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter to Gary and Mary Blythe, 1360 Vancouver Drive, informing them that the appeal of the denial to
remove a protected Dawn Redwood tree at their address has been continued to the February 7ft Commission
meeting.
Letter to Eric and Jean Adler, 2111 Easton Drive, ffirming them that the appeal of the denial to remove a
protected Yew tree at their address has been continued to the February 7e Commission meeting.
Memorandum from City Attomey Anderson to All City Commissions and Boards regarding the Ralph M.
Brown Act.
F'ROM THE FLOOR
Burlingame resident Gary Bucci commented on the nature ofthe cyclone fencing on the Eastside of Califomra
Drive, South of Oak Grove; that, not only is it very unathactive and an invitation for graffiti artists, the large
equipment exiting from that site is a safety hazar.d. He also commented that when the City posts signs or
barricades from City sponsored work or events, signs and barricades should be removed in atimely --rr...
Superintendent Richmond stated that the fencing had been approved by the City Council at the request ofthe
Public Works Department, and Chairperson Locke noted that Mr. Bucci's comments could be directed to the
City Council and or the Public Works Department. At the request of the Commission, Superintendent
Richmond will obtain further information from the Director of Public Works regarding the itatus of the
ryclone fencing and item will be placed on the March 7ft agenda for further discussion.
OLD BUSINESS
ADpeaI of the Denial to Remove a Protected Dawn Redwood Tree @ 1360 Vancouver Avenue -
S uperintendent Richmond stated the Commission postponed the decision on this it"- ir, -d.r heu, .o-r*nts
from the City's Arborist and also requested applicants to submit an independent Arborist report. The request
to remove the protected tree was based on root damage to the driveway and debris from the tree cloggingroof
gutters and drains.
Arborist Porter stated the damage to the neighbors driveway is caused by the roots from the neighbors private
Camphor tree. If the property owner plans driveway replacement, the roots on the private Dawn Redwood
and the private Camphor tree can be cut without undue harm to either of the trees. Arborist Porter stated that
the Dawn Redwood is a healthy, beautiful tree and is approximately 35-40 years old and is only half way
through it's life cycle. Arborist Porter concluded that he denied removal of thii tree because root damage can
be mitigated and leaf litter and tree debris are not justifiable reasons based on the criteria used tJgrant
removal permits.
1
Anneal of the Denial to Remove a Protected Davrn Redwood Tree @ L360 Vancouver Avenue -
(Contd.) - Chairmen Locke opened the meeting, to hear from the applicant, Gary Blythe.
Mr. Blythe ( I 3 60 Vancouver) stated that comments he obtained from an independent arborist also concluded
that the Dawn Redwood tree's roots were not damaging the driveway and did not pose a threat to the existing
sffuctures or foundations. Mr. Blythe commented that he is trying to be a good neighbor; that the tree's leaf
litter is a nuisance for his neighbor, clogging the roof gutters and the drains. Mr. Blythe added that topping
the tree is not allowed and he does not believe trimming the tree would eliminate his neighbors conceffN.
Mr. Blythe concluded that he enjoys the privacy the tree provides, but if approval to remove the tree is
granted, he would replace with a more appropriate tree in the same area.
Maria Cava (1356 Vancouver) stated that the house belongs to her mother. She loves the tree but the small
needles that drop clog the roof gutters and grate; new gutters were installed costing $1,200; but the needles
continue to clog the gutters. She added that in the Winter, the drain in the front of the house clogs up with
tree debris causing witer to back up and flood th e garage, which serves as a play room for her children, noting
her children also }iave allergies and asthma. Mrs. Cava added that even though they have installed chicken
wire around the drain, and rake and clean constantly, the small needles still are able to clog the gutters and
drain. She concluded that she has agreed to share in the cost of removal as well as with replacement of
another tree in the same general area.
Chairperson Locke closed the discussion.
The Commission discussed the applicant's comments and directed questions to Arborist Porter.
Commissioner Lauder asked Arborist Porter if it is natural for a Dawn Redwood to lose leaves all year
around. Arborist Porter stated that the tree is deciduous but that some of the dead leaves remain on the tree
gntil the Spring When the tree leafs out, the remaining dead leaves fall off. Commissioner Webb asked
Arborist Porter the size the tree would reach at maturity. Arborist Porter stated that the tree could potentially
grow to 80' tall with a 40-60" diameter trunk. Commissioner Lauder asked Arborist Porter what type of
p.*.g he would recommend that would assist the neighbor wittr the leaf debris problem. Arbonst Porter
rtut"d that the South side of the tree could be headed back from 1356 Vancouver, as well as overall pnrning
of the tree. In addition, he added, a solid gutter protection piece could be placed over the roof gutters so the
leaves won't fall down into the roof gutter.
The Commission discussed with the applicant various options to mitigate the drainage problems. Following
the discussi on, Contmissioner Carnqt moved the appeal be denied bosed on the Arborist's contention that
pruning and heading back the tree would help to mitigate the nuisance factor caused hy the tree;
'seconiliil (McGowan). Motion carried3 - 1 (ahstention/Webb) - I (opposed/Locke) - 2 (absent/Ellis and
Hesselgren).
Chairperson Locke advised the applicant of appeal procedures.
Chairperson Locke asked that since Tamara Lewis was available, the order of the agenda be changed.
Sprine Garden Seminar - Saturday. March 23.2002 (9:30 - L1:30 a.m.) Speaker. Tamara.Lewi$ -
araLewisandexplainedthatMs.Lewisrequestedinputfromthe
Commission as she prepa.res for her presentation at the Spring Garden Seminar on Create a Wildlife Habitat
in Your Garden. fne Commlssion and Ms. Lewis discussed the main points of her presentation. The
Commission suggested she might include suggestions as to how to live in harmony with wildlife such as,
squirrels, gopherq moles, and roof rats. Commissioner McGowan thought this topic would be well received.
Chairperson Locke asked that Commissioner McGowan continue to Chair the rneeting because she needed
to leave for a previous engagement.
2
Anpeal of the Denial to Remove a Protected Yew Tree @ 2111 Easton Drive - Because there was no
longer a voting quorum, Acting Chair McGowan suggested action be postponed to ttre March 7ft
Commissioner meeting. Commission agreed. Applicants, who were not present, will be notified of the
postponement
Arbor Dav - March 7. 2002 - Washinqton Park (10:00 a.m.) - Superintendent Richmond stated this
years Arbor Day ceremony will be in WashinSon Park. Among several other trees to be planted by
students on that day, will be two memorial Redwood trees (to be planted in a small picnic area in memory
ofMillie Disco and Marianne Riddle). and a Copper Beech tree (to be planted where the large old Elm was
removed due to Dutch Elm disease).
REPORTS - Richmond -
l) Next months agenda will include an item for the discussion of evaluating appeals when conducting
site visits for protected tree removals relative to the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection ordinance.
2) A new paved path has been added to the Rose Garden in Washington Park; future plans include the
addition of a trellis.
3) The Spring street tree planting will be conducted in March; approximately 50 trees will be planted.
4) The new sod grass ffield at Washington Park is almost complete.
5) The Commissioner's dinner is scheduled for Friday, March22nd.
Lauder - Commissioner Lauder made arrangements for the dates to be changed on the Spring Garden
Seminar banner and scheduled the banner to be hung beginning March 5s.
Commissioner Lauder reported that she and Chairperson Locke met again with CalTrans representatives
(Peterson, Gonzales, and Elias) to discuss the I 01 interchange at Broadway. Willow trees and oleanders
have been planted; gazanias and ice plant will be planted before the end of the year. CalTrans has agreed
to arrange for litter pickup on the triangle once each month. According to Mike Peterson the interchange
reconstruction at 101 and Broadway will begin 2006. Acting Chair McGowan thanked Commissioners
Lauder and Locke for their tenacity in seeing this project to completion.
Commissioner Lauder, reporting for Chairperson Locke, noted that the Golden Chordsmen have finally
obtained a permit from CalTrans to adopt the northem end of the eastside of El Camino Real to conduct
litter cleanup.
Webb - Commissioner Webb stated he saw some standing water at the 101 interchange at Broadway; it
appears some grading and drainage may be needed; he suggested perhaps placing stones to assist with
drainage might also create a dry river bed look.
McGowan - Reported that a lot of litter has been left to accumulate on Burlingame Avenue and in the
parking lots. Stench and overflowing trash cans behind the Burlingame Hotel are particularly bad.
Commissioner McGowan will contact the Public Works Department.
There being no further business, Acting Chair McGowan adjoumed the meeting at 7:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Karlene Harvey
Recordrng Secretary
J
MEETING MII\ruTES
Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission
Thursday, February 21, 2002
The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by
Chairman Ed Larios at7:0a p.m. in Conference Room "A" atBurlingame City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:Dittmaq Erickson, Heathcote, Larios, Minderman, Muller;
Youth Commissioners Martindale and Warden
Commissioners Absent: Kahn, Lawson
Staff Present:Director Schwartz
Others Present:None
MITIUTES
Minutes of the January 17, 2002 regular meetings of the Commission were approved as
submitted.
OLD BUSITI-ESS
+ Cgmmunitv. ReqreF-tion Facilities Update. Director Schwartz reported that theCommunity Recreation Facilities Report will be on the Clty Council's March 4,2002 agenda.At that time, the Council may decide whether or not to turn the concept recommended 6y theCitizen's Committee and the Commission into a project. That project would then be placld intle Ci.tV's Capital Improvement Project plan-anO nrnaing^opions would be examined.
Commissioner Heathcote stated that, if the concept is approvEd, many items, such as property
acquisitior4 studies, plans, etc. could be done before construction funds are needed. C-hairmanLarios noted that the Council may also have to decide whether or not to fund the repairs
necessary to the current Recreation Center.
P_ . youth Advisory Commissioners
Martindale and Warden reported that (l) the YAC will be attending a ropes course in March as a
team building exercise, (2) plans are still underway to conduct a trign school concert, (3) the new
teen room at the Recreation Center will be ready in April and (4) that.members olneighboringYAC's will be invited to the Burlingame YAC meeting on tviaich 9e to share idea.. t uriol
asked if the best band at the concert could play at on" oi the City's Music in the park concerts.
Schwartz stated that the bands for the concert series have already been booked, but that anadditional concert could be added at the end of the series.
9 - Se.nior.Resources Handbook Schwartz read a portion of an email from Commissioner
5uh" stating that she has collected the changes for the upcoming Senior Resources Handbook.
Commissioner Dittman said that she is willing to make the correct'ions and post the Handbook onthe Parks & Recreation Department,s website.
Parls & Recreation Commission
Thursday, June 21,2001 - page2
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no cornments from the public.
I{EW BUSIIYESS
None
REPORTS
A. Capital Improvement Project Status - Director Schwartz reported the following:
1. Trenton Tot Lot. The project is complete and the Dedication Ceremony is scheduled for
10:00am on Thursday, March 21.,2A02. Invitations will be out in the next week.
2. Washington Park Ballfield Improvements.
.t The infield grass is in place and the construction fence should be removed in the next
couple ofdays.
{' The lighting project will begin tomorrow.
* BYBA wif 6e donating a new scoreboard. The Dedication of the renovated facility
will be held in April so all improvements can be in place-
3. Ray Park fmprovements.
* BGSL haJinstalled two scoreboards, a flag pole and a new snack shack patio. They
will hold offon plans to decrease the infield on diamond #1 until next year.
.t The restroom will be replaced after softball season. The work has been delayed due
to the need to relocate the building off an existing San Francisco Water easement.
* The tennis courts will be resurfaced within the next three months.
Parks and Recreation Division Report
* See attached.
t Schwartz asked the Commissioners if they would be interested in hosting a training
workshop for parks & recreation commissioners from San Francisco, San Mateo and
Santa Clira counties. The training would be facilitated at no cost by a representative
of the League of California Cities and would include sessions on the Brown Act,
working with council, the role of the commissioner, conflicts of interest, etc. The
commiisiorrrrc ugr..d to host the event which is tentatively scheduled for June ls.
* Mike Kornder, new Recreation Superintendent, began working for the City on
February 4,2042.
* Public Works will be repairing the sidewalks in front of Our Lady of Angels that
were damaged by City tree roots.
B
I
C
Parla & Recreation Commission
Thursday, June 21r 2001 - page 3
Commissioners
1. Commissioner Erickson asked if the problems at Pershing Park have been
resolved with balls flying over the neighbors fences. Schwartz reported that the
neighbor who brought the issue before the Commission has come in to the
Recreation Center to thank the City for the assistance.2. Erickson also noted that the Dog Exercise Park is well attended, that the I't
anniversary of the Park is coming up soon and suggested a special event be held.3. Commissioner Muller asked if any neighbors had complained about the lights of
the BHS football field being on for the 35+ soccer progam and if the women's
soccer league could be held on that field in the Fall instead of at lower Bayside.
Schwartz stated that there have been no complaints andthat staffwill look into
the availability of the field for the Fall season.4. Chairman Larios asked ifthe City is collecting the money from BHS football field
rentals. Schwartz explained that, per agreement for financing the synthetic grass,
the City schedules the field and collects the revenue from rentals. City and BHS
staff will meet in the next month to ensure that this new policy is being practiced.5. Larios asked how the afterschool recreation programs were doing. Schwartz
stated that the progrrlms are very popular, that the programs cost approximately
$83,000 more than they generate in revenue and that the Burlingame School
District is considering assessing a rental fee to the progam for classroom space.
Attached is a report on the City and District collaborations.
D. Recreation Division Revenue Report - see attached.
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday,
March 21,2002 at7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Larios adjourned the
meeting at8:24p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/t
Randy Schwartz
Director of Parks & Recreation
Date:
To:
From:
Re.
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7300 . fax: (650) 696-7216
recreation@burlin game. or g
MEMORANDUM
February 18,2002
Parks & Recreation Commissioners
City Council
Randy Schwwtz QQ
Monthly Report
Parks Division
l. Turfat Roosevelt School renovated and overseeded.
2. Landscape projects were completed including new landscape trees on Anza Blvd. across from the Golf
Center entrance, J lot planter box, a planting area in the rear of Washingon Park near the Rec Center, and
the Bird Sanctuary.
3. The turf infield project is near completion at Washington Park. Maintenance assistance (mostly minor
post game work) from field users will be necessary in order to keep the field in excellent condition.
4. A volunteer rotation program, through different crews, has been initiated by Parks Division employees in
order to update general skills.
5' The annual pesticide audit by the County Department of Agriculture was successfully completed and all
Division pesticide applicators have completed their annual training.
6. Soccer Center fleld has been overseeded. It will be available for play in March.
7. Overseeded section of Dog Park reopened. Germination was good but turf remains spotty. Anecdotal
evidence from users is that keeping the area open is more important to them than estabiishing and
sustaining lush turf
Recreation Division
1. New Recreation Superintendent Mike Kornder began work on February 4s.
2. Spring Registration 497 people registered for classes on the ls day of Spring Registration.
3. Teens Open Gym for middle school students: 60 participants, Van's Skate Park Trip: 1 1 participants
4. After School Enrichment began with 33 classes, 291 participants
5. Adult Art Classes 143 students enrolled in painting classes for the first session.
6. Preschool began? new preschool classes this semester, Pal-time for Tots and Wonderful Ones. Both
classes filled immediately and have been very well received by the parents and children.
7. Adult Sports 35+ Drop-in Soccer at BHS Stadium Field on Tuesday nights averaging 40 participants
8. Seniors Senior Computer class at BHS started this session with 15 seniors and 15 student volunteers
9. BIS - 230 students participated in 7ft and 8e grade basketball this season. Nineteen of twenty-three teams
finished first or second in their league, including nine championship banners.
Uncomine activities1. Teen Ski Trip to Bear Valley - February 23, Open Gym - BIS February 22
2. Seniors St .Francis Hotel Tour and Tea -Feb.27,l:45 pm
3. Special Events San Jose Sharks Night - Saturday March 9; Pac Bell Tour and Lunch - March 13
4. 6ft Grade BIS Basketbalt begins on February 19
5. Arbor Day Washington Park - March 7th
M
\-
U
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
CALIFORN|A 94010-3997
www.burlingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 14, 2002
Commissioners Present: Jim Mclver, Chair
Jim Evans, Vice Chair
Russ Cohen
Lisa De Angelis
Commissioners Absent: David Mayer
StaffPresent:
staff Absent:
Visitors:
Frank Erbacher, Assistant Director of Public Works
Homayoun Barekat, Traffic Engineer, public Works
Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, public Works
Officer Ken Tamura, Police Departrnent
Dawn Cutler, Traffic Sergeant, Police Deparhnent
Corine Kaddouz, 700 Peninsula Avenue, Burlingame
Mr. Kaddouz, 700 Peninsula Avenue, Btulingame
James Peters, 18 Bloomfield Road, Burlingame
\-
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday , February 14,2002
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. by Chair Mclver.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners were present.
4.1 ACTION ITEMS.
4.1.1 Minutes for January lo,2002, were submitted and approved after Mr. Erbacher advised
that Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall, marked as absent for January, is not a required staff
member so should not be counted as absent.
4.2 DISCUS$ON ITEMS.
4.2.1 lT lO Trousdale Drive - Blue Handicapped Zone in front of ramp
Mr. Erbacher sBted the petitioner is not present, and he has some questions for him. There are
18 parking spaces in the back which ale not all used; therefore, Mr. Erbacher questions the need
for a handicap zone in the front. This will be continued to next month'
4.2.2 lnstallauon of a Green Zone on Bloomfield Road north of Peninsula Avenue
Mr. Barekat advised that there is signage for No Parking between 8 and 6 alolg Penirsula
Avenue, plus a green zone three car lengths long at 700 Penhsula Avenue for Papillon
Preschool. This green zone contradicts the No Parking signage; therefore, tne !ts, plans to
remove the green zone especially since the street is not wide enough to safely park there' The
preschool oiner has asked for a green zone on the Bloomfield side of the school for picking up
and dropping off students. Four letters from neighbors were received opposing the green zone
on Bloomfield.
From the floor, the petitioner stated she agrees with the City in removal of the green zone on
Peninsula; however, with 85 clients (65 from Burlingame), she feels a green zone situated close
to the school is necessary between 7 and 10 a.m. and again berween 4 and 6 p.m. so the parents
can pick up and drop off th"ir children with relative ease, especially since some of the parents
frave two toOOle.s wittr supplies, diaper bags, etc. Du ng the day these three spaces would only
be used briefly by businesses on thi San Mateo side of Peninsula. A neighbor on Bloomfield
Road stated that the petitioner has nine spaces on her property and doesn't need a green zone'
The zone would remove three needed parking spaces for residents'
The CW of BudiDgame
?age 2
4. CI]RRENT BUSINESS.
5
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSTON
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, Februa ry 14,2002
Comm. Cohen suggested a cut into the landscaping on the Peninsula side to provide a turnout
for picking up the children. Staff will measure the area. Mr. Erbacher advised that this will be
an Action item next month; and in the meantime, the Commissioners will inspect the site.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS.
5.1 Petition from Bayswater & Howard residents requesting a traffic study of the area to determine
whether traffic-calming measures are warranted
Mr. Barekat advised that he and the petitioner performed a radar survey during off peak hours.
Officer Tamura submitted ,Selecrrlve Enlorcement results for last month. Sixieen citations were issued
forlhe Howard and Bayswater area. Mr. Erbacher stated that the petitioners will be noticed when the
Residential Traffic Cakning Program is submitted to Council foi approval.
5.2 Howard Avenue - Speed and Trucks (e-mail)
See Item 5. I .
5.3 3138 Rivera - Speed and Signage (e-mail)
Mr. Erbacher has not heard from this petitioner and requested its removal from the Agenda.
5.4 1300 Block of Vancouver Avenue - Speed Concerns (petition)
See Item 5.1 .
5.5 2415 Adeline Drive - Letter regarding Traffiic Concerns related to Sisters of Mercy Locale
6
Mr' Erbacher advised that when time permits, the Traffic Enginecr will perfonn speed counts. A
work order has been issued to install a new centerline and Botts dots.
5.6 l24O Paloma Avenue - Letter regarding Blue Handicapped Zone
Mr. Erbacher acknowledged this item which will be a Discussion item next month^
5.7 1100 carolan - ktter regarding maintaining existing 2-hour parking and adding 2-hour
parking along new curbing
Mr. Erbacher acknowledged this item which will be a Discussion item next month.
FROM TIIE FLOOR - No comments.
The CW of Budityame Page 3
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday , February 14,2002
7. INFORMATION ITEMS.
7. I From Staff to Commission
7 .1.2 Traffre Engineer's Report
Mr. Barekat advised that the RTCP has been an important project and is set for Council approval
either March 4'h or l8th. The Carmelita/California traffic signal project bid opening is set for
March 4s with construction to start in early April.
7.1.3 StaffAction Log
7.2 From Commission to Staff
7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests
7.2.1.1 comm. cohen stated that someone requested a traffic signal or stop sign at Grove
on California Drive since there is no stop sign until you reach Millbrae.
7.2.1.2 Mr. Erbacher advised he received an e-mail request for a mast arm sign at Oak
Grove and California Drive. If there is enough money from the Carmelita/California traffic .
signal project, the City will attempt to add this sign.
7.2.2 Comments and communication
Chair Mclver asked staff if the process for traffic requests could be streamlined. Mr. Erbacher
responded that items could be acted on in the second meeting if enough input is supplied to make
a decision. Also, we may need another month to notiry properties in the area s1 n ghange- If
possible, we will notice properties for the first meeting whenever possible'
1 .2.3 Expected absences of commissioners at the Thursday, February 14' 2m/2 meeting
Comm. Evans will miss next month's meeting due to his vacation'
INACTIVE ITEMS.
8.1 Request for traffic control on Dwight Road
Mr. Erbacher advised this is status quo-
8.2 Millbrae BART Station - Potential Impacs on City streets
8
The CW of Bulingame
Page 4
TRAFFIC, SAFEW AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, Februa ry 14,2002
8.3 Request for speed limit and truck weight limit enforcement, a traffic signal on Trousdale Drive
at Skyline Boulevard, sroP sign on Trousdale Drive at Loyola Drive and srop sign on
Trousdale at Quesada Way. Results of Traffic Data Gathering - Speed limiS
Officer Tamura submitted their Seleaive Enforcenant results which showed 44 citations issued and
11 warnings. Mr. Erbacher stated that perhaps in March, Trousdale will be ready for a new speed
check.
9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
4.2.1 Handicapped Zone ot Trousdale to Action ltem; staff will notice area
4.2.2 Greet Zone on Bloomfield to Action Item; staff will measure site and notice area5.6 Handicapped Zone on Paloma to Discussion Item; staff will notice area5.7 Parking on Carolan to Discussion Item; staff will notice area
10. ADJOURNMENT. 8:05 p.m.
The Cily of Budingdne Page 5
02 -]-2 - 02 MONTHLY
CITY
SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES
REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2OO2
PAGE: 1
Last
Current Year..
Act
YTD.
Prev
Act
YTD.Crime Classification
A11 Other Offenses
Anima1 Abuse
Animal Nuisance
Arson
Assists to Outside AgenciesBicycle Violations
Bigamy
Bomb Offense
Bomb Threat
Bribery
Check Offenses
Chi-ld Neglect /prox custody
Computer Crime
Conspiracy
Credit Card Offenses
Cruelty to Dependent Adul_t
Curfew and Loitering LawsDeath Investigation
Disorderly Conduct
Driver's License Violations
Driving Under the Influence
Drug Abuse Violations
Drug/Sex Registrants
Drunkeness
EmbezzlemenL
Escape
Extortion
False Pol1ce Reports
False Reports of EmergencyFish and Game Violatlons
Forgery and Counterfeiting
Found Property
Fraud
Gambling
Harrassing Phone Cal_IsHit and Run Accidents
Impersonation
Incest
Indecent Exposure
Intimidating a Witness
Ki-dnapping
Lewd Conduct
Li-quor Laws
Littering/Dumping
Marijuana Violations
Mental Health CasesMissing Person
Missing Property
Municipal Code ViolationsNarcoti-cs SaIes/Manufacture
Offenses Against Children
31 40
6
4
1
1"2
6
1
4
4
az
31
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Z
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
U
I
3
0
U
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
7
az
o
2
.)
0
0
3
0
U
U
I
1
+
6
3
4
4
0
I
z
40
0
n
2
0
0
0
n
0
1
4
0
0
Z
0
0
6
4
1
L2
6
0
5
1
U
U
0
0
n
1
az
U
0
3
0
0
0
0
o
0
o
1
0
3
5
1
10
z
0
0
2
o
3
a 5
1
2
7
2
2
2
1
a
3
3
1
1
4
6
3
4
4
1
I
3
5
I
10
z
02 -L2 - 02 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES
CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2002
PAGE: 2
Last
Current Year
Act
YTD
Prev
Act
YTD.Crime Classification.
Other Assaults
Other Juveni]e Offenses
Other Pol-ice Service
Pandering for immoral purposes
Parol-e Violations
Perj ury
Possessj-on of Burglary Tools
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Possession of obscene literature;picture
Probation Violations
Prostitution and Commercial Vice
ProwI ing
Resisting Arrest
Runaways (Under 18)
Sex Offenses
Sex Offenses against Children
Sodomy
Stalking
Statutory Rape
Stolen Property; Buying; Receiving; possess
Suspended License
Tax Evasion
Temp Restraining Orders
Terrorist Threats
Towed Vehicle
Trespassing
Truants/Incorrigible Juvs
US Maif Crimes
Vagrancy
Vandal ism
Vehicle Code Violations
Violation of Court OrderWarrants - Felony
Warrants - Misd
Weapons ; Carrying, Possessing
Welfare Fraud
8
z
10
18
t7
.]
z
l-0
U
n
0
0
0
0
n
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
3
4
42
2
0
0
U
15
4
a
0
4
0
0
1B
1
U
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
U
0
0
1
Z
0
6
1
3
0
1
U
3
3
1
11
1
2
3
4
42
2
2
4
6
1
43 4
1
224
2
)
)
3
15
4
2
0
4
aZ
0
2)
3
0
200 239 200 239
200 239 200 239
02-L2-02
Crime Classification. .
SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES
FOR: JANUARY, 2002
Last
Current Year..
PAGE: 1
NUL
YTD
Prev
Act
YTD.
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaught.er
Manslaughter by Negligence
Rape By Force
Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape
Robbery Firearm
Robbery Knife
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon
Robbery Strong-Arm
Assault - Firearm
Assault - Knife
Assault - Other Dangerous WeaponAssault - Hands, Fists, FeetAssault - Other (Simple)
Burglary - Forclbl-e Entry
Burglary - Unlawful Entry
Burglary - Attempted Forcible EntryLarceny Pocket-Picking
Larceny Purse-Snatching
Larceny Shoplifting
Larceny From Motor Vehicle
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessorj_esLarceny Bicycles
Larceny From Building
Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine
Larceny All Other
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus
Motor Vehicle Theft Other
1
6
B
2
B 7
0
0
0)
4)
1
42
1
2
L9
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
A
a
a
0
0
0
Z
10
9
4
3
2
L'7
I
0
0
2
3
Z
4
2
1
42
1
2
L9
1
.>
10
9
4
3)
L7
8
1B
L6
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
18
I6
1
81 ]-20 81 120
81 ]-20 B1 L20
02-L3-02
Crime Classification. . . . . .
MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITAT]ONS
CITY REPORT
FOR: JANUARY, 2002
Current
Last
Year.
PAGE: 1
Act
YTD
Prev
Act
YTD.
Parking Citations
Moving Citations 2 ,230
LB7
3,153
l-.74
2 ,230
LB7
3,153
114
2 ,4L7 3 ,32'7 2 ,4L7 3 ,32'7
2,4L7 3,327 2,4L7 3,32'/
Officer Productivity. . . .
Reported On: AI1 Officers
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
Officer:ID:
Valid
Cnt
BURL]NGAME
generated on 02/L3/ZOOZ at 01:09 56 PM
Report Range : 0L/ 01,/2002 to 0L/3r/2002
t All
VaIid
Voids
Cnt
% All
voLclEt Valid
t
DAZA-oUrROZ 534 455 2!.48 5 16 .22 98 .70
GARRETT 501 6!4 28.99 13 35.14 97 .93
JFOX 505 244 tt.52 2 5.4L 99.L9
KTRKPATRTCK s02 188 8.88 6 16 .22 96 .9L
MORAN 20r 6t7 29.13 10 27.03 98.4t
Total 2118 37
Page 1 of 1
The City of Burlingame
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94OIO-3997
TEL: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650) 696-3790
DATE: 218102
TO City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Meg Monroe, City Planner
RE:STOPPP Presentation
Attached please find a copy of the San Mateo Cormtywide Pollution Prevention Program (STOppp) presentation
titled "Community Development & Water Quality in San Mateo County". This presentation briehy explains
STOPPP and looks at ways to reduce the impacts of development on San Mateo County Watersheds. It also
includes information about the changes anticipated to our (San Mateo County's) permit based upon provision
C.3 of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's reissued permit thai was recently
adopted. The information includes an overview of what will be expected of us (Burlingame) under these new
provisions.
J
Community Development & water euality
In San Mateo Coun
New Development Subcommittee
Communify l)evelopment & Water euality
In San Mateo Coun ty
New Development Subcommittee
0'
Y
Community Development & Water
In San Mateo Coun
..!
Quality
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
Thank you for having me speali with you today. I am the cityltown/county,s liasion to the San Mateocountywide Stormrvater Potlution Prevention Program's Ne* o"r.lopr"nisubcommittee anJ ;ili;discussing how to reduce the impacts of development to the San Mateo County w.i.*t "o-,
'- " "' "-
First I will describe the probtems associated with urbanization, and the effecti these problems have in ourrvatersheds' Then I rvill introduce you to some solutions that are u"ing ur.Jio reduce the impacts fromdevelopment. Before I begin, horvever, I want to introduce you to tnJstope R.og.u*.
+*****Extra Text, in case someone asks..... -**!r**
The San Mateo countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention program was qreated in response toregulatory requirements originating from the 1987 amendments made to the federal clean water Act andthe san Francisco Bay Reg_ional water Quality control Boards r986 amendments to its water eualitycontrol Plan' The federal Clean water Act's i987 amendments require municipalities to effectivelyprohibit non-stormrvater discharges to municipal storm drain ryo..r -Jio i-rpl.r.nt controls toreduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. These federal clean water Act requirements areimplemented through NPDES permits required by the Regional Board,s 19g6 amendments to its WaterQuality control Plan due to the impact of stormwater pollutants on San Mateo county municipalities.
ln 1992 and 1993 sroPPP developed its comprehensive, area-wide, stormwater pollution prevention andcontrol program under the auspices of the CitylCounty Association of Governments and each of the 2lmunicipalities within san Mateo county. The initial Stormwater rttunug*.niplan included tasks,schedules, and parties responsible for implementation of tasks.
currently, the cib'/county Association of Governments oversees the implementation of the GeneralProgram aspects of the STOPPP. Each of sroPPP's member agencies is ,esponsiule for preventingstormwater pollution and implementing its local stormwater potlution preventiop and control activities.cornprised of rnunicipal staffrepresentatives in the fields. of Lngin.".iig, pi*riing, environmental health,wastervater treatment'source control inspection, and public worfs, tt
" r"""inicur Advisory Committeeprovides a forum for the dissemination of pertinent informati";6r;;; ilrornation.
February 2002
If Em lxlsm I5.37lplnComL202.ppt
i- ri.
SMSTOPP P : Planning Commissions Presentation
The abitity of the San Francisco Bay, wetlands, and creeks, to support aquatic
life depends on our ability to control changes to their watersheds.
February 2002
2
f:Em I xlSnr I 5.30\PlnCom0202.PPt
<i; -,
,,i
6t
Our Waterstreds,,.i '
SMSTOPPP : Planning Comm issions Presentation
watersheds, as defined here, are all the areas from the ridgetops on down thatcontain a network of streams and channels through which"rainwater flows as itnaturally drains to receiving waters such as the san F.rancisco Bay. Asrainwater falls on urban areas, it picks up debris and'other pollutants that resultfrom various urban activities. This urban runoff then flows to storm drains andditches as stormwater to be transported to creeks and stream s withouttreatment.
Slorm water is the primary source of polrutants to the San Francisco Bay,where a significant amount of runofffrom San Mateo county eventuallyenters' The western portion of San Mateo County drains directly to the pacific
Ocean.
(Bair Island, San Mateo County)
February 2002
j
f lSn I xlsm I 5.3|lptnComL202.ppt
Watersheds
S MSTOP P P : P lanning Commissions Presentation
Storm water pollution, of course, is not just a local problem. And so, in 1987
the federal government passed a mandate requiring the cleanup of storm water
pollution. it " s* Francisco Bay Area Regional water Quality control Board
implements the cleanup efforts in the Bay Area, and requires San Mateo
County to have a storm water pollution control program'
Therefore, the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Program, or STOPPP, was created as a jointly-funded countywide program
operated,by the City/County Association of Govemments, to meet the
'
Regional Board's municipal NPDES permit by reducing stormwater pollutant
discharges.
February 2002
4
What Is STOPPP?
. San Mateo Countywide Stormwater
,l
air
a
. Phase I
Prorgram
f:LSm I x\,Sm I 5. 3 OlP lnCom02 02.PPt
i:
SMSTOP PP : Planning Commissions Presentation
To meet this goal, STopFp's approach is to focus on finding and fixingproblems in creeks and wetlands-by involving citizens, businesses, anl aillevels of govemment.. This is a "watershed Management,, approach that iscurrently being advocated by the USEPA.
Robert Davidson is the General Program coordinator. Robert coordinates withstaff at all cities to implement all components of the program
February 2002
5
Why STOPPP?
:
r Goal: Protect
ll
f, lSm I xlstn I 5. i |lp tnC on02 02.ppt
,'
Febnrary 2002
Industrial-Commercial &
Illicit Discharge Controls
These components include industrial and illicit discharge controls such as
outreach to businesses and trash prevention programs;
a
This is an Integrated Pest Management outreach workshop being given to
nursery and hardware store employees that sell gardening supplies. (Part of
the IPM Partnership Program)
6
f: Em I xWm I 5. 3 0\P lnConfi 2 02 - PPt
&,w
-
@
6'%%
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
Municipal maintenance activities such as street sweeping and using BMps
during maintenance, such as this wash rack at the South San Francisco
Corporation Yard .
February 2A02
7
f l9n IxlSm t 5-3?lPlnCont1202.ppt
C
tIt
I
)
l*.
I
I
I
Municipal Maintenance Activities
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
watershed monitoring;
February 2002
a
8
f: \Sm I xWm I 5. 3 0lP lnCom0 2 02. PPt
Watershed Monitoring
a
SMSTOP P P : Planning Commissioru Presentation Februory 2002
V.
public information and participation;
Public Information and Particip
. :;.
I
hipJoor
9
f: lSm I xlsm I 5. 3 |lp lnComl2 02. ppt
'a
tfri
::.:
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
and new development controls. It is the new development component which is
the main focus of this talk todaY-
Februory 2002
New & Redevelopm ent Activities
f: Em I xlSm I 5. 3 OlP I nC omO 2 02. PPt l0
t
I
t
;11
-....:
SMSTOP P P : Planning Commissions Presentation
Describing the impacts of development on watersheds and water quality is as easy
as PIE' That is, "P" for the Pollutants released dtrring construction andthoughout
the life of the project, "I" for the increase in ImperviJus surfaces and runog1, Ina"E" for the Encroachment on riparian and wetland areas. I will use these initials-
P for pollutants, I for Impervious Surfaces, and E for'.Encroachment,,, throughout
my talk.
February 2002
Development & Watersheds:
. r:. ., -'
r P: Pollutants Rele.4sed
Construction
r f : Increase in Impervious Surfaces/Runo
r E: Encroachr,nent on Ripariarand
Wetland Habitat Areas
.:i
-oc[I
:.}
J
'l
During and After
f: lSm I xlSm I 5. 3 |lp t nC ont02 02.ppt II
SMSTOP P P : P lanning Commiss ions Presentation
The effects of development impacts from pollutants, increased
imperviousness, and encroachment are many. For example, siltation of
streambeds can cover6pawning areas, and make stream water toxic to fish or
to the insects they feed on. Some pollutants can impact wildlife habitat and
change stream flow.
Increased impervious surface means there is less ground area for the rainwater
to soak in. Therefore we see increased runoff and a resulting increase in peak
flows, stream scour, and bank erosion. Bank erosion then leads to pressures to
cover banks with stone or concrete, or to channelize creeks.
With developments encroaching on natural areas we see a loss of contiguous
habitat making it difficult for animals with larger ranges to survive. We also
see a reduction in cover, and nutrients which impacts most species. The loss
of cover raises in-stream temperafures. These effects result in a loss to both
the numbers and types of native plant and animal spgcies, or to the biodiversity
of the region.
February 2002
r P: Siltation in Streambeds, Increased Water
Toxicity Possible
r I: Higher Peak Flows, Stream Scour, Bank
lir E: Loss of Contiguous Habitat, Cover, Nritrientsf
l
1
Effects
Development & W atersheds:
f lSm I xlsm I 5. 3 0\P I nC omO 2 02. PPt
I2
SMSTOPP P : Planning Commiss ions Presentation
Metals: all urban sources
Nutrients: sediments, fertilizers, Iitter
Copper: Pool & spa water, brake pads
Mercury: sediments
Nickel: tailpipe emissions, sediment
(Optional)
(Sources in the San Mateo county watersheds that are related to new
development activities, as defined by the State water Resources control
Board)- (1998 list-can update once 200r list is finalized)
Diazinon: Residential pesticide Use,, mainly.
February 2002
Enrichment, :
ii
:1
f,Em IxlSm I 5.3|lplnConrL202.ppt
I3
of Concern
ttir
a.
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
Pollutants may include soil sediment, paint, litter, cement slurry, pesticides &
herbicides and others.
Sediments can carry metals, nutrients, mercury, and nickel to waterways.
February 2002
. Soil Tracking
. Pesticides
. Paint ,
. Cement Slurry
. Litter
ls. .! . ,. Others....
I lSrn /rlSm / 5. 3 |lP I nCom0 2 0 2 - ppt I4
New development increases human access to areas- Besides being unsightly,
litter can ensnare animals, and may be toxic when ingested- Litter has been
indicated as a source of metals and nutrients.
I
Pollutants
rt
,
"i,al i.=.'.:
9r
t
.:
t.
{'
i
E
-''.:
. .1At i\tA itt
SMSTOPP P : P lanning Commissions Presentation
:!Fr
This slide shows how an increase in impervious surface from new
development may affect the water flow. This and the next slide were takenfrom an y the City of Olympia
washington (May '95). The percentages refer to an average sized storm onflat land.
In.a natural community on flat land,4}o/oof water is evaporat ed, i}yo ofrainwater infiltrates the upper reaches of the soil, while il;;;i;;;r" "^
percolates into the deep reaches to replenish groundwater stocks. There islittle direct runoff from average-sized storms-
February 2002
I\IATL'R.A.L GR.OL'I\ID CO\'ER
ata.r rvrtrotrrEltlr8lo,I
oo
ooo
s
oalllrrrllor
esa as!
to
e
o.
s tto.ta DE?
- o Oo o s
wA, lgg5)(courtesy: O lympia
_d' a
_tot - o- -
so* ial^lri-irrrtrrttor
f, Em I xll"Sm I 5. 3 |tp t nCom0 2 02. ppt
I5
Drainage Before Development
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
In an urban community where 35 to 50% of the land is covered with
impervious surfaces, only 25o/o of the rainwater evaporates through plants;
206/o infiltrates the upper reaches of the soil, and another 20Yo infitrates into
deeper soi[. Thus only 40% of the water, down from60Yo in a natural area, is
infiitrating the soils-a sharp decrease. Meanwhile we see a large increase in
runoff-from}o/o in the natural community to 35Yo in the developed
community. The increased runoff makes floods more frequent and severe'
And since less soil is trying to remove more water, the potential for slope
failures on hillsides may be greater.
Febrau'y 2002
;i
:
:
l
ItBltrorf
s
a
35.5O? TMPER\/IOTJS SLJT<FACE
s
s'z'gF Daar l.rrrrrrloaa
a
oo
a€ s o' s -t? ,,0-''
w IA,Olympia
2:Fr :Vlrotr rrr flor
a
aoeo, oi o oao
s
f lSm /rlSm / 5. 3 OlP I nCom0 2 02. ppt t6
Drain age After Development 'a
'- -9.o
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
Increased impervious surface areas can result in more runoff traveling athigher velocities than in a naturar environment. This can lead to erosion, andstream scour. The increased sediments in the water can result in increased
nutrients, mercury, nickel, and metals.
February 2002
These erosion impacts or the added runoff causing flood problems often leadto the need for rip rap or other 'concrete' solutions to priect the creekbanks-which results in even more encroachment.
The encroachment into riparian areas leads to obvious changes in habitat, andremoves the riparian cover which results in warmer waters and further impactcreek habitat.
Encroachment impacts can also result from sprawl development. In additionto lessening the amount of natural habitat, sprawl development can lead tolonger/more frequent drive times, and more impervious *.fu"" area. vehicleuse can be a source of metals, copper and nickel to waterbodies.
f,Em I xlSm l5.3|lplnConrL202.ppt
I7
Encroachment
t.tt
I
SMSTOP PP : Planning Commissions Presentqtion
To limit impervious areas, the main focus is to avoid Directly-Connected Impervious Areas-
Impervious surfaces such as roof tops; walkways, and parking lots should be interspersed with
landscaped or natural areas that promote infiltration of the water running offthe impervious
surfaces into the soils.
To protect sensitive natural areas from encroachmen! keep them in a natural state, using
setbacks and ordinances and enforcement. Know the species interactions \ilithin sensitive
areas well enough to know what other areas also need to be preserved to protect the sensitive
area-
Let's look at these solutions in a little more detail.
February 2002
In an economically healthy community, development will continue to occur. But there are
ways to lessen the impact to our waterways and watersheds. Several solutions are available to
lesien the impacts of the different pollutants found in urban runoff'
To limit poilut*tr, developers can install erosion and sediment controls, and develop and
follow pollution prevention plans. These include storing materials properly, limiting tracking
of mud, limiting grading times to dry periods, using hay and seed for erosion control before
the rainy season, minimizing the amount of area graded, and continually inspecting the
installed stormwater controts to ensure that they are working efficiently.
Development & Watersheds: Solutions
/' lSn /xlSnr 1 5. 3 0\P I nC om02 02. ppt 18
rP:
rI:
:
a Sensitive Areas
lna
tControls;
Plans
E:
Impervious
SMSTOPP P : Planning Commissions Presentation
Pollution reduction techniques include:
Avoiding wet-season grading. whenever possible, grade only during the dryperiod-April through September.
Reduce the amount of time graded soils are exposed. For large projects, gradein sections- For all projects, install hay and hyhroseed * t*ir*pt, ";;;;;as possible.
Focus on erosion control. Erosion controls are methods to prevent the soilfrom moving in the first place. Sediment controls are used to contrc,l soils thathave already moved with water runoff. Efforts should be focused on
preventing erosion first rather than only trying to corral soil sediments that
have already begun to wash away. There are several methods to achieve this.The Regional Board is promoting the use of hay at 2 tons per acre to hold thesoil while allowing for seeds to grow.
Use proper housekeeping methods-keep the construction area clean of litter.Properly dispose of waste materiars and keep supplies covered and tightlysealed. construction Materiars should be disposed of correctly. Reclcfingshould be promoted ifpossible. There are several recycling and wasie disfosalfacilities throughout the Bay Area.
February 2002
Graded
Controls
''l
Materials Properly ,
Methods
r Avoid Wet
Exposed
r Reduce
ti'
f lSm I x|Sm t 5. 3 |tp I nComl2 02.ppt
t9
Pollution Reduction Techniqqes
a
Soils-
SMSTOP P P : P lanning Commissions Presentation
These photos show several common construction-site erosion and sediment
controitactics-Planting of trees for long term slope protection, spreading
straw or hay to protect it from erosion. For sediment control, a hay waddle is
used to prevent sediment from crossing the sidewalk. Gravel bags protect the
storm drain from sediment
All stormwater control measures need maintenance to remain effective.
***Extra Infb***
The Regional Board recommends 2 tons of hay per acre.
Februry 20a2
Sediment Controls: 'l
Hay Waddles
Inlet Protection
f: 8m I x\Sm I 5. 3 0l P lnC omO 2 0 2. PP t 20
Erosion Controls:
Permanent Plantinfs
Snaw Erosion Control
Erosion & Sediment Controls
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
Requiring source controls such as covering trash enclosures helps prevent
pollutants from reaching our streams.
February 2002
f: Em I x[Sm I 5. 3 |lp lnConfl 2 02.ppt 2I
SMSTOPP P : Planning Commissions Presentation
Beneficial planning considerations. At the Palo Alto Agilent site, they provide
bike lockers/ racks, a bus/shuttle stop.
February 2002
f: Em I xWm I 5. 3 OlP lnCom 02 02. PP t 22
Transportation Source Controls
r Bike
Racks/ "
SMSTOPPP : P lanning Commiss ions Presentotion February 2002
As I mentioned earlier, the goal to preventing impacts from impervious
surfaces is to not only reduce the overall amount of impervious surfacq but to
reduce the amount ofDirectly-connected Impervious Area. once example ofthis is by having roof downspouts flow to pervious landscaped area for
I - -
infiltration before draining to the storm drain. There are several ways to
reduce the amount of impervious surface we create through development.
First, reduce the amount of pavement-use narrower streets, accounting forFire Dept. needs, and place sidewalks on one side of the street only. During
the site planning stage, consider using smaller footprints for buildings. A t;o
story house can have the same amount of Iiving rpu." as a one story housewith half the footprint. Another way to reduce impervious area is to use
permeable materials such as permeable pavements in areas with low traffic
use, or gravel walkways for paths around the side of a house.
Historically, the storm drain system was designed to get stormwater runoffmoved quickly away to creeks and streams to prevent local flooding. Culverts
and pipelines were installed to move the waterquickly away. Howiver, wehave found that water transported in these impeivious structures carries itsentire pollutant load with it. Thus we suggest using swares or detention ponds.To slow the water down and aflow for infiltration into the soil which willremove some of the pollutants before reaching the stream.
Reduce Impervious Surfaces
r Reduce Amount of P
l
walS es
f lS m I x|Sm I 5. 3 llP I nC onfl 2 02. ppt
23
f
a
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
{As example of reduction in paving}
February 2002
Vintage Oaks (Menlo Park)
Somewhat nalrow streets (PUD), sidewalk on I side only, parking pullouts
Vintage Oaks (Menlo Park)
/ lsnr /xlSrn / 5. 3 AIP lnConfl 2 0 2. pp t 24
I
, f't
'i '' r
!
:_ .
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation February 2002
Reducing Directly Connected
Impe,rvious Areas,:
. Roof
Breaking up Directly connected Impervious Areas is helpful
(Agilent Office Building, palo Alto, CA.)
f: lSm I xE m t 5. 3 |lp lnCo nt 0 2 0 2. ppt
25
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
Pacifica's waste water treatment plant. Half of it is underground (see straw
covered slope to left (picture taken during construction)-
February 2002
f: \,Sm I xlS m I 5. 3 OlP lnCom0 2 02. PPt
26
Smaller Footprint (Paeifica)
-:-':,
a
;4,
\:"
,ai !,
(y-*
.?
:r
a 2
SMSTOP.P P : P lanning Comm iss ions P resentat ion
Permeable Brick pavers on sand, commercial parking lot placed in little-used
area.
(Palo Alto, CA)
February 2002
f:Em I x$m I 5. 3 |tp I nC om 0 2 0 2. ppt
Permeable Materials
..: rr:
.,}-*:.
.,...
27
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
As an alternative, here is an example of a biofrlter being used at a commercial
parking lot at Pacific Shores in Redwood City. The parking lot slopes to the
middle where the swale exists. There's a drain at the end for any overflow-
Water runoff in the swale slows down and is absorbed into the soil- As this
happens, pollutants in the runoff will attach to soil particles and break down
naturally.
Several similar biofilters have been installed in Palo Alto with success.
February 2002
f, \^Sm I xWnt I 5. 3 |lP lnCom0 2 02. ppt 28
B iofilter (Redwood' City),
I
ti
SMSTOP PP : Planning Commissions Presentation
At Pacific Shores (Redwood city), this basebalusoccer field is located in an
extended flood control detention basin.
February 2002
Athletic FieldlDeteniion Basin
f: E n I xl,Sm I 5. 3 |lp lnC omL 2 0 2. pp t
29
,. -r
r Dual purpose
,..:..,. ,. '.:
SMSTOPP P : Planning Commissions Presentation
Techniques to reduce encroachment upon natural habitats include:
Cluster buildings within a development to one area of the development, and
allow open space in other areas of the development with sensitive habitat;
Use set backs or buffer zones from sensitive areas such as creeks and streams;
Reduce the amount of grading- For larger developments, grade only the
section to be worked on in the near future. In other words, develop in phases
and minimize the amount of grading to only those areas necessary to grade.
Retain Natural Drainages-- doing so will ease the regulatory process as well.
Natural drainages are regulated by the Regional Board and, depending on the
size and type of drainage and development to be performed, by the Army
Corps of Engineers, and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game, among
others.
Encourage infill rather than sprawl. Urban sprawl, or leap-frog development,
significantly affects the natural community.
February 2002
:
f Em I x1Sm I 5. 30lP I nCom0202. PPt
30
r Cluster Buildings
r Use Set-Backs or Buffer Zones
I Reduce Amount of Grading
I Fence Protected Areas D-uring Construction
't'RetainNatural Drainages,l
Encourage Infill Rather Than Sprawll1
SMSTOPP P : Planning Commissions Presentation
Pervious commercial courtyards or residential walkways can be attractive andbenefit water quality.
At the far side of this courtyard is a swale of native grasses that treat theparking lot runoff' The whole courtyard and native vegetation swale provides
varying degrees of buffer from the riparian vegetation in the background.
(C'oinmercial Courtyard at 3300 Hillview in palo AIto. In place for at least 3'4;years now.)
February 2002
f: lSm I xISm I 5. 3 |tp lnC om02 02.ppt 3t
Beneficial and Beautiful
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
The riparian drainage in this valley was, over the years, manually shifted ftom
one side of the valley to the other. This project returned the riparian drainage
to its 'natural' location and replanted riparian vegetation. Rather than an
underground pipe and a completely encroached-upon waterway, this creek will
become an amenity to the site.
Pacifica, CA
February 2002
Pacifica Rip arian Restoration
f lSm t xE m I 5. 3 |lP lnC om02 02. PPt
i2
,n
SMSTOP P P : Planning Commissions Presentation February 2002
These techniques provide just a quick overview of the possibilities to improveupon future development design to protect our valuable watersheds and water
3u1liY', Key components of successful implementation of these techniquesinclude:
Starting at the conceptual review stage. Plan design and review staff shoulddiscuss the design and other stormwater-related issues with the projectapplicantas:early in the process as possible.
Improve communication among municipal departments and with regulatorystaff. Stormwater management focuses on contro,ing non-poi* ;;il;'-^'pollution. controlling pollution from all of these ruri-orrr, urban sourcesimpacts several different departments within your municiparity and betweenmunicipalities within the watershed. Effective communication between thesedepartnients, municipalities, and with the Regional water a;dt,; c;;;;;i-"-Board staffis crucial for implementing an efficient program that meets theRegional Board's requirements. This communication should start from thetop-higher-level personner such as yourselves, upon recognizing theimportance of this program, need to show support for effective, efficientimplementation.
This includes encouragingyour municipal staff to find creative solutions forprotecting the watersheds from urban runoff pollutants.
Use the latest information and design techniques available. sMsToppp is agood resource for this information.
f: Em I xlsm I 5. 3 llp tnComL2 02.ppt
33
Implementation
r Start at the Conceptual Review Stage :.
r Use the Latest.Infosrnation and Design.,,,:
3
Techniques
Among
RegulatoryDepartments and With
Find Creative Solutions
a
a
SMSTOP P P : Planning Commissions Presentation
(Optional)
The San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program has
severat resources available to help implement the ideas I've presented here.
These include: example General Plan policies and ordinances such as grading
and stormwater ordinances; example streamside conservation plans; design
manuals such as BASMAAA's. nationally-acclaimed Start at the Source which
focuses on land use planning techniques. A new version with technical
guidance will be finalized this September. Other resources include the
Regional Board's'Guidebook" which provides guidance on General
Construction Activity Stormwater Permit requirements including preparation
of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan; and the Board's "Erosion and
Sediment Control field Manual", which provides concise guidance on
preventmg erosron and controlling sediment from construction activities'
February 2002
Available Resources
r Example Policies and Ordinances .
.
r Example Streamside Conservation Plans
r Design Manuals (e.g. Start at the Source)
r Regional Board's "Guidebook" i
r Regional B_oard's "Erosion & Sedimenf
Control Fiel#Ffanual" ,
. BASMAA's "Start at the Source Tools"
f;tSm I xlsm I 5. 3 0\P I nCom0202. PPt
34
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
As a planning commissioner you may be thinking to yourself: ..This is all verywell and good, but how can watershed protection tnrougrr preventing urbanrunoff pollution prevention benefit me and my commuiityt,, This i! a goodquestion. Studies have shown that people prefer to live near water , non_polluted waters- Now San Mateo County - so close to the beautiful SanFrancisco Bay and pacific ocean - is prime real estate. To keep the characterof San Mateo County is to keep the natural beauty and hearth of the area.Achieving this will, in comparison to other areas, irr...ur" the value of the real
Preventing stormwater pollution is also a priority of the Regional water
Quality control Board and the federal Environmental prote-ction Agency.
New precedent-setting regulations for the Bay Area have just been adopted,which I will discuss nexr.
February 2002
;r. Reduce Potential Water euality Impacts to
Local Creeks, the Bay and Ocean
t Increase Value of Area
t Ensure Compliance with Storm Waterl
NPDES Regulations
f: Em I xl,Sm I 5. 3 |lp I nC om02 02. ppt
35
"What Does This Mean
:i
SMSTOP P P : P lanning Commiss ions Presentation February 2002
r Provision C.3. Of the Santa Clara Valley
Urban' Runoff Pollution Prevention
Program' s reissued permit (adopted
r Sets the precedent for SF Bay Area and
"STOP?Plpermit to be amendediin 20!p2-
f: \Sm I xlsm I 5. 3 0\P I nC omO 2 02 - PPt
36
Basis of New Requirements
SMSTOP PP : Planning Commissions Presentation February 2002
Permi't :Requirements
r. Group,rl projects - any development,
street/highway, or signifisaRt, :. , ,
,
,.. redevelopment that creates or replaces I
,i,: €LGfe.or more of imperuio.us,surfac,e.
:a ,In:Santa Clara County, these;projects,
be,requ,ired,to have stormwater treatment
i:
.rl
will
ii "l i'tBMPs by 7ll/03.
f: Em I xll,Sm I 5. 3 |tp tnC omL 2 02.ppt
./1
37
S MSTOP P P : P lanning Commissions Presentotion Februuy 2002
r Group 2 projects - any development,
street/high*ay, or significant
redevelopment that creates'or replaces .
5.000 sq. ft: or more of irnpervious surface
r In Santa ClaraCounty,,.these projects will
:' be required-to have stormwater treatment
BMPs by I Oll5l04
;
:
Re quirements' (continue d)
Summary of P ermit r,,
38
f: Em I x\Sm I 5. 3 0lP lnC om02 02. PPt
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation
ummary of Permit
Requirements (continued),
S
Februory 2002
f,ISm I x$m I 5.30lptnConL202.ppt
39
Flow: l0% of 50 year peak flow, flow from
2 times 85th percentile hourly rainfall, or ,'
flow from rain event of >0.2 inches/hour
:
a
SMSTOP P P : Planning Commissions Presentation February 2002
Summary of Permit
Requirements (continued)
Municipalities will need to:
r Develop and'implement an Operation &
Maintenance (O&IO rverifi cation pro glam
I Develop a Hydrograph Modification
Management Plan (HMP) for Regional'
Roard approval within 2 years and : '
implement it to cbntrol increases in peak
:t
f: Em I xWm I 5. 3 |lP lnCom02 02. PPt 40
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation Februory 2002
Requirements (continued)
Summary of Permit
:Municipalities will also need to:
I Develop a waiver/compensation system
I Evaluate and revise conditions of approval
design standards, General plans, and
Environmental Review processes
f Em I xlsm I 5. 3 |lp tnComL2 02.ppr
41
SMSTOPPP : Planning Commissions Presentation February 2002
Key Changes in Deve
Proj ect Approval Process
I
f:l,Sm I x$m I 5.3OlPlnCont0202-PPt
42
in staff time and resources .
;s will need to be reviewed' )fiil.l1roii|l., conditions or approval
r More site inspections, documentation and
record keeping will be required to veriff
implementation and permit compliance
the permit
r Major increases
will be needed to
provrslons
SMSTOP P P : Planning Commiss ions Presentation February 2002
j)lSm lx[Sm I 5.3atphContL202.ppt
43
Impl ementation Chall enges
r Using site design measures to meet numeric
criteria
f ,Meeting requirements in high density, infill, and
urban redevelopment proj ects
r Meeting requirements on sites with infiltration
limitations (clay soils or groundwater concems)
r Limiting peak flow discharges as definbd by the
HMP: for a given watershed,
slzmg
SMSTOP P P : P lanning Commissions Presenlation Februuy 2002
r Selecting from relatively untested and '
evolving treatment system technologies
r Selecting control measures that cost-
effectively reduce pollutants'of concern
r Determining equitable and legal ways of
collecting mitigation fees from waivers
r Meeting permit implementation schedule
Implementation Challenges
(continued)
f Em I xl,Sm I 5. 3 0\P I nC ont0 2 02. PPt
44
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
New development is an important component to the vitality of a community,
and its impacts to the watershed of that community can be minimized tofurther increase the varue of the community- u t*" win-win situation. so whatare the next steps to achieve this?
Your staff may already be imprementing some or alr of the measures I,vedescribed today in an effort to reduce the negative impacts of development. Nomatter how much effort they are putting to this task, tirey need your_the
Plaruring Commissions support. you can catalyzereal action. How? First,,_rfo* your design and review staff that minimizing urban runoff pollutionfrom development projects is a priority. Encourag"-rtuffto attend sropppNDS meetings and trainings, and to communicate their knowledge to otherstaff across all appropriate departments.
As co-permittees under the countywide municipal stormwater program, eachmunicipality is required to meet the sroppp performance standards in orderto be in compliance- with theirNPDES permit. one example is that eachmunicipality should customize and adopt the Moder Development poricies (bycouncil resolution by June 2002) so that they fit into their "*irtirg g"n".a p)*and are applicable to.the municipality's program. In addition to implementingthese policies, municipalities should take steps to resolve conflicts amongstormwater quality protection policies and other municipar poricies.
fMwWicipalities must prepare for the additional permit requirementswnlcn are comlng.
February 2002
- t.
' :l
Runoff Pollution
f:Etn lxlSml5.30lp
45
t.
Techniques
Staff to
SMSTOPPP: Planning Commissions Presentation
Thank you for your attention today. I am happy to take any questions you may
have.
February 2002
f: Em I x\Sm I 5. 3 0lP lnCom0202.PPt 46
Questions
qr.
.l-r.
1
I
',1
f'
-'l':
-,--.,:
REGISTRATION EXPIRESi r'jc *utor{oErLE 1f
I
I
I?233
M.H. PODELL COMPANY, IZO| HOWARDAVE., BURLINGAME, CA g4tr|O.650-579-7903 TAX 579-1303
February 1,2002
Ms. Mary Janey
City Council
City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Ca 94010
RECEIVED
FEB 4 20C2
CIry CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Dear Ms. Janey
I am writing this letter in protest of the public parking changes made by the City on
Lorton Avenue. As an employee in one of the offrces in l20l Howard Avenue, I now
have to pay $2 per day for parking while people from all over the place park free. When
everyone had to pay $l it seemed much more equitable.
Is it the City's intent to give all the residents in the neighborhood free parking (for junkers
that sit for days) while office and other work commuters pay $2?
Many people I have met in the parking area, while trying to put their $2 into the new
machine that doesn't work most of the time, have commented on the unfairness of the
change to those of us working in the area.
Sincerely,
Rita Chaffee
M.H. Podell Company
l20l Howard Avenue, 3'd Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 579-7903
DISTRIBUTION:
vil
City Council
City Manager
City Attomey
ll Dir. Finance
- Ciw Planner
K oir. puutic works
I Human Resources
I Police Chief
- Fire Chief
!l Parks & Rec
i Librarian
please respond
_ No Response Required
f on Next ecenda
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR
RESPO^-SE TO THE Clry ClnRk
.j
.Rfu
r;l
4
\paM-
1
PUBLIC WOBKS DEPARTMENT
Tel:1650) 558-7230
Fax:(6501 685-931o
ov
The City of Burlingame
CITY HAtl. 5O1 PRIMROSE NOAD
BUBLINGAME, CALIFOBNTA 9,t0tG3997
www.burlingame,org
February 28,2W2
Rita Chaffee
M. H. Podell Company
1201 Howard Avenue, 3d Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010
Tel.No. (650) 579-7930
Re Your l*tter Dated February 1,2W2, Regarding parking Rate Changes
Dear Rita;
COBPOSATION YAND
Td:16501 55&7670
Thank you for taking time to speak with me on the telephone regarding your concern of parking rate changesin the Burlingame Avenue busfurcss district.
The primary reason for parking rate increases is to fund the construction of a possible parking structure ifapproved by the Council as well as for changing the behavior of parkers, particularly to move the long-termparkers from near the downtown area to outlying parking lots creating more turnover of spaces for customersas per Burlingame Avenue business district parking plan.
hior to raisitrg parking rates, * qto held several public meetings to get input from the public. The publicshowed strong support for raising the parking rates-but was strongly
"[por"o to limiting the parting time.
In accordance with the plan, lots F and H are made free for public parking and the new parking rates in thecore downtown area are higher than in the outlying areas to move long+erm parkers away from thedowntown core area.
A preliminary survey of parking conditiors in the free lots shows that the employees in the business districtare taking firll advantage of the free parking, and these lots are getting full as early as g:30 in the morning.
I understand your concern that some residents are leaving their vehictes in the free lots. The city will be doinga study in the Dext six to nine months to evaluate the resuits of the parking rate changes and parking conditionsin the Burlingame Avenue business district and will recommend any further measures or modifications ofthe parking plan to the city council. Your corrcern of local residents parking in fr"; il will be part of thestudy.
BURLI ME
Rita Chaffee
February 28,2002
Page2
Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please feel ftee to contact me at (650) 558:7230.
P.E.
Ciry
Attachments: Copy of the News letter sent to Chamber of Commerce.
City Council, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission
Director of Public Works, Assistant Public Works Director
S:\A Publh Worls Diteclory\Aulhor, By NeDclsyed MErrze Idcn\Chafi.e Ritr LE,vpd
c
BURLINGAME AVENUE PARKING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Over the last two yenrs a Parking Study was conducted to assess the parking conditions in the
Btnlingame Avenue commercial district, which showed a shortage of 360 parking spaces. The
parking study also showed that long-term parkers (employees) are using the parking spaces closer
to the downtown area causing a deficiency in parking supply for customers. The study noted that
Burlingame has the one of the lowest parking rates compared to similar cities on the Peninsula..
Several public meetings were held by the City Statrwith the help of Chamber of Commerce and
Traflic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) to find a solutions to the problem and develop a
parking plan. Several sites were evaluated for a possible parking stnrcture and as a result, Fublic
Parking Lot J (On Primrose Road between Burlingarne Ave. and Howard Ave.) was considered. The
public showed shong support for moving the long term parkers out ofthe core area to create more
turn over ofparking spaces for customers and raising the parking meter rates to fund the construction
of a parking stnrcture, but was strongly against reducing parking time limits.
As a resulg with the help of the Chamber of Commerce and the TSPC, City staff developed a
parking implementation plan which was approved by City Council in November 2001.
The City has started implementing Phase One of the parking plan which includes the following:
Effective January 14,20A, the City made Lot F and Lot H free for long-temr parking to
move long-term parkers away from the downtown area creating more furnover of parking
spaces for customers.
The City is in the process of improving Public Parking Lots aesthetics by improving the
signage, surface treatment and shiping.
Effective January 14,2002,new parking meter rates became effective. In general, one-hour
meter rates went from25f, to 501 per hour, two-hour rates went ftom2ifi per hour to 759
per every two hours, and l0-hour rates went from 101 per hour to20(,.
In the next six months, statrwill study the results of these changes and assess the need for any
firther measures which will be presented to the City Council.
Please contact Homayoun Barekat at (650)558-7236 at the Engineering Division if you have any
questions or comments regarding the Parking Plan.
a
I
a
S:\A Public works Dircctory\Author, By Narre\Sycd Murtuza Letters\Burt Avc parking plan.wpd
Dear Ms. Janey:
I am writing this letter id protest of the public parking changes made by the City on
Lorton Avenue. As an employee in one of the offices in 1201 Howard Avenue, I now
have to pay $2 per day for parking wtrile people from all over the place park free. When
everyone had to pay $l it seemed much more equitable.
Is it the City's intent to give all.th.e residents in the neighborhood free parking (for junkers
that sit for days) while office and other work commuters pay $2?
Many people I have met in the parking area, while trying to put their $2 into the new
machine that doesn't work most of the time, have commented on the unfairness of the
change to those of us working in the area.
Sincerely,
February 1,2A02
Ms. Mary Janey
City Council
City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Ca 94010
Rita Chaffee
M.H. Podell Company
l20l Howard Avenue, 3d Floor
Burlingame, CA 94010
Phone: (650) 579-7W3
RECEIVED
FEB "' 4 ?0A2
CTYCLfRK'S OFFICE
C.ITY OFBURLINGAII/IE
;o Citv Planncrf olr.nor"wo*t
,O HunanResources
.O Policc Chief
,O Firechief fiOnNextegenda
.A Parks&Rec '
O l-r'brarian: PLEASESENDACOPYOFYOUR
RESPONSE TO rHr Crry cr,rnk
-, DISTBIBUTION: ..
$c;tycouncit "Utq( picasercspond
E;City Manager o
I City enomey O No Responsc Rcquired
rO Dir. Financc
Ed Elwell
Diane Elwell
14 Bloomfield Rd.
Council
Manager
Attomey
please respond
D No Response Required
I Dir. Finance
-t City Planner
E4ir. Public works
'.1 Human Resources
: Police Chief
Librarian
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR
RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK
fu*.
RECEIVED
FEB i2 20|,2
8,,#9Fd,f;fi,$6i,fiE
B
February 6,2OO2
City of Burlingame
Mayor and Council Members
5Ol Primrose Rd.
Burlingame, Ca 94OfO
Dear Mayor & Council Members;
e, Ca 94010 :'II'-:IT.. i onNextAgenda
342-0308
Ytsterday in the mail I received a letter from commission of Burlingame. recommendi,sthat a green- zonL_e be put on the 1O block of Bloomfield Rd. iust off6f peninsui;-AG.-Tt?
suggestion for thg.gfeqn zorrc bein$ put on Bloomfield Rd. ii only for the p"piUol preichool,
their parents and teachers convenleirce.
As a resident of Burlingame for forty five years and a resldent on Bloomfield Rd. since
!971,I am appalled that this is eve-n b.olg_recorrmended. As long ." i-".r, rimember therehas been a school at the corner of Bloomf,eld and Peninsula. Befo?e the schoot bi""-" .Preschool it was a contlnuation school for the kids that had been thr;wn ;"i-;4" reoularschool, this being -"ll thq kids that attended their were out of control ..ra 'y"rv ,"ilBd- S"unmly that even-the school was a joke to those that attended. i ..m.rrrU.i#ti., Ur.continuation schoo,l was tJ:eir, oufneighborhood was in constant fear of Urese tias. Atlunch they would throw their trash, be"er bottles and other g;bape around theneigftboShood. They- would al.so sit on the lawns and porche"s of an Ure resldences andsm9k9 thgir-pot and many other vulgar things that wbre diszusting on purpose iust to scareand strock the residence. Each and everyday we had to pick-up th-eir tra.sti and"whatever
glse they had strewed around our homes-. T1iat was very upsetung Ui"E ttt", .rrd *. ""rromeowners were very much relleved when the school waS changtd to a pre School.
When the Preschool began it was a well lmown to the staffat the school that tl.e residencein the area were not the most welcoming to them. Ttrerefore f.; a *hile t11gt;;re very niceto us all and went out of their way to plEase the residences "na g.i U""t -iiii" iffi gid".". -
Brrt as -tle years have ggne by thing change just as the school has changed a few times
!Ac9: w9 aI! agam wit{.p1ob-lemg. I-am not saying it is all from the scEool and am not
:11o:TpgJu,st ttrem. It is also the business's on Peninsula and the apartment complex'sand Duplex's that Q. qitY had allowed to to be built in replacement of sfigte i.*ittiift;;-that weie once on peninldt and eloomfieid- - -
The green zones
orthEscrr-oori;; S3!ffi3rr:,rffrr€:?H f'aHk'#;lf ffi"",8T:1,1{filTffi""?rrT*.#,",as it is now- As stated in the letter th;; is-a 6a ;fiilffi"-;; Ferinsuta and unsafe becauseof the traffic, this not o,.ur proplem. The school h"";p?rtd;a6i th;Ith.v ".*rir".. I
Pugggit t{at tfrey PPS thg loJ for drop off and pick up 6f studEnts. This idt ooi is not a 8:ooto 3:oo school and the children are dropped-oltrat a[ aiferenf-ti*." "rry*rrti.
-u.-n ..,7:OOam to to:Ooam or later. Therefore irot aU convene at the "im. umA a";i"S lt to b.unsafe. Thev have a parking lot why don,t they use it. The t"l i" "t*"y" .*pry
"B reinforce
Page2
ThankYou
Stecerely,
Diane Elwell
I am asking you to please leave the curbs on Bloomffeld as thev are. bv Duttino oreenzones in llis will only make parldng more of a pnoblem then it-already is. For"ofice I wouldtike to park in hont of my own home and not at the end of the block, but with the sreenzone I am not even allowed to park in front of my home if it was ever available for riorethan 2O minutes. PLEASE.I dir pay tax's in this city and want to at leaJt be "bi. t6 piit i1front of ttre home th-a-t I own.
This is just the Up of the iceberg on what it is like for us who llve on Bloomffeld. I could
fhTts,HrTHtqTf, .Ef ,:#f "r"3ffi iif },i"ffi T,f o*f"l#l:p".XTSXHf, :#flHff loon-ty mal(e parlring around here more impossible than-it already is.
There is also a petition being signed to stop t].e green zones on Bloomfield.
on
have to deal
andI am askCnp
Bloomffeldl
you do not to allow tJre curbs to be
cause then what wewith. I have even would be lo0o/o better,least wewouldn't have even be able to see across thestreet. Put our I don't think you wouldwelcomegpeen zone eittrer.
\*r?l^^^-*-<
,RKI
(ln
February 12,2002
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Burlingame
City Hall
501 Primerose
Burlingame, CA 94010
RECEIVED
FEB i 4 20r,2
8,W8iHfii,,$6[',fiE
Re Cit), Ordinance - Overnight Parking Permits
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Last night my husband and I were ticketed for parking in front of our home (along with all of our
neighbors)! !! How outrageous!
We have been informed there is a City Ordinance requiring a permit for overnight parking, but
we are further informed it is only enforced when the police get a phone caIl, usually from some
grumpy person. It is understandable to need a permit at a college campus, but not for parking at
one's home!
We request that you take immediate action to rescind the ordinance that requires a Burlingame
resident to need a permit to park overnight. (Must a Burlingame resident waste our Police
Department's valuable time when expecting out of town guests to spend the night??!! )
Our very hard working Police Department has far more important things to worry about,
especially these days, and should not be burdened with enforcing such a ridiculous ordinance. If
you do not take appropriate action, our Police Officers' valuable time and taxpayers' money,
which would be better spent elsewhere, will continue to be wasted.
Obviously since the Ordinance is rarely enforced, there is no need for it and should be rescinded.
Please take steps to rescind this Ordinance immediately.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
I
.-)4
William Cerna / Donna Cerna
1457 Balboa Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 frr
,l Dir. Finance
rl City Planner
ll Dir. Public Works
,t/t{u,n.n Resources
r( police Chief
Council
Manager
Attomey ! No Response Required
please respond
! Fire Chief E On Next Agenda
il Parks & Rec
I Librarian
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR
RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK
cc: Burlingame Police Department
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Office of the City Clerk
501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA94010-3997
(6s0) ss8-7203 Fax: (650) 342-8386
a urusso(drbqllt8gAJng.eIg
PRESS RELEASE!
For I Release
OVERNIGHT PARKING CITATIONS
By city ordinance, it is illegal to park on Burlingame's streets between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and
6:00 a.m. without a permit. Any resident who can demonstrate that s/he does not have an
altemative to parking on the street may apply to the police department to receive an overnight
parking permit. If the police department determines that there is no altemative (e.g. driveway,
garage, etc.) to parking on the street, then an overnight parking permit will be issued to the
applicant. The cost of each permit is $4 per year. Any resident who receives a citation for parking
overnight without a permit should contact the police department (1111 Trousdale Drive) before
paylng the citation.
If a cited resident is eligible to receive an overnight parking permit and applies for that permit,
the citation will be voided when the overnight permit fee is paid. Eligible residents who receive a
citation should contact the police department the next working day after receipt of the citation.
Delay in contacting the police department after receiving the citation may result in a fine
from the court. Commercial vehicles parked in commercial or industrial areas of Burlingame are
exempt from the overnight parking ordinance and do not need overnight parking permits-
Questions about ovemight parking should be directed to the Traffic Sergeant *ho .un be reached
Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at 650-692-9440.
i'i,.d!,,i;.
GLK-Musso Ann
.KCity Council
City Manager
City Attomey
ri Dir. Finance
J City Planner
KDir. public works
il Human Resources
tl Police Chief
tl Fire Chief
I Parks & Rec
l-l Librarian
DCP_0444s.JPG
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR
RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK
Ms. Musso:
r hope you can forward this message to Mr. Frank Erbacher.
rrve done all- r can to bring this hazard to your city's at.tention. r fail to see why theciLy is refusing-to do anything about this. r've atlached a photo of this intersectionfrom the approach rtm most concerned. about.. There are no street name s]-gns whatsoeverthat are visible. rf you're a driver just crossing t.he tracks, there is absoluteJ-y nosign that you can see here. Ahh, unless you zoom in. There is a small sign on the lef.hand side ]ocated behind a wood p91e. oh upon closer inspection, there is another signway to the right - located to maximize inviiibility. can you honestly teII me as a driverthat you can decipher this l_ocation?
rnstead of waiting for funding to do something 2 years from now, r ask one final- time t,hatyou do something - one cheap overhead flimsy sign woul-d do. r swear if there is a bigaccident here at the intersection or on the tracks - r have al-1 my correspondence t.o youregarding this intersection documented.. r would. have no choice but to volunteer thisinformation Eo the injured parties, t.he press, JpB, etc.
rn an era where exit. signs are being improved and numbered to improve safet.y, red.uceconfusion and most importantly assist emergency response, Burlingame continues to keep itsbli-nders on. A st.reet name sign or a memoiiar-sign - it;" y""i-.rroice.
You won't here from me again. Good day.
AV
masaka45@springmail.com
Friday, February 15,200210:33 PM
amusso@burl ingame.org
masaka4S@springmail.com
Oak Grove and California
I'RIBUTION:,
?tg*tptease respond
ll No Response Required
fion uext egenda
DIS'
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
1
It
.:
I
I
a (ti
I a
CLK-Musso, Ann
From
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Frank Erbacher
Assistant Director of Public Works
650-558-7230
PW/ENG-Erbacher, Frank
Tuesday, February 19, 2002 9:00 AM
'armani31 2@hotmail.com'; masaka45@springmail.com
CLK-Musso, Ann; ATTY-Anderson, Larry; COUNCIL-Baylock, Cathy; COUNCIL-Coffey, Mike;
COUNCIL-Galligan, Joe; COUNCIL-Janney, Mary; COUNCIL-O'Mahony Rosalie; MGR-
Nantell, Jim; PW/ENG-Bagdon, George; PW/ENG-Murtuza, Syed
RE: Oak Grove and California- Request for Mast Arm Signage
Dear Ms. Vincenzio;
Thank you for the good picture showing the lack of signal mast arm signage.
I do not concur that there is the accident potential that you expressed for other motorists or for either giving directions to
your family's wedding. I am not aware that there have been accidenls at this location related to signagie nor have I received
any other requests for the overhead slgnage. For crossing the tracks as pictured the landmark of the train tracks would be
good to mention in your wedding directions.
As I indicated in my previous E-mails correspondence to you the City Engineer acknowledged your pointing out that unlike
other signal locations on California Drive, this intersection does not have the more desirable overhead signLge. He
indicated that he will be looking for ways to add this onto another contract or look for separate funding. U;foiunately this
will not happen before your March event in any case.
Sincerely,
---Original Message---
From: CLK-Musso, Ann
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2002 9:32 AMTo: ATTY-Anderson, Larry; couNclL-Baylock, cathy; coUNClL-coffey, Mike; couNclL-Ga igan, Joe;
COUNCIL-Janney, Mary; COUNCIL-O'Mahony Rosalie; MGR-Nante , Jim; pW/ENG_Bagdon,
George; PW/ENG-Erbacher, Frank; masaka45@springmail.comSubject: FW: Oak Grove and California
ffi
DCP 0444S.JPG
---Original Message---
From:fi asaka45@springmail.com [mailto:masaka45@springmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 15,2002 10:33 pM
To: amusso@burlingame.org
Cc: masaka45@springmail.com
Subject: Oak crove and California
Ms. Musso:
I hope you can forward this message to Mr. Frank Erbacher.
I'Ye d9.19 all.l can to bring this hazard to.your City's altention. I fail to see why the City is refusing to do anythingabout this. l've attached a photo of this intersection from the approach I'm mbst conierned aboit. tnere are nostreet name signs whatsoever that are visible.
.
lf you're a drivei just crossing the tracks, there is absolutely no signthat you can see here. Ahh, unless you zoom in. There is a sm-all sign on t[e et tranO'sioe tcafo oetrlnO awood pole. Oh upon closer inspection, there is another sign way to t[e right - located to maxlmize invisibility. Can
1
you honestly tell me as a driver that you can decipher this location?
lnstead of waiting for funding to do something 2 years from now, I ask one final time that you do something - one
cheap overhead flimsy sign would do. I swear if there is a big accident here at the intersection or on the tracks - |
have all my correspondence to you regarding this intersection documented. I would have no choice but to
volunteer this information lo the injured parties, the press, JPB, etc.
ln an era where exit signs are being improved and numbered to improve safety, reduce confusion and most
importantly assist emergency response, Burlingame continues to keep its blinders on. A street name sign or a
memorial sign - it's your choice.
You won't here from me again. Good day
2
a
o
February 22,2002
City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Sincerely,
Neighbors ot 12A4 Cabrillo Avenue
c: City Councilmembers
RECEIVED
FEB 2 | 20r,2
8,',#SFffiflf,,96x,fiE
Re: Application for Design Review Amendment and Special Permit for Height and Declining Height
Envelope tor 1204 Cabrillo Avenue
Dear Commissioners,
As neighbors of 1204 Cabrillo Avenue we are angry and frustrated by what has been constructed on this
site. At the first design review presentation many of us complained about the mass and bulk of the
original design. Now we find out that the developer has built the house 3'-6" over the approved height;
exceeded the declining height envelope requirements, expanded the foot print of the house, constructed
side walls without any articulation, removed dormers, and changed many windows and doors. This is
exactly what we did not want to happen. Why do we havethe design review process when in the end
a builder can do whatever he wants?
At a minimum we would like the height of the roof reduced to what was originally approved (28'-2")
This can be done with by lowering the existing roof line, While the roof is being changed the
developer should also install the approved 'Hardy slate' roof.
Also the side property line walls for both the left and right elevation, do not match the approved
plans. The existing walls are now straight and continuous with no breaks for the second floor. This
is in violation of the approved plans and adds additional illegal square footage to the house. The
original design allowed for variation and articulation in the house elevations as part of the design
review process. The side walls and second floor footprint should be retumed to the approved design
and could be done with the roof revisions.
The declining height envelope violations which have restricted the light and air to the adjacent
properties are another concem. How can this be changed to meet the code? As a new house this
project should meet the letter of the law. lt is not a remodel that had to build onto existing
conditions.
We do not want this massive house with a high roof line and flat side walls. Please do not repeat the
monster homes that exisl on the south east and west comers of Broadway and Cabrillo.
The commission should also be aware that the developer removed a tree in the front yard that was to be
saved on the original plans. How is that going to be replaced?
Because of possible repercussions from the developer and his workers we have felt compelled to
remove our names from this letter. There are many strange wokers in the neighborhood who drive cars
that are in disrepair, and trucks without business names. The worl<ers have no respect for city or private
property. They have damaged the street, broken sidewalk and curbs, and left abandoned vehicles in the
street.
Thank you for listening to our concems and we hope you will have this house reconstructed to follow the
approved design review plans June, 2001.
a
/ / L,rJII(II,UIIUN:
{fi Councit AV o-o\,- please respond'{gty Manager A
{City Artomey No RespYnse RequiredI Dir. Finance'lcity pr^nn*
! Dir. Public Works
I Human Resources
tr Police Chief
ll Fire Chief ! On Next Agenda
n Parks & Rec
! Librarian
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR
RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK