HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2007.06.04 CITY G
BURLINGAME
�gar[o�uuc h
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Mondav,June 4, 2007
Joint Council and Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting—6:00 p.m. Conference Room A
1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of May 21, 2007
5. PRESENTATIONS
a. Best of Burlingame Presentation
b. Recognition of Centennial Parade Chair, Mike McQueen
c. Citizen Life-Saving Award
d. AT&T Light Speed Project
6. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Update on plans for Burlingame's Centennial Plaza— CONF�RM/MOD>rFY DIRECTION
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Public Hearing and Action on an Environmental Impact Report and Proposed Project for the
Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court
b. Adopt Ordinance clarifying claim filing requirements
S. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter
within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from
acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the
door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
1
L
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approval to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Spangle Associates for project
management services relative to the preparation of the Downtown Specific Plan
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within
the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any
matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to
staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
12. OLD BUSINESS
a. Council feedback on proposal to put Council reports on City website
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library, March 20 & April 17, 2007; Planning, May 29, 2007
b. Department Reports: Police, April, 2007
c. Letter from Comcast concerning programming adjustments
I June 1, 2007 Memo from City Attorney
15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
Threatened Litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of Georgia Novo
16. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours
before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall, 501 Primrose
the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org.
Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at
Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING—WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13 2007
2
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AND
BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
JOINT MEETING
6:00pm, Monday, June 4, 2007
Burlingame City Hall, Conference Room "A"
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame
1. Roll Call
Council: Nagel, O'Mahony, Keighran, Cohen, Baylock
Commission: Dittman, Muller, Hesselgren, Shanus, Larios, Castner-Paine, Comaroto
2. Public Comments
This is the opportunity for members of the public to address the Commission regarding
items not otherwise on the agenda. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission
from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. The Chairperson may limit speakers
to three minutes each.
3. New Business
A. New Recreation Center—City CIP Plan
B. Bayside Fields 3 &4 Fundraiser Update
C. School Board/City Relationship
4. Adjournment
NOTICE:Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks &Recreation
Dept. at(650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available
for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The agendas
and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlin ame.org.
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 '' °
BURLINGAME
recreationkburlin ame.org
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
Parks &Recreation Commissioners
From: Randy Schwartz, Parks & Recreation Director 0AL
Date: May 28, 2007
Re: BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE JUNE 4, 2007 CITY COUNCIL
AND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION JOINT MEETING
The Parks & Recreation Commission, at the April 2007 meeting, asked that three items be placed on the
Council-Commission's June 4, 2007 joint meeting and requested staff to prepare background material.
New Recreation Center—City CIP Plan
In 2004, the City completed a Facilities Masterplan to identify opportunities and solutions related to
facilities. Three Parks &Recreation Department facilities were listed in the report: Aquatic Center
(expand shower facilities),Parks Yard(improve access, locker facilities,ADA& HVAC upgrades) and
Recreation Center(replacement).
The report states that the Recreation Center is "a hodgepodge of materials, systems, and uses as a result of
numerous renovations and additions over the last 55 years. It is not up to building code standards."
Seismic issues associated with the facility that also serves as an emergency shelter are described as:
• Substantial structural damage, partial collapse likely in the auditorium
• Extensive non-structural damage
• Repair may not be cost effective
• Risk to Life: Substantial
Findings in the report include a lack of adequate program facilities (gymnasium, dedicated senior
facilities and teen space) and existing facility is not fully ADA accessible has no parking, lacks office
space, kitchen is not functional and a lack of storage space. The report lists two scenarios for a new
Recreation Center on a newly acquired site: one a"Pragmatic Scenario"(a stand alone facility)and the
second a"Visionary Scenario" (combined with a new City Hall).
Council has indicated that a new Recreation Center is the first priority for a new City building and is to be
addressed once the funding for flood control is resolved.
Prior to the 2002-03 budget year, the City was funding Parks &Recreation improvements at an annual
rate of$650,000 to $700,000. In the following five budgets, as the General Fund suffered severe revenue
reductions, substantial cuts were necessary to the CIF's. In that period, the Parks &Recreation CIP's
were limited to residual funds from past projects and two State Grants. Council funded $270,000 of Parks
& Recreation CIF's in the 2006-07 budget and has tentatively approved$640,000 for the 2007-08 budget.
Attached are the Parks &Recreation CIP items, the long-term CIP plan and the 3-year plan.
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
Turf of Bayside Fields 3 &4 Fundraiser Update(CIF's)
Representatives from the Burlingame Soccer Club approached both the Commission and City Council
earlier this year with a request to open a donation account for field improvements that would benefit all
users of City facilities. Council approved the request and the non-profit sports groups have met to discuss
a fundraising program. Representatives from the leagues are scheduled to meet again in the near future to
finalize an action plan.
School Board/City Relationship
At the February 2007 meeting of the City-BSD Liaison Committee, it was requested that at least one
Parks & Recreation Commissioner have a child involved in after-school activities that the City conducts
on District facilities. At the Commission's February meeting, Commissioner Shanus was selected to fill
that role.
The discussions of weighing the contributions from each agency to the after-school programs were
revisited at the Liaison Committee's May 19"'meeting and have been dropped from further consideration.
Instead efforts will be focused on (1) the benefits of the City-BSD partnership and (2)jointly staffing a
field master plan to determine field needs and a collaborative approach to finding resources.
Attachments
• Long-Term Replacement Plan, dated February 17, 2007
• Parks & Recreation's Capital Improvement Items, dated February 27, 2007
• City CIP Plan—"B" Category
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
City of Burlingame-Parks& Recreation Dept. Long-Term CIP Replacement Plan Fcb17,2007
MAJOR PARKS Life Maint. Last Aimrox.S 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
1 Washington Park I 9 acres
2 Ballfield Lights 25 2000 $ 170.000
3 Fencing 15 40,000 49,195
4 Infield Renov 1 5 2006 25 000 25,0 30,747
5 Basketball Courts 35 2001 50,000
6 Resurfacing 7 2001 7.500 8 695
7 Grandstands 40 1994 200,000
8 Fencing 15 40,000 49.195
9 Repainting r erred to Rawedi Services in 2005
10 Path Lights 30 0 120 000
11 PlayStructure 15 2004 240.000
12 Fencing20 2 000
13 Restrooms 25 1998 56159
14 Tennis Courts 25 1995 50 000
15 Fencing15 25 000 29 851
16 Resurfacin 5 2000 10 920 13 039
17 Tennis Li is 30 0 40 000
Bayside Park 12 acres
18 Field#1 Lights 25 1 1 2004 170.000
19 Fencing R25
75,000 85,000
20 Field#2 Lights 2000 150,000
21 Fencing 30,000
22 Field#3 Lights 1998 250000
23 Fencin 5 000 5,000
24 Field#4 Fencin 5 000 5,970
25 Synthetic Turf 15
26 Bleachers#1 40 1967 25000 2g 9g
27 Bleachers#2 30 2000 8 000
28 Bleachers#3 30 2000 3 000
29 Scorer's Booth 40 2000 100,000
30 Path Lights 30 0 15,000
31 Restroom/Snack Sha 25 2005 320 000
Mn ay Field 3 acres
32 Ballfield Lights 1 25 1 1 2000 I 200 000
33 Fencing 15 15 000
34 Bleachers 202000 8 Go0
35 Path Lights 30 2000 10,000
36 Play Stricture 1 15 2000 80 000
Dog Park 1 acres
37 PathLi hts 30 2000 25,000
38 Fencin 15 30,000
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
MAJOR PARKS 1 2015 2016 1 2017 2018 1 2019 2020 1 2021 1 2022 1 2023 1 2024 1 2025 a 2026
1 Washin ton Park
2 Ballfield Lights
3 Fencing316,250
4 Infield Renov 35 644 41 76 644 321 47 903
5 Basketball Courts
6 Resurfacina 10,382 12,768
7 Grandstands
8 Fencing
76 644
9 Repainting
10 Path Lights 171,091
11 Play Structure 373M2
12 Fencing
36- 1-2
13 Restrooms 98 475
14 Tennis Courts 80 235
15 Fencing
46-1-50-7
16 Resurfacin 15 116 20 314
17 Tennis Li hts E6O504
Bayside Park
18 Field #1 Lights
19 Fencing 127 682
20 Field 42 Lights
279 044
21 Fencing 41527
22 Field #3 Lights 465,074
23 Fencing 8,768
24 Field #4 Fencing
9 301
25 Synthetic Turf
400 000
26 Bleachers #1
27 Bleachers #2
28 Bleachers #3
29 Scorer's Booth
30 Path Lights
31 Restroom/Snack Shack
Murra Field
32 Ballfield Lights
372 059
33 Fencing 20,764
34 Bleachers 12 838
35 Path Lights
36 Play Structure 110 739
Dog Park
37 IPath Lights-
38
i hts38 Fe cing 3
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
MAJOR PARKS 2027 2028 20291 2030 1 2031 1 2032 2033 2034 1 2035 1 2036 1 2037
1 Washington Park
2 Ballfield Lights
3 Fencing
4 Infield Renov 1 55,532 64,377
5 Basketball Courts 128,754
6 Resurfacing 15,703 19,313
7 Grandstands 485,452
8 Fencing
9 Repainting
10 Path Lights
11 Play Structure 582,543
12 Fencing
13 Restrooms
14 Tennis Courts
15 Fencing
16 Resurfacing 1 23,5501 27,301
17 Tennis Lights
Bayside Park
18 Field#1 Lights 355,942
19 Fencing 198,925
20 Field#2 Lights
21 Fencing 64,698
22 Field#3 Lights
23 Fencing
24 Field#4 Fencing
25 Synthetic Turf
26 Bleachers#1
27 Bleachers#2 17,253
28 Bleachers#3 6,470
29 Scorer's Booth
30 Path Lights 38,626
31 Restroom/Snack Shack 539,148
Mu ray Field
32 Ballfield Lights
33 Fencing 32,349
34 Bleachers
35 Path Lights 21,566
36 Play Structure 172,527
Dog Park
37 Path Lights 53,915
38 1 Fencin 66,639
MINOR PARKS Life I Maint.I Last I Approx.$ 2006 2007 2008 2009 12010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Cuernavaca Park 5 acres
39 Basketball Courts 35 1990 50 000
40 Resurfacing 20 1990 7.500 &955
41 Bleachers 20 1990 8,000 U52
42 'Flay Structure 15 2007 180,000 180 000
43 Ballfield Fencing15 60,000 71,643
44 Restrooms 25 1 2003 128,000
Laguna Park 0.5 acres
45 Play Structure 15 1 1999 91 000 122 296
46 Fencing15 5.000 6 .20
47 Tennis Courts 25 2001 50,000
48 Resurfacing 5 2001 9,000 1 10 000 I 1069
49 Fencing15 25 000 33 598
PershingPark 1.1 acres
5o Basketball Courts 40 1 1 1987 1 50 000
51 Fencing 15 1 1 40.000
52 Resurfacing 10 1997 1 7,500 1 10,000
53 May Structure 15 2005 90 000
54 1 Fencing20 5 000
Ray Park 5.9 acres
55 Basketball Courts 35 1 1 1997 50,000
56 Resurfacing 10 1 1997 9,000 10 433
57 Fencin 15 20,000 25 335
58 Bleachers 20 1995 8,000
59 Fencing 15 1 60,000 71 643
60 Path Lights 30 0 10,000 13 439
61 Pia Structure 15 1995 85 000 101,494
62 lRestrooms 25 2003 128 000
63 Tennis Courts 25 1996 49 800
64 Resurfacing 5 2002 8 498 9,852 10 765
651 Fencing 15 1 25 000L 31,6(
Victoria Park 0.9 acres
66 Basketball Courts 35 1 1 1997 1 000
67 1 Resurfacing 10 1 1997 1 6 700 1 1 7 767
68 Fencin 15 25 000 31 669
69 Path Li is 30 0 1 10 000
70 Pla Structure 15 1997 106 723 131 256
Villa a Park 1.9 acres
71 Basketball Courts 35 1 1 1998 5U00
72 Resurfacing 7 1 2005 7 500 20,000 9 501
73 Fencing15 35,000 41,79
74 Cottage(Budding) 50 1999 425,000
75 Path Lights 30 0 10,000
76 Play Structure 15 1995 86,000 102,688
77 Restrooms 25 0 150 000 150,000
MINOR PARKS 2015 1 2016 1 2018 1 2019 1 2020 12021 2022 2023 1 2024 1 2025 1 2026
Cuernavaca Park
39 Basketball Courts 93 015
40 Resurfacin
41 Bleachers
42 Play Structure 306 438
43 Balltield Fencing
44 Restrooms I J 1,618
Laguna Park
45 Play Structure
46 Fencing
47 Tennis Courts
95 805
49 Resurfaciruz12 832
49 Fencing
14 876
PershingPark
50 —Basketball Courts
51 Fencin
62,319
52 Resurfacin 7T546
53 Play Structure
144,424
54 Fencin 7,343
Ray Park
55 Basketball Courts
56 Resurfacin z 13,217
57 Fencing
58 Bleachers 11,074
59 Fencin 111618
60 Path Lights
61 Play Structure 158125
62 Restrooms
63 Tennis Courts 82 312
64 Resurfacin 12 480
L4 467
65 Fencin
Victoria Park
66 Basketball Courts
67 Resurfacing� 9,839
68 Fencin>
69 Path Lights 14,685
70 PIE Structure
Villa a Park 204,492
71 WRestrooms
ourts
72rfacin 11,685 14 371
73 Fencing 65110
74 Cottageildin r
75
76 re
77 159,985
MINOR PARKS 2027 1 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Cuernavaca Park
39 Basketball Courts
40 Resurfacin
16,174
41 Bleachers 17,253
42 Pla Structure 477 4�0
43 Ballfield Fencing
44 Restrooms 260,198
Laguna Park
45 Play Structure 190 534
46 Fencing 10469
47 Tennis Courts
48 Resurfacing 19,992 23 176
49 Fencing, 52 344
Pershing Park
50 Basketball Courts 98,679
51 Fencing97 090
52 Resurfacing 18,204 24 465
53 —Flay Structure 225 007
54 Fencin
Ray Park 13,262
55 Basketball Courts 1 l4 396
56 Resurfacing 17,762 23,871
57 Fencing 39 472
58 Bleachers 20 001
59 Fencin
60 Path Lights
61 Flay Structure
62 Restrooms 260198
63 Tennis Courts
64 Resurfacing 1 17,793
20 627
65 Fencin 49 340
Victoria Park
66Basketball Courts 114,3961
67 Resurfacin 13,223 17 771
6e
Fencing 49,340
69 Path Li hts
70 PIa Structure
Villa a Park
71 Basketball Courts 1 17 828
72 Resurfacing 17,674
73 Fencing
74 Cottage(Building)
75 Path Lights 19,736
76 Play Structure
77 Restrooms
343,189
TOT LOTS Life I Maint. Last Approx. $ 1 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 1 2010 2011 1 2012 1 2013 2014
Alpine Playground 0. 1 acres
78 May Structure 15 1 1998 90,000 117,430
79 Fencing 20 1 A 1 5 000
1 J-
J Lot Playground 0.1 acres
80 May Structure 15 1 2002 1 90,000
81 1 Fencing 20 1 1 5 000
Paloma Playground 0.1 acres
82 Pla Structure 15 1999 90,000 120 952
83 Fencin 20 5 000
Trenton Playground 0. 1 acres
84 Play Structure 15 2002 1 90 000
85 Fencing 4 20 5,000
GOLF CENTER 7 acres
86 Ballfield Lights 25 1 1 2000 1 200 000
87 1 Path Li hts 30 1 12000 1 15 000
88 [Teaching Station 40 J 2001 1 120 000
OTHER
89 Euc Tree M mnt annual 50 000 (Shifted to GF 68020 - Parks Division - or 2007-08 Bud et
90 Landscape/Park Pathway Improve annual 50 000 55,000 55 000 56,650 58,350 60,100 61,903 63 760 65 673
91 Rec Ctr Parking Lights 30 ears
92 Lower Bayside Synthetic new -500-10-0-0- 500 000
93 Tree Replacement Fund annual - new in '09) 5 000 5 000 5 000 5 150 5 305 5 464 5 628 5 796
94 Irrigation 50,000 55,000 60 500
95 Resilient Surface 140 000 100,000 1 50,000
96 BIS Tennis Courts 60,000
ANNUAL TOTALS 295,000 640,000 560,000 627,379 1 575,12fl 396,866 1 215,541 1 247,317 1 379,240
Notes: Above list does not include improvements to: Aquatic Center, Golf Center, Depot (maintenance for these are currently under contract to another entity) or Mills
Canyon (natural habitat w/ weed abatement through Central County Fire)
Some items are not included in this list because (1) they are considered maintenance items; (2) price does not warrant inclusion - ex. picnic tables/benches, fish
cleaning station; (3) project does not come from Parks & Recreation funds - ex. parks yard resurfacing
Some items may exceed their projected life span due to preventative maintenance efforts.
BIS Tennis Courts (line 96) is City's share of total cost (50%)
TOT LOTS 2015 2016 1 2017 2018 2019 1 2020 2021 2022 1 2023 2024 2025 1 2026
Alpine Playground
78 PlayStructure
79 Fencin 7 343
J Lot Playground
80 Play Structure 132,168
81 Fencing 7,343
Paloma Playground
82 Play Structure
83 Fencing 7,343
Trenton Playground
84 Play Structure 132,168
85 Fencing 7 343
Golf Center
86 Ballfield Li hts 372 059
87 Path Lights
88 Teaching Station
OTHER
89 Euc Tree M mnt ann 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 Landsca e/Park PathvA 67,643 69,672 71,763 73,915 7611-3-3 78,417 80,769 83,192 8--5688 88,259 9-0-)907 93,634
91 Rec Ctr Parking Lights 30 ears 15,000
92 Lower Bayside Synthetic new 150,000
93 Tree Replacement Fun 5,970 6,149 6,334 6,524 6,720 6,921 7,129 7,343 7,563 7,790 8,024 1 8,264
94 Irrigation 66,550 73,205 80,526 88,578
95 Resilient Surface 60,000 72,000
96 BIS Tennis Courts
ANNUAL TOTALS 1 283,214 404,712 505,433 140,943 616,453 472,835 1 144,095 772,261 665,567 514,128 2,302,514 617,757
TOT LOTS 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037
Alpine Playground
78 Play Structure 182 951
79 Fencing
13-2652
J Lot Playground
80 May Structure 205 913
81 1 Fencin
13 262
Paloma Playground
82 [Play Structure 188,4401
83 LFencLng I I +
�13j�262
Trenton Playground
84 Play Structure 203,9131
85 Fencin
Golf Center 13 262
86 Ballfield Lights
87 Path Lights =32=349
88 Teaching Station
OTHER
89 Euc Tree M t ann 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
90 Landscape/Park Path 96,443 99 336 102J,316105 386 108 547 111,804 115 158 118,613 12-2-11-71 125,836 129,611
91 Rec Ctr Parkin Lights 30 ears
92 Lower Bayside S thetic new 213,864
93 Tree Replacement Fun 8,512 8,768 9 301 9 581 9,868 10 16410 469 10,783 11,106 11,440
94 Irrigation 97,436 107 179 117,897 129,687
95 Resilient Surface 86,400 10316-8-0E— 124 416
96 BIS Tennis Courts 40,000
ANNUAL TOTALS 497,111 908,886 942,572 1,111,938 367,470 1,423,025 260,824 1 1,432,692405,263 1 451,189 1,203,915
Parks& Recreation's Capital Improvement Items Feb 27,2007
Washington Park Bayside Park Murray Field
Ballfield Lights(25) Field#1 Lights(25) Ballfield Lights(25)
Fencing(15) Fencing(15) Fencing(15)
Infield Renov(5) Bleachers(40) Bleachers(20)
Basketball Courts(35) Field#2 Lights(25) Path Lights(30)
Resurfacing(7) Fencing(15) Play Structure(15)
Grandstands(40) Bleachers(30) Resilient Surface(10)
aRepainting(5) Field#3 Lights(25)
CC Irrigation(40) Fencing(15) Golf Center
C Path Lights(30) Bleachers(30) Ballfield Lights(25)
Play Structure(15) Field#4 Fencing(15) Path Lights(30)
Fencing(20) Synthetic Turf(10) Teaching Station(40)
Resilient Surface(10) Drainage(40)
Restrooms(25) Scorer's Booth(40) Dog Park
Tennis Courts(25) Path Lights(30) Path Lights(30)
Fencing(15) Restroom/Snack Shack(25) Fencing(15)
Resurfacing(5)
Tennis Lights(30)
Cuernavaca Park Pershing Park Victoria Park
Basketball Courts(35) Basketball Courts(40) Basketball Courts(35)
Resurfacing(20) Fencing(15) Resurfacing(10)
Bleachers(20) Resurfacing(10) Fencing(15)
Play Structure(15) Play Structure(15) Path Lights(30)
Resilient Surface(10) Resilient Surface(10) Play Structure(15)
Ballfield Fencing(15) Resilient Surface(10)
Restrooms(25) Ray Park
p Basketball Courts(35) Village Park
a, Laguna Park Resurfacing(10) Basketball Courts(35)
p Play Structure(15) Fencing(15) Resurfacing(7)
Resilient Surface(10) Bleachers(20) Fencing(15)
" Fencing(20) Fencing(15) Cottage(Building)(50)
Tennis Courts(25) Path Lights(30) Path Lights(30)
Resurfacing(5) Play Structure(15) Play Structure(15)
Fencing(15) Resilient Surface(10) Resilient Surface(10)
Restrooms(25) Restrooms(25)
Tennis Courts(25)
Resurfacing(5)
Alpine Playground Paloma Playground z Community Center
F Play Structure(15) Play Structure(15) W Aquatic Center
C Fencing(20) Fencing(20) W Golf Center
J Lot Playground Trenton Playground Depot
Play Structure(15) Play Structure(15) W Landscape/Park Paths(1)
F Resilient Surface(10) Resilient Surface(10) x Tree Replacement Fund(1)
Fencing(20) Fencing(20) Mills Canyon
I Oil BIS Tennis Courts
Long-Term CIP 2010 575,129 2017 505,433 2024 514,128 2031 367,470
Plan Funding 2011 396,866 2018 140,943 2025 2,302,514 2032 1,432,692
Levels—10/14/06 2012 215,541 2019 616,453 2026 617,757 2033 260,824
2006 295,000 2013 247,317 2020 472,835 2027 497,111 2034 1,432,692
2007 640,000 2014 379,240 2021 144,085 2028 908,886 2035 405,263
2008 560,000 2015 283,214 2022 772,261 2029 942,572 2036 451,189
2009 627,379 2016 404,712 2023 665,567 2030 1,111,938 2037 1,203,915
� , City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
M
BURYNc3nME Parks & Recreation CIP Plan - February 27, 2007
CITY CIP PLAN - "B" CATEGORY t
Project Balance Funds From Proposed UNFUNDED
Number PROJECT DESCRIPTION Available Projects Funded PROJECTS
10/31/05 '05-'06 '06-'07 '07-'08 '08-'09 Details
1 76350 Eucalyptus Tree Management 85,171 - 50,000 Shifted to GF operating budget 68020 beginning in '07-'08
2 Street Tree Reforestation Plan 5,000 5,000 New On-Going Proposal for 2007-08 Budget
3 77370 Wash Park Tennis Court Resurface 10,000
4 78490 Special Landscaping Improvements 50,965 50,000 55,000 55,000
5 81070 Pershing Park Playground Rehab 23,897
6 81080 Cuernavaca Playground 258,392 180,000
7 81090 Bayside Restroom / Snack Shack 265,748 15,537
881100 Washington Park Irrigation 52,076 50,000 Central Controller
9 Village Park Restroom 150,000
10 78490 Laguna Tennis Court Repairs 10,000
11 Lower Bayside Park Improvements 500,000
1278490 Village Park Picnic/Court 20,000
13 Pershing Park Court Resurfacing 10,000
14 81790 Resilient surface at Village 60,000
15 Resilient surface at Ray Park 60,000
1681790 Resilient surface at Paloma 40,000
171 81790 Resilient surface at Laguna 40,000
18 Resilient surface at J Lot 40,000
19 Park Fencing - Bayside 90,000
20F80530 BHS Football Field Contribution 55,000 Transfer to 137 81060)
Total 15,537 1 270,000 1 640,000 1 560,000
(Note: This plan does not include any funds for the B.I.S. tennis courts - Estimated at $75,000 to $100,000)
CITY C
BVRLJNGAME
,
�Fogq o0
"��T[o JUNe 6
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of May 21, 2007
CLOSED SESSION:
Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following:
a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6:
City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Deirdre Dolan, Glenn Berkheimer(IEDA)
Labor Organizations: AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829; BAMM; Teamsters Local 856; Department
Heads; and Unrepresented Employees
JOINT COUNCIL AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETING
Burlingame City Council met with the Chamber of Commerce to discuss various Chamber activities and
promotion of Burlingame businesses.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Terry Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
INTRODUCTION OF JACKIE ARNOLD,YOUTH MAYOR FOR THE DAY
Mayor Nagel introduced Jackie Arnold, a fifth grader at Franklin Elementary School. Jackie won the honor
of being Youth Mayor for the Day and helped Mayor Nagel with procedural actions during the meeting.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Shar Beckheyer.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. MINUTES
The following corrections were made to the May 7, 2007 Council minutes: Item 6.a., page 3, replace
"driveway"with"house"to read: ...landscaping shall be added along the right side property line adjacent to
the house; Item 10. to read: Council postponed their reports to the next meeting.; and Item 9.a. spelling
correction of Bookings on title line.
1
Burlingame City Council May 21, 2007
Unapproved Minutes
Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the May 7, 2007 regular
Council meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice
vote, 5-0.
5. INTRODUCTION/PRESENTATIONS
a. For introduction of Youth Mayor, see Item 1 above following Call to Order.
b. BEST OF BURLINGAME AWARD
Mayor Nagel presented Emma Anders with the Best of Burlingame award. Emma Anders is a junior at
Burlingame High School who has logged more than 100 hours of community service every year in high
school while earning grades that have qualified her for the honor roll each semester. She is involved in many
school and community activities. She is committed to serving others and leads by example. Those who work
with Emma often mention the passion with which she tackles every project.
C. POLICE CENTENNIAL UPDATE
COP Van Etten advised that the Police Department is participating in the city's Centennial and introduced
members of the department's Centennial Committee: Officer Laura Terada, Parking Enforcement Officer
Rob Alviso, Commander Mike Matteucci and Sergeant Bob Boll. The committee members displayed their
new uniforms with badges and patches replicating the first Burlingame Police badge and patch to
commemorate the Centennial. Police car door emblems will be changed to replicate the vintage patch as
well. The committee members presented each Council member with a Centennial issue of the Police polo
shirt and patch.
d. CALTRAIN RAILROAD CORRIDOR PLANS
Ian McAvoy, Chief Development Officer of the Transportation District, provided an overview of the future
plans for the railroad corridor. The overview included plans for the Broadway Grade Separation Feasibility
Study, Railroad Corridor Electrification, and Railroad Corridor High Speed Rail.
Mayor Nagel opened the floor for questions. Mr. McAvoy responded to questions from the following
citizens: Mike Harvey, Rudy Horak, Jeff Carter, Jack Ringham, Pat Giomi, and Don Cory.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 22 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE THE SIGN REGULATIONS
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and take action on the
proposed ordinance amending provisions of the sign code.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion that Council make the finding that the proposed update to the sign
ordinance will have no adverse impact on the environment and adopt the Negative Declaration; seconded by
2
Burlingame City Council May 21,2007
Unapproved Minutes
Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock
made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1807 adopting a revised Title 22 (Sign Code); seconded by
Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed
CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
b. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1808 AFFIRMING ORDINANCE NO. 1800 TO SPECIFY THAT
ALTERATIONS TO AN ENTIRE BUILDING ARE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN
CALCULATING A REQUIREMENT TO INSTALL SPRINKLERS RATHER THAN A
SINGLE PREMISE
FC Dornell reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1808 affirming Ordinance No. 1800 applying administrative interpretation for a trigger to
install sprinklers. Councilwoman Baylock expressed concern that the geographical description in Section 2
of the ordinance "...the Santa Cruz Mountains foothills..." should be changed to the San Andreas Mountains
foothills. CA Anderson was not present to confirm the correct description.
Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1808 affirming Ordinance No.
1800 to clarify provision regarding installation of sprinklers, and should there be a change in Section 2 of
Ordinance No. 1808 as to the mountain boundaries, that it be added later; seconded by Councilwoman
Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed CC Mortensen
to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
Mayor Nagel moved to Item 13.a. due to public interest.
13. NEW BUSINESS
a. SET APPEAL HEARING DATE FOR PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY/SPCA
COMPASSION PROJECT AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT
Council set June 4, 2007, as the hearing date for the Planning Commission appeal of 1450 Rollins Road/
20 Edwards Court.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following citizens spoke on Easton Drive and the Eucalyptus Tree: Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus
Avenue; Michael Dillon, 1741 Lake; Diane Condon Wirgler, 1536 Cypress; Sue Fuller, 2210 Poppy Drive;
and Stephen Hamilton, 105 Crescent Avenue. Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive, spoke on Highway 101
construction and pedestrian safety on Broadway. John Root, 728 Crossway Road, spoke on Council
Chamber's sound system and the SPCA. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the sound system. Don
Cory, 833 Alpine Avenue, spoke on various subjects. Paul Stann, 1025 Larkspur Drive, requested a waiver
and submitted a signed petition to keep their basketball hoop in public right of way. Jennifer Pfaff, 615
Bayswater Avenue, offered her basketball hoop. There were no further comments from the floor.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
3
Burlingame City Council May 21,2007
Unapproved Minutes
a. APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
GRANICUS FOR STREAMLINING MEDIA SERVICES
FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council direct staff whether to proceed to enter into a
professional services agreement with Granicus for web-based, streaming media services. Granicus
representative, Hilda Stevens, presented an overview of their services.
Council expressed concerns about the need to improve the quality of Council Chamber's sound system and
related funding, consideration of other service alternatives available based on the type of services desired,
and the unknown number of citizens who would access the service.
Mayor Nagel stated that Council consensus is to discuss funding for the improvement of the Council
Chamber's sound system at their May 30th Budget Study Session before further consideration of providing
streaming media service on the web.
Councilwoman Baylock acknowledged Lorne Abramson, a Burlingame resident, for providing Council with
information from other cities that have this media service.
Mayor Nagel declared a five-minute intermission at 8:35 p.m.; then reconvened the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
b. APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NBS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS TO PERFORM A COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT (CFD) FORMATION STUDY
FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council to enter into a professional services agreement
with NBS Consultants to perform a Community Facilities District formation study. The CFD would provide
Council with more flexibility in determining the structure of a special tax.
After Council discussion, Mayor Nagel advised that State Senators Yee and Torlakson introduced SCA 12,
new legislation to amend the state constitution to make fees and charges for storm water management the
same way as fees for sewer treatment and water. If approved by the Legislature,the bill would be placed on
the ballot for voter approval. Council decided not to proceed with the proposed agreement for a CFD
formation study until the fall when more information would be available on the legislative status of SCA 12.
C. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE CLARIFYING CLAIM FILING REQUIREMENTS
CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council to introduce an ordinance clarifying claim filing
requirements.
Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Section 4.15.010 of
the Municipal Code to clarify claim requirements. Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to waive further
reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman
Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel requested CC Mortensen
publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption.
4
Burlingame City Council May 21,2007
Unapproved Minutes
d. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and recommended that Council call for applications
for the Beautification Commission. The application deadline was set for June 11, 2007.
e. CONSIDER PROPOSAL FROM THE MAYOR FOR A PILOT ONE-WAY STREET ON
EASTON DRIVE AND DESIRABILITY OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
Mayor Nagel reviewed her memorandum to Council regarding Easton Drive Reforestation. In an effort to
resolve the fate of the Easton Drive eucalyptus tree, Mayor Nagel recommended two options: to turn Easton
Drive into a one-way street between Vancouver and El Camino Real or to replace the tree after the
Beautification Commission revisits the list of replacement trees this summer.
After Council discussion, Mayor Nagel made a motion to send out a survey asking"In order to prevent the
removal and replacement of the tall eucalyptus tree that is growing into the street in front of the Easton
Branch Library at 1800 Easton Drive, do you favor changing Easton Drive into a one-way street between
Drake Avenue and El Camino Real, with traffic flowing westbound only? This traffic change would be
implemented on a pilot basis before becoming permanent. Please check one: Yes or No;" seconded by
Councilman Cohen. The motion failed by voice vote, 1-4 (Baylock, Cohen, Keighran and O'Mahony
dissented).
During further Council discussion, Mayor Nagel proposed a four-month pilot program without a survey
changing Easton Drive into a one-way street between Drake and El Camino Real with traffic flowing
westbound only; other one-way modifications could be made later as the community gives input; the method
of implementation would be to notify the neighborhood of the change by mail with an effective date given;
and City staff would erect barricades and temporary signage denoting the new traffic patterns. Mayor Nagel
made a motion to enact the proposed one-way street pilot program without a survey as soon as possible;
seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion failed by voice vote, 2-2-1 (Keighran and O'Mahony dissented,
Baylock abstained).
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor O'Mahony requested removal of Items b. and 91from the Consent Calendar for further
discussion. Councilwoman Baylock requested removal of Item c. from the Consent Calendar for further
discussion.
a. RESOLUTION NO. 41-2007 APPROVING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF REDWOOD
CITY
FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 41-2007 approving Information Technology
Services agreement between the City of Burlingame and the City of Redwood City.
e. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 44-2007 APPROVING SECOND AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO AND THE CITIES OF THE
COUNTY FOR THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
5
Burlingame City Council May 21,2007
Unapproved Minutes
CA Anderson requested Council approve Resolution No.44-2007 approving the second amendment to a
revised agreement between the City of Burlingame and the County of San Mateo for Animal Control
Services.
L WARRANTS & PAYROLL
FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #25000-25665 duly audited, in the amount of
$2,884,481.25 (excluding Library checks #25185-25225); Payroll checks #168320-168526 in the amount of
$2,314,854.70 for the month of April 2007.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items a., e., and f. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by
Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
b. APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 40-2007 ACCEPTING STREET RESURFACING
PROGRAM 2006
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve a resolution accepting the Street Resurfacing Program 2006.
Councilman Cohen asked when a presentation would be available on how the resurfacing program is
developed. DPW Bagdon advised that the presentation would be scheduled for FY 2007-08.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 40-2007 accepting improvements to Street
Resurfacing Program 2006 by Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc.; seconded by Councilwoman Keighran.
The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
C. RESOLUTION NO. 42-2007 REQUESTING METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION (MTC) TO ALLOCATE FISCAL YEAR 2007-08 TRANSPORTATION
DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve a resolution requesting MTC to allocate funds for the
Transportation Development Act.
Councilwoman Baylock acknowledged the work of City staff and commission members in getting $115,854
for the City projects which were ranked 1, 6 and 10 out of 20 in San Mateo County.
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Resolution No. 42-2007 requesting the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2007-08 Transportation Development Act,
Article 3 Pedestrian Bicycle Project Funding; seconded by Vice Mayor O'Mahony. The motion was
approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
d. RESOLUTION NO. 43-2007 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR
MAINTAINING THE NEW BROADWAY PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE BRIDGE AT
HIGHWAY 101 AND MAINTAIN LANDSCAPING OF SOUNDWALL ALONG ROLLINS
ROAD
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve a resolution approving an agreement for the city to maintain the
new Broadway Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge at Highway 101, a new soundwall and landscaping.
6
Burlingame City Council May 21,2007
Unapproved Minutes
Councilman Cohen asked about the landscape plan and bridge design. DPW Bagdon stated that the bridge
will be a permanent structure to fit the future interchange and has been designed by Caltrans. The
landscaping will be Boston ivy.
Vice Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 43-2007 approving maintenance
agreement for specified city maintenance of specified areas in connection with the auxiliary lane
improvement project to U.S. 101 (Bayshore Freeway); seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion
was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Nagel moved to Item 13.b.
13. NEW BUSINESS
b. VEHICLES FOR COMMUNICATING COUNCIL ACTIVITIES
Mayor Nagel asked Council to consider posting the details of their activities on the City's web site in lieu of
providing details of their activities during Council Committee Reports.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Caltrans and Caltrain. Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus Avenue,
spoke on Easton Drive one-way street proposal. Michael Dillon, 1741 Lake, spoke on Easton Drive street
modifications. There were no further comments from the floor.
12. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
13. NEW BUSINESS
Vice Mayor O'Mahony thanked CP Monroe for the many years she served on San Mateo City/County
Association of Government's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). CP Monroe stated that CDD Meeker
has offered to serve on the TAC.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation, April 19, 2007; Beautification, May 3, 2007; Planning,
May 14, 2007
b. Department Reports: Finance, April 2007
c. Letter from Comcast concerning program adjustments
7
Burlingame City Council May 21,2007
Unapproved Minutes
15. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 11:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
8
Burlingame City Council May 21,2007
Unapproved Minutes
Gtit� of Burfii
C
BURLINGAME
Martka (Wasman X,
IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED ONE OF THE
rr FOR PROVIDING OUTSTANDING COMMUNITY SERVICE
l t I W
tj X1
TERRY NAGEL,MAYOR
SURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM # 5b
MTG. 6/4/07
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: May 28, 2007
APPRO y�
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY !' U
SUBJECT: COUNCIL RECOGNITION OF MICHAEL McQ EEN FOR HIS
VOLUNTEER EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE THE CENTENNIAL PARADE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council recognize Mike McQueen for his
volunteer efforts to organize the Centennial parade.
BACKGROUND:
When the decision was made to conduct a Centennial parade to kick-off the City's year-long
celebration of its 100`h birthday, Mike McQueen stepped forward and organized the largest
parade in Burlingame's history on June 2, 2007. In addition to recruiting over 100 entries of
floats, antique cars, dignitaries, bands, marchers, non-profit organizations and horses, Mike
worked closely with City staff to include both Broadway and Burlingame Avenue areas in the
parade route, ensure safety of participants and spectators, lessen the impact on the neighboring
community and maximize the enjoyment of all.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
None
BURLINGAME COMMANDER BRADLEY D.FLOYD
SERVICES DIVISION/PRESS
POLICE INFORMATION
BURLINGAME POLICE
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT
1111 TROUSDALE DR.
BURLINAME CALIFORNIA,94010
PHONE(DIRECT LINE):650-777-4131
PHONE(GENERAL LINE):650-777-
4100
E-MAIL:floyd@burlingamepolice.org
ATTENTION NEWS DESK
Burlingame Police Department
Press Release,Friday,June 01,2007
Citizen Heroes Recognized
At about 8:15 PM on Friday,April 27,2007,an intoxicated driver failed to negotiate a sharp right
"Hair Pin"turn on the 300 block of Airport Blvd,in the City of Burlingame.As a result,the car she
was driving catapulted off the roadway and came to rest over 50 feet from shore in the cold
waters of the San Francisco Bay.
A 15 year old Burlingame High School student was riding by with her family when they were
flagged down by a citizen near the crash site.A frantic bystander explained that a car had just
gone off of the roadway and was sinking in the water. The driver of the car was trapped inside.
After some split second decision making,the young swimmer from Burlingame High School
decided to brave the cold choppy waters of
the bay and dove in to save the stranded driver and sole occupant.She swam to the car and
repeatedly tried to open the driver's door.
While this was occurring a 50 year old man,who happened to be driving by,noticed the
commotion and stopped to see what he could do to help.
The man looked off shore and could see that the teen age life saver was having trouble opening
the car door. The man decided he would also go into the frigid water to assist the teenager in
saving the driver.Between the two of them,they were able to free the driver from the car.
As a result of the brave actions of total strangers,the driver of the crashed car was able to avoid
death or serious injury.
Two outstanding citizens placed their own lives and personal safety in jeopardy to save the life of
another human being.It seems that everything fell together at the moment when help was
needed most.
1
On Monday,June 4, 2007, the Burlingame Police Department (Chief Jack Van Etten)will be
presenting an official commendation to the individuals who were so brave and selfless in saving
the driver's life.
The public is invited to join the ceremony at the Burlingame City Counsel Meeting that begins
promptly at 7:00 PM in the City of Burlingame Counsel Chambers at 501 Primrose Rd. in
Burlingame.
The names of those being honored are:
• Ms. Becky Reynoso
and,
• Mr. Lawrence Rensch
The driver of the submerged car was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of
alcohol and/or drugs. More information on the driver is being held pending further investigation.
Thank you,
Commander
Bradley D. Floyd
Services, Investigations Division
Burlingame Police Department
1111 Trousdale Dr.
Burlingame CA. 94010
650-777-4131
650-777-4100
f/ovdMurlingamepolice.org
2
Agenda
Item # 5d
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: June 4th, 2007
SUBMITTED BY
APPROVED BY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: May 25, 2007
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: AT&T LIGHTSPEED PROJECT PRESENTATION
BACKGROUND: Over the last year AT&T has been working with the State
Legislator to obtain a statewide franchise agreement to provide a wide spectrum of
video services to its customers called `Lightspeed Project'. As a result, a statewide
franchise agreement was issued to AT&T by the State in March 2007.
DISCUSSION: As part of the Lightspeed Project, AT&T will be upgrading its existing
infrastructure in the City right of way to be compatible with the new technology. Staff
will work with AT&T to review the project plans to ensure public health and safety as
well as avoid conflicts with City owned utilities. An encroachment permit will be
issued to AT&T upon meeting the City requirements.
Tedi Vriheas, Director of AT&T external affairs will be at the Council meeting to
make a presentation regarding the project scope, schedule and public notification.
This will provide an opportunity to the Council to obtain project information and ask
any questions they might have.
Exhibits: AT&T letter to the Council, Power point presentation copy.
C: City Manager, City Attorney, Finance Director
71
Syed uza, PE
Assistant Director of Public Works
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\ATT presentation 6-407 staff report.doc
r a tIXt AT&T California T:415.778.1221
SQ=�r 525 Market St F.415.543.0852
San Francisco,CA 94105
May 22, 2007
Dear Councilmember,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity on June 4 to share with you AT&T's plans to upgrade our
telecommunications network. With an eye towards the future, AT&T has continuously evolved its
broadband network through a series of sequential major upgrades, each building upon one
another. This latest network upgrade will further increase the bandwidth available to our customers
using a broad new suite of integrated, advanced services, all speaking the same language, Internet
protocol or IP – the language of the Internet. The new fiber optic facilities will enable AT&T to make
faster high speed Internet service available to more of our customers at a time when competition is
fierce in this arena, and allow them access to even better products and services, like digital voice
and next-generation television services.
As you may recall, in August 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 2987
into law, facilitating AT&T's entry into the television services market.
Here in California, upgrading our broadband infrastructure involves pushing fiber optics to within
5,000 feet of many existing neighborhoods and, in some cases, to individual homes in new
developments. Improving and increasing bandwidth allows us to bring Californians a whole new
way to receive next-generation interactive TV, video and home entertainment services – along with
increased high speed Internet service – all through the phone line.
The benefits of our network upgrade are real and tangible. Consumers will benefit in three key
ways:
1) Competition. Rolling out our services helps bring much-needed and long overdue competition
to the status quo with cable. Consumers win when companies compete.
2) Choice. Competition leads to new choices for consumers, but for the last three-and-a-half
decades—and even right now—people have no real choice when it comes to cable TV service.
And that's not right. The FCC has shown that in markets where a real choice is available, cable
rates have dropped an average of 20-40%.
3) Consumer Savings. One of the best things that happens when competition and choice
converge is it inevitably leads to consumer savings. Average cable rates have risen 92.4% from
1995 to 2005, according to a study recently released by the FCC.
By offering cutting-edge, next-generation Internet Protocol TV, super high-speed Internet
connections and IP telephony (or VoIP), we're setting out to be our customers' preferred
communications and entertainment provider. We feel consumers across California deserve more,
and we're committed to making it happen.
We look forward to sharing more details with you at the City Council meeting on June 4, 2007. If
you have any questions or need additional information prior to this meeting, please don't hesitate
to contact me @ 415-778-1221.
Many thanks,
Tedi Vriheas
Area Manager, External Affairs
AT&T Lightspeed Initiative
Working together to bring the most advanced broadband
communications network to residents in your community
at&t
i
►Overview of AT&T's Lightspeed initiative
►Evolution of our broadband network
► Serving low income households
►AT&T U-verse
►Digital Infrastructure&Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)
Public, Educational and Government Programming (PEG)
►Emergency Alert System (EAS)
►Permits
►Estimated Permit Timeline
►Notification to residents&cities
►Communications objectives
►Communication vehicles to residents
10-Construction Hot Line
►Lightspeed milestones with—sample
►Example notification letter—sample
►Door hanger notification—sample
Sample map of network upgrade
►Upgrade build description
No-Video cabinets
► Aesthetics general overview
► Panel color options
► Landscaping/Screening
► Graffiti Removal
► Above ground cabinets
001, Our Lightspeed Initiative
Choice.Competition.Consumer Savings.
Gable prices have risen 92.4%
over the past decade AT&T has invested nearly $20 billion in its California network since
1996 to provide our customers with state-of-the-art voice, data,
Internet— committed to investing an additional $1 billion in the state
to provide customers with exciting new Internet protocol-based
services, including TV/video entertainment services.
When it comes to TV/video service, AT&T believes it's time
National cable National cable National phone Californians had a real choice to cable. Currently, cable subscribers
rates from rates from bills from in the state spend $2.8 million per day too much for cable TV. That
1995 to 2005 2000 to 2004 2000 to 2005
adds up to a staggering $1 billion every year. Competition can be
the antidote that leads to consumer savings. That's why we've set
out to upgrade our network to deliver new services that will bring
real competition cable and choice to consumers. After all,
consumers win when companies compete.
With an eye towards the future, AT&T has continuously evolved its
broadband network through a series of sequential major upgrades,
each building upon one another. This latest network upgrade will
further increase the bandwidth available to our customers using a
With cable competition, California consumers broad new suite of integrated, advanced services, all speaking the
are expected to save$1 billion annually same language, Internet protocol or IP—the language of the
California cab-4` starnler n ect to save Internet. The new fiber optic facilities will enable AT&T to make
220/ with real compe tram faster high speed Internet service available to more of our
,.r
customers at a time when competition is fierce in this arena, and
allow them access to even better products and services, like digital
voice and next-generation television services.
With our fiber-optics network pushed even deeper into
neighborhoods, we can deliver AT&T U-verses m TV, voice and high-
'" speed Internet access services. The multi-billion dollar investment
and deployment of next-generation, IP-based video services reflect
AT&T's strategy to become customers' preferred communications
and entertainment provider. AT&T expects to reach approximately
19 million households by the end of 2008 as part of initial
deployment, using fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) and fiber-to-the-
Average Expected Cable premises (FTTP) technologies.
Rates with Competition
Source:UC Berkeley's Dr.Yale Braunstein,2006.
Our Lightspeed Initiative
Through the Lightspeed initiative, AT&T is extending the existing fiber
in its network closer to customers' homes by using fiber to the
e e� "serving area interface" in existing neighborhoods. (Serving Area
Interfaces, or SATs, are located in the cabinets located in the City's
Push fiber to within public rights of way; they serve as the connection point for copper
3,000 to 5,000 feet of distribution lines to and customers' premises).
many existing
neighborhoods and, to
the premises, in many Lightspeed consists of placing a new cabinet to pair with existing
new developments SATs; these new cabinets will provide the fiber optic capability for the
neighborhood (approximately 200-500 homes), and will connect to
the existing copper distribution network into homes (with new
construction, AT&T often places fiber directly to the premises). In
some cases, the existing SAI may need to be upgraded as well.
Ongoing, routine maintenance will be performed on copper
T Ivee connections as necessary, to ensure that each resident connected to
the SAI receives sufficient enhanced transmission capacity. Each
$5.213new cabinet will be placed as close as possible to, and connected
between now and 2008 initial investment using underground conduit with, the paired SAI, and will be
betweconnected by new conduit to the nearest available power source.
including a1 billion here in
California: Very little additional trenching will be needed; in most cases, AT&T
will use existing fiber or pull fiber through existing conduit to reach the
new cabinets.
With this upgraded network, AT&T will be positioned to offer
residents a broad new suite of integrated, advanced services. In
addition to making faster high speed Internet service available to
TOheft more of our customers, Lightspeed will also provide customers with
an unprecedented ability to manipulate and share data and
15-25 Mbps for IPTV, messages over various IP-based devices, and will facilitate enhanced
super high-speed Internet security and quality of service guarantees.
access, and IP Telephony
(Vo IP)
Another key feature of the enhanced AT&T network is our advanced
TV/video capability. U-verse is also IP-based and is being fully
integrated with AT&T's other advanced services. This next
generation, IP-based service is transmitted over new fiber optic lines,
the same lines that also will be used to provide IP-based voice
service or VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol).
AT&T's IP TV/video service will provide subscribers with an
enormous range of content. Cable companies rely on traditional,
point—to — multipoint distribution technology in offering video
program channels.
In contrast, AT&T's TV/video service is designed for"switched, point-
to-point" communications between individual subscribers and the
network. Most important, AT&T's service creates a two-way dialogue
between the subscriber and AT&T and, as a result, will be vastly
more interactive than one-way legacy cable services.
Our Lightspeed Initiative
Harnessing the benefits of an IP-based fiber optic network, one
where devices such as cell phones, computers and TVs interact,
AT&T is truly building California's nem-generation of interactive
ti. . , E.t ;,, digital communications and entertainment services.
---
t ..�� Please let us know if you'd like to discuss AT&T's advanced
It exceeds satellite, cable in many ways network upgrade in your area. Additional information on
„ Lightspeed and U-verse services is available at
http://uverse.aft.com.
k �f
Xl
E
<r We hope to be in your neighborhood soon!
aas W�2k
How is AT&T U-verse TV Delivered?
IP Video Super IP Video Hub
Hub Offices Offices
National I
Backbone, .
IP Serving Set-top
set-top, Offices box
box �A-
{+ Copper
Fiber = Fiber
r_ Residential
-
gateway Greenfield Overbuild Residential
FTTP FTfN gateway
,w� �.., a
N ., ., r ,,,w"T
11
Evolution of the network
At-a-glance:here's howAT&T has-and continues to-evolve its broadband network:
1999: 2000: 2004- Present:
DSL is introduced, bringing a AT&T made its network more The current evolution of
new generation of digital robust by pushing the electronics AT&T's network pushes
services, including broadband that previously resided in our another new generation of
Internet access. In its initial central offices closer to the end advanced service through
application DSL was provided user. This was done by placing central offices, beyond
by the placement of the electronics in remote remote terminals and into
electronics in an AT&T central terminals that were then neighborhoods. We call this
office, which were connected connected to AT&T's central our Lightspeed initiative.
to individual customer homes offices via the deployment of fiber
via the use of copper facilities. which is not a distance-sensitive
Copper facilities enabled technology. Today, nearly 90% of
AT&T to provide DSL to our customers in California have
subscribers who resided within the ability to access our DSL high
14,000 feet of the central speed Internet service, and that
office. number continues to grow.
Upgrading our network enables us to
deliver a real competitive choice to cable
Le
�£
_ rs
II �
Serving low income households
AT&Tis committed to bringing new technologies to low income households
■ AT&T has a legacy of consistently rolling out new
technologies, services and features to as many customers as
possible and as quickly as possible.
' ■ AT&T has made DSL available to nearly 90% of our
residential customers in California since we first offered it on a
d trial basis to a few hundred early adopters.
AT&T is rolling out video technology, nationally, at three times
� the pace of the nation's existing cable TV network and we are
reaching lower income customers in our local service area at
twice the speed that cable broadband reached lower income
households.
■ AT&T is committed to serving all income levels within its
California broadband footprint and will bring video technology
to as many customers as possible as quickly as possible.
t i
• Low income residences in California will be among the first to
have access to our video offer within the first three years.
Bi-partisan legislation passed last year included tough
requirements, that AT&T fully supported, to ensure that low
5-116&*W income households have access to our video services.
■ AT&T is committed that within three years at least 25% of the
households in which we provide service will be low income
households. That threshold increases to 30% in five years.
("Low income" is defined as earning less than $35,000 per
year.)
5, Additionally, free service will be provided to community
centers in underserved areas — one community center for
every 10,000 video customers.
■ Discrimination or denial of access to potential residential
customers based on income is prohibited. If the California
Public Utilities Commission or court finds a violation of the
build-out or non-discrimination obligations fines and/or
immediate franchise termination may apply.
AT&T U-verse
AT&T U-verse TV offers anew entertainment experience with advanced
features and leading content that makes television all about you.
Picture-in-Picture channel surfing
Customers can channel surf without missing a minute of the program they are
watching using the picture-in-picture browse feature. The picture-in-picture
functionality is tunerless and software-based so customers can enjoy this
feature on any television.
DU Web remote access
Customers can control their U-verse TV experience from any location by
scheduling DVR recordings from any Internet-connected computer using their
AT&T Yahoo! broadband portal.
High definition programming
s5 Customers will enjoy a high-quality picture in standard or high definition (HD).
g U-verse HD technology delivers rich, realistic video and multi-channel, movie
theater quality sound. U-verse TV carries a wide selection of HD channels to
maximize the home entertainment experience.
Innovative program guide
GUkM
U-verse TV features a crisp and clean user interface and electronic program
:M_ ii guide.
Digital video recording
U-verse offers advanced digital video recorder(DVR) capabilities that allow
customers to record their favorite programs or pause and rewind live television.
Customers can record up to four shows at once—something no other provider
offers today.
Fast channel changing eliminates the annoying delay experienced with other
digital broadcast services, whether a customer is channel surfing or recalling
the last channel viewed. U-verse TV features a crisp and clean user interface
and electronic program guide.
Video-on-demand
Through a broad video-on-demand (VOD) library, customers have one-touch
access to a range of titles, including current and classic movies, live events,
i� anime, music, sports, and premium on-demand services.
• Program search
U-verse TV has a unique search capability that allows customers to search
AT&T Yahoo!@ High Speed '- programs or the VOD library by title or actor's name.
Internet U-verse Enabled
customers will receive a leading Parental controls
combination of broadband access, Through easy-to-use parental controls, customers are in charge of what their
services and content that provides family watches. Parental controls can be established by ratings or channel.
a unique high speed Internet
experience. Other compelling
features include free wireless
home networking, unlimited online
photo storage, 11 e-mail accounts
with 2GB each of storage, and a
suite of powerful safety and
security tools.
AB 2987 summary
ISSUE AS PASSED
Public Utilities Commission-CPUC must begin accepting
Franchise Authority applications by April 1, 2007.
• 30 days to determine if application is complete
• If complete, 14 additional days to issue franchise
Up to 5% of gross revenue; additional specificity regarding what is
Franchise Fees included in gross revenue.
Payment- 180 day lag for first payment; 45 days after end of quarter
for additional payments
Channels must be provided within three months; communities will
PEG Channels get no fewer than three PEG channels; cash payments due in the
future under the local cable franchise to support PEG and I-Net are
grandfathered until the franchise expires or January 1, 2009,
whichever is later; cash support obligations are shared among all
providers in that area.
Local government receiving between 1% and 3% of gross revenue in
PEG Support PEG support today is eligible to continue receiving the same amount;
any local entity receiving more than 3% today is capped at 3%. All
other cities are capped at 1%.
Non-discrimination:
Non-Discrimination-Build For state franchise holders with more than 1,000,000
Commitments telephone customers, within five years after beginning to
provide service, at least 30% of households with access must
be low-income (based on Census Bureau numbers). Holders
must provide video service to community centers in
underserved areas without charge at a ratio of one center per
10,000 video customers.
■ State franchise holders with fewer than 1,000,000 telephone
customers satisfy the non-discrimination requirement if they
offer video service to all customers within their telephone
service area within a reasonable time.
Build commitments:
■ Only applies to state franchise holders with more than
1,000,000 telephone customers.
■ Holder that predominantly uses fiber-to-the-premises
technology must make video service available to 40% of
households in its telephone service area within five years.
■ Holder that predominantly uses technology other than fiber-
to-the-premises must make video service available to 50% of
ISSUE AS PASSED
households in its telephone service area within five years.
Any provision in a local franchise allowing local entities to provide
Emergency Alert Carriage emergency notifications is grandfathered until the franchise would
have expired, or January 1, 2009, whichever is later. All providers
serving that city must honor emergency notification provisions.
State and federal consumer protection rules apply; enforced by local
Customer Service Standards governments; local governments may not impose additional or
different rules.
Starting January 1, 2008, cable providers operating under local
Abrogation government franchises may abrogate their existing franchise in favor
of a state-issued franchise when a new competitor enters their
franchise area. If the cable provider chooses to opt-out, provisions in
the local franchise dealing with PEG, I-Nets and emergency alerts
are grandfathered until the franchise would have expired or until
January 1, 2009, whichever is later.
State franchise holders must comply with state and federal privacy
Privacy laws.
State franchise holder prohibited from raising basic residential
telephone service rate to finance the cost of deploying a network to
Basic Telephone provide video service; may not raise rate for basic residential
Service Price Cap telephone service until January 1, 2009. PUC may allow increases
to reflect inflation, based on CPI.
r
� a
Public, Educational and Government Programming (PEG)
AT&T community television-meeting the needs ofourcommunities
Strong education, effective government and open
communication. These principles help create a sense of unity
and clarity that ties a community together. Access to local
programming serves as a central component of that
togetherness. AT&T recognizes that and welcomes the
opportunity to help the communities it serves by providing the
next generation of television, including access to local Public,
Educational and Governmental (PEG) programming.
For more information on PEG in your community, contact your
local AT&T External Affairs manager.
Emergency Alert System (EAS)
AT&T plans to offer an EASsolution that includes:
■ Weather alerts from the National Weather Service
Emergency notifications from government offices
■ Presidential alerts
Emergency alerts will be provided as a text overlay on the
television screen and will be color-coded for easy recognition.
Alerts will be available on nearly all sources of content, including
-Ak0d- national channels, local broadcast channels, video on demand,
channel lineups and other viewings.
mom
Permits
■ The new video franchise law requires that cities act within 60 days on our
encroachment permit requests relating to the construction or operations of
our facilities.
■ Similar to our previous network technology upgrades, we'll be using the
public rights of way to provide new video service. Like we've always done
in the past, we will continue to work closely with city officials on our plans.
■ The new law also reaffirms local government control over time, place and
manner of access to public rights of way.
■ We look forward to working together to install the necessary technology to
provide this new service, giving your residents a competitive alternative to
cable TV and, ultimately, the promise of choice and consumer savings.
• The permits requested for our Lightspeed upgrade are no different
than permits submitted in the past. The sooner AT&T can obtain the
necessary permits, the sooner we can deliver exciting new technology to
residents.
Estimated Lightspeed Timeline
Month 0-2 Month 3 Month 4-5 Month 6 Month 7
Engineering Construction
�P Conditioning ♦ Certification
Construction Complete
Design ConditioningOConditioning # Remove bridge tap P
• Replace Ready
Access Terminals Ready
Submit Receive For
Permit Permits • Dedicate Pair Service
Node • Net DSL Test
Design Construction
Node mmo, Complete
Placement
Place and Splice Fiber
• Set VRAD, Cabinet
• Power
• Test
Notification to residents &cities
Communications Objectives
• To inform those community residents who will benefit from the Lightspeed initiative
• To provide a means for the community to communicate any concerns
• To inform the community as to when and how we'll respond to inquiries and concerns
Communication Vehicles to residents:
The activation of Lightspeed cabinets and construction of the new system will be
designed by geographical location. Our deployment strategy will be highlighted in
our ongoing communications with your Public Works Department. Notification
materials to residents will highlight the purpose of the network upgrade and
proposed cabinet locations in the Public Right of Way.
The notification vehicles:
Direct mail/notification letter
Door hanger
Direct mail/notification letter to residents/owners - communication with city
residents before a permit is issued helps alleviate any impacts of the
Lightspeed upgrades:
• The informal notice shall provide a telephone number to be called in
the event a property owner is concerned over the installation of a
pedestal or the precise pedestal location. The initial notice shall be
received by the property owner at the time of the preliminary site
selection and not less than three (3) weeks prior to construction and
the second notice shall be received by property owners at least 48
hours before the commencement of the proposed construction.
■ Property owners impacted by the Lightspeed initiative shall be able to
request, within the limits of the system design, pedestal locations on
their properties within existing utility easements least objectionable to
them, and AT&T shall make an effort to work with the property owner
to accommodate such requests.
■ The City will provide the contact information for property owners.
Door hanger/construction notice —A final notice will be delivered to
residents 48 hours before construction.
Notification to residents &cities
Construction Hot Line
AT&T has installed a special construction "HOTLINE" so residents can call in
with inquires and concerns. The phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX. A
bilingual representative is also available if needed. AT&T has agreed to use a
local number for resident information.
AT&T understands that the best way to eliminate inquires and any concerns
are to provide information in advance of the actual work.
The city will be informed of any unresolved issues. AT&T is committed to
resolving construction concerns in a timely fashion and to whatever extent
technically and commercially feasible. AT&T will document all inquiries and
provide the city with a list of all responses.
w a
► Notification to residents &cities
1. Identify cabinet placement—AT&T will develop a deployment schedule and
share this information with the Public Works Department through the permit
approval process. AT&T is committed to communicating our schedule with your
city as soon as sites are identified.
2. Complete field verification- Engineer will visit each individual area and identify
living units, building address, existing telephone facilities and distance
measurements.
3. Identify location in the Public Right of Way— Engineer will identify potential sites
for Lightspeed cabinets. AT&T will consider public safety, aesthetics, the overall
network design, and will be consistent with all site criteria agreed to with your
city.
4. Pick up approved permits.
5. Construction/cabinet placement-A one-phase construction approach is
proposed by AT&T which includes placing a concrete pad, installing a cabinet
and connecting electrical services. Any landscaping that was agreed upon
between AT&T and either the City or property owner will be installed at this time.
SAMPLE ® Notification to residents &cities
Example notification letter
Dear Property Owner:
When it comes to TV/video service, we believe it's time Californians had
a real choice to cable. That's why we're upgrading our network to deliver
exciting new services that will bring your neighborhood next-generation
interactive TV, enhanced video\home entertainment services and super
high-speed Internet connections—all through your phone line.
As we do so, we are committed to being a good neighbor and working
with communities and property owners. You'll likely see signs of our
upgrade progress in your neighborhood and we'll keep you informed as it
goes.
Above ground cabinetry is an integral component of the infrastructure
upgrade. They are 48 inches high, 20.8 inches deep and 43.5 inches
wide and typically one cabinet will service your neighborhood. It will be
located at [list property site].
Construction will begin on approximately [insert start date]
and take about seven working days to complete. This will be done with
the utmost consideration to your and your neighbors.
If you have any questions, please contact [EA Manager].
_ The new at&t
,
SAMPLE
® Notification to residents &cities
Door hanger notification sample
Dear Property Owner:
AT&T is upgrading its network in your neighborhood
to offer a competitive alternative to traditional cable
TV service.
As we do so, we are committed to being a good
neighbor and working with communities and property
owners. You'll likely see signs of our upgrade
progress.
Construction is due to begin in two days and take
about rxxi working days to complete. This will be
done with the utmost consideration to your and your
neighbors.
If you have any questions, please contact [INSERT
EA MANAGER/ CONTACT#].
The new a l&l
+►
Map of our network upgrade
A more detailed map will be provided
SAMPLE
J
r
v
t ,
f
A 12 month view detailing our network upgrade will be provided to staff.
It's important to note that while all SAT's are shown, not all SAls will receive a
Lightspeed cabinet.
Some cities may want to know the maximum number of Lightspeed cabinets that
AT&T will be constructing in their city. If so, we can provide them with a list of
addresses or a map showing the location of all SAI's within the city that could be
eligible to be upgraded with a Lightspeed cabinet (VRAD).
M ,v
tl ,1a
t
Build description
The following is a sample description of the work involved in the installation of a
Lightspeed cabinet. The description includes the average time frames for completing
each activity associated with the installation from start to finish, the type of
equipment that will be used, and the estimated number of workers at the site. Please
note that the time frames should not be viewed as a timeline, because some of the
activities may not be necessary, some steps may be performed at the same time,
and additional activities could be required at any particular site. Similarly, any
particular location could take longer or shorter for each activity, and not every day in
the installation process will necessarily have activity.
Excavation Work
The process involves excavation for the installation of the cabinet and the concrete
foundation (pad) approximately 4' by 6'. AT&T will also need to dig a 36" deep
trench to install a conduit from the cabinet to the existing SAI (approximately 10 to
100 linear feet of trench depending on the individual site), and a 48" deep trench to
connect the cabinet to a power source such as a pole or underground vault
(approximately 50 to 150 linear feet depending on the site). Finally, an additional 36"
deep trench may be required if AT&T needs to replace underground structure
(conduit) from an existing SAI back to the serving manhole for fiber placement.
Cabinet Placement and Concrete Pour
The placement of the cabinet and pad requires a small pour, with concrete delivered
via a cement mixer truck. Subsequently, a small truck, equipped with a winch, lifts
the cabinet onto the pad.
Sample Time Frames and Equipment Required
Description of work& equipment involved Estimated
_ timeframe of work
Excavation and concrete pad, a back hoe to perform excavation; a dump truck to
manage the spoils; a truck to haul and hold tools supplies and the trailer that 3 to 6 days
hauled in the back hoe. Backhoe and dump truck will be manned and idling
throughout the excavation process and then turned off.
Cabinet placement'-truck and 4 to 5 workers--truck idling only during cabinet 1 day
placement, but generator on truck needs to run for construction.
once the conduit and cabinet are in place, cables are installed to connect the
new cabinet to the existing cabinet and the serving manhole. In addition, an 2-4 days
electrician installs the power panel. 2 trucks and 1 to 3 workers --trucks idling
only during cable placement, but generator on truck needs to run for power. 4 _
Connections & initial testing. Two vans or small trucks and 2 technicians. A
generator is utilized during portions of this phase. 1 to 3 days
After AT&T completes installation, power utility will place cables and provide 2 to 5 days outside
power to power panel. Power utility truck and worker requirements dependant of of AT&T installation
their work and safety requirements. work.
- .....__ -
Final testing of cabinet egui ment after power. 1-2 days
Video cabinets
General overview
Above-ground cabinetry, similar to what already exists for
=- - telecommunications, traffic signal lights and other utilities, is a necessary
component of this significant upgrade. We have several designs for our
video equipment cabinets—all intended to meet local ordinances. Our most
common cabinet, currently a lower profile, is 48 inch high, 50 inches wide
and 25 inches deep. The cabinets are tan/beige or light green (to maintain
thermal requirements), and are designed to blend aesthetically with the
existing equipment. Cabinets generally will be placed in a public right-of-
�..
52BP—5 inch power panel, way.
exposed meter
Serving capacity varies by cabinet and by the density of homes in a
neighborhood. Generally, a cabinet might serve anywhere from 200 to 800
homes and the same design is used throughout the area.
■ Our cabinets are designed to meet municipal noise
requirements and do not emit a noise loud enough to disturb
nearby residents.
■ Cabinets utilized in the communication industry are principally
governed by three specific sets of specifications recognized
around the world. These specifications are:
- Telcordia GR-487: Generic Requirements for Electronic
Equipment Cabinets
- UL 50: Enclosure Environmental Protection
Low profile cabinet - UL 60950: Safety of Information Technology Equipment
■ All Lightspeed cabinets meet or exceed each of the
requirements of these specifications.
Panel color options:
Emerson Commscope Commsco a �3 "'� Emerson
Green Chi Green Chip p �=
P Beige Chip Off-White Chip
apn �
Video cabinets
Landscaping/Screening
When we're finished installing the cabinet, we restore the site to the same or
better condition as when we first found it, including reseeding or sodding nearby
landscaping where necessary.
Here's how AT&T will work with property owners to address any visual concerns:
■ In the event a property owner (or adjacent property owner) raises a
concern about the proposed placement of a Lightspeed cabinet;
AT&T will work to resolve the issue with the property owner.
■ Where the property owner's concern cannot be addressed solely by
placement, and screening is necessary in order to resolve the
concern, AT&T will consider installing organic vegetation on the
traffic-side of the Lightspeed cabinet.
■ Organic vegetation will need to be maintained by the property
owner although AT&T will replace any vegetation that dies within
six months of the Lightspeed cabinet installation.
p0� H
Video cabinets
Graffiti Removal
Easy to clean graffiti-resistant finish.
AT&T's rapid-response graffiti clean-up system for California communities:
■ Email graffiti Qatt.com
• Include "Graffiti Clean Up Request" in subject line along with the
location and other relevant information about the cabinet
Box identification sticker and phone number to reach AT&T should a city have an
issue with one of our boxes:
Property of
AT&T
IF THIS BOX NEEDS ATTENTION
CALL, "K, YmX - X
aw
Video cabinets
Above ground cabinets
An integral component of our network upgrade is the need to design and install
above ground video equipment cabinets in neighborhoods. As discussed below,
there are technical, practical, and economic reasons why this technology cannot
generally be placed underground.
Here's why AT&T video equipment cabinets are best installed above ground
AT&T currently does have
some controlled environment
vaults ("CEVs") that can be
' used to deploy Lightspeed
technology underground in
certain limited circumstances,
i.e., where a CEV already
exists, has available space,
and is in close proximity to our
residential customers. It is not
technically, practically, or
economically feasible to
construct new CEVs solely for
Lightspeed technology.
■ Lightspeed technology
consists of high-speed electronic circuitry needed to light the fiber-optics and
convert the fiber signal to a bandwidth that can be transmitted over copper to
residences. As such, if it were placed underground, it would have to be in a
controlled environment, free from moisture and excessive temperature
extremes. It would also have to be placed in a vault or enclosure large
enough for regular access by our technicians for routine maintenance and
repair.
■ Other factors limiting the feasibility of placing Lightspeed cabinets in an
underground vault include the need for backup power, lighting, gas testing,
ventilation, cooling, alarms, emergency water pumping, and waterproofing.
■ There is clearly not enough room in some residential public rights of way for
these large underground vaults. The vaults could block use of the rights of
way by other utilities, including City water and sewer, creating traffic issues
during construction and after completion when being accessed by our
technicians. In addition, the above-ground Lightspeed cabinet was designed
to fit within the right of way usually behind or in the sidewalk area. The
access point for an underground vault would most likely extend into the road
portion of the right of way creating potential safety concerns.
SAN BRUNO
Burlingame SAI Locations
SA UNO /
1
MW
\ L
r <
�t
ORLIN'ME
a
Q�b }
i
Legendow) r
a at&t
=IZ
i
AM STAFF REPORT
BURLINGAME AGENDA
ti
ITEM# 6a
MTG. 6/4/07
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL su ITTED
DATE: June4, 2007 BY
APPROVE
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY A/a
suB,IECr: UPDATE ON PLANS FOR BURLINGAME'S CE ENNIAL PLAZA
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the staff report on
the plans for Burlingame's Centennial Plaza and give direction to the Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission regarding potential parking impacts.
BACKGROUND:
The Centennial Executive Committee, City staff and representatives from the Burlingame
Historical Society have been working with John Cahalan, Landscape Architect, on plans for
Centennial Plaza per previous direction from the City Council. At the Parks & Recreation
Commission's May 17`h meeting, the public was invited to give their vision of, or amenities to
include in, Centennial Plaza. Notes from that meeting were then included in the following
discussion at the Centennial Executive Committee's meeting on May 25th.
Through these recent meetings,there appears to be consensus on the following points:
1. The west side of the Burlingame Avenue is an appropriate place for a plaza
commemorating Burlingame's 100th anniversary and for public gatherings
2. A low-level, physical barrier between the parking lot and California Drive should be
installed for safety reasons
3. The original scope of the project should be expanded to include the parking and drop-off
areas to the south and the strip of Caltrain property on the west side of the station that
was not included in their scope of renovation
4. The plans should be segmented into phases for potential fund-raising and construction
5. The existing landscaped circle should be eliminated
6. Landscaping and uplighting of the existing trees should be included in the plans
7. Leveling of the parking lot should be included to some extent
8. There should be no tall structures (trees, flags, other) that block the view of the station
from the shops and restaurants on Burlingame Avenue
9. There is a need for parking, hotel trolley stop and a drop-off area at the site
10. No water features should be included in the Plaza design
11. Electricity should be included in appropriate locations for potential performances
12. A portable stage that can be brought to the site and used for performances should be
purchased and stored until necessary
Further discussion needs to take place regarding the following items:
1. How much parking should remain at the site
2. Should an historic ribbon be added to the site (there was consensus that the barrier along
California Drive would be an appropriate location, if the ribbon is included)
3. How to acknowledge Plaza.donors
On May 22, 2007 an E-mail from Jennifer Pfaff, representing the Citizens for Better Burlingame,
was received requesting that the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission consider the possibility
of removing the parking in front of the Burlingame Ave. train station.
To assist in the follow up discussions we are requesting Council feedback on:
A. Should we ask the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission to consider reduction or
elimination of the parking in front of the Burlingame Ave. train station?
B. Is the Council supportive of inclusion of a Ribbon of History as a design element in the
Centennial Plaza which would also provide funding opportunities?
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Portion of the May 2007 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes Regarding the
Centennial Plaza Agenda Item
B. May 22, 2007 E-mail from Jennifer Pfaff representing the Citizens for Better Burlingame
requesting that the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission consider the possibility of
removing the parking in front of the Burlingame Ave. train station.
Attachment"A"
Portion of the May 2007 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
Regarding the Centennial Plaza Agenda Item
Centennial Plaza—Public Discussion
Schwartz explained to the public the process that led to the decision of a community plaza in front of the
train station as the project for the City's Centennial monument.
Maureen Brooks stated that the main goals of the project are to:
• Create a space designed for public use and events, such as Farmers market or a place for a band to
play
• Maintain the historic view of the train station from Burlingame Ave
• Use the parking lot of weekday commuters&public events on the evenings and weekends
• Complement the work being done by Caltrain as a part of their platform renovation project
She explained the process to hire a landscape architect, to help with the planning phase of the project.
John Cahalan, who formerly had his office in Burlingame, was chosen for the project.
Cahalan presented to the Commission and public his idea to enhance the building with a European-
Mediterranean style plaza. Included in the plan is colored concrete banding to designate parking spots
and add landscaping. The main entry plaza would retain the current round planter with a new stucco
finish to compliment the building. New items must not overpower the historical building or be confused
as being part of the original structure. New landscaping would include a decorative iron fence along
California Drive and up lighting of the tower and the palm tree.
Tom Paine asked if consideration was give to extending to South Lane. Maureen responded that the
scope and cost was decided by the committee. Schwartz added that the project dimensions given to
Cahalan only included the planter area and the parking lot immediately to the north.
Steven Hamilton of the Citizens for a Better Burlingame presented some ideas for inspiration that were
created a couple of years ago by a local architect. Steven pointed out that the area around the station was
originally designed to be a"Square"as evidenced by the surrounding streets. He felt the area should be
multi-use but be a pedestrian priority area where the public and gather and relax. Steven's thoughts are
that the plaza or square is our Gift to 2nd&3rd Century Burlingame's residents.
Bobbi Benson pointed out that the Caltrain plan will close off South lane to auto traffic. She suggests that
parking be eliminated from the plaza and people should use the parking over by the donut shop. The
curbs should be eliminated and seating be added. The area should be flattened out to create a place to sit
and be available day and night. Trees should be added and the area used for more than just special events.
We should be thinking on a bigger scope. Bobbi reminded those present that the station will soon be
Burlingame's museum.
Portion of the May 2007 Parks&Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
Regarding the Centennial Plaza Agenda Item—page 2
Jennifer Pfaff suggests that parking be eliminated;however, if it cannot be eliminated then rolling curbs
could be installed. Cahalan responded that traffic and pedestrians could be separated with flush parking
bollards. She pointed out that the drainage problems need to be dealt with. She suggests there be resting
places as opposed to traditional benches. She inquired if the flag pole could be moved from its current
spot. She presented a sponsor or donation idea for the plaza—a"Ribbon"of the history of Burlingame.
The Ribbon would be flat on the pavement with sections having historical facts about the City of
Burlingame and include the sponsor or donors name. This could be a chance to"Buy a moment in
Burlingame". Kids and Adults could learn about Burlingame from the"ribbon". She also mentioned that
there are three markers around the station that need to be preserved.
Diane Condon-Wirgler feels there must be a safety zone of pedestrians to the cars however, it should not
block the view to the station from Burlingame Ave. She would like to see materials used that will stand
the test of time and be maintained to insure safety and cleanliness. She also thinks that water for
landscaping and electrical inputs are a must. She feels that the entry area should be Phase One on the
project instead of the parking area to the north.
Schwartz read an email from Jeriann Fleres who could not be at the meeting. She suggested putting in a
clock, gazebo or an arbor with speakers. Perhaps some vintage street lights for the evening lighting.
Include in the design lots of greenery, ivy, geranium and lavender with running water to feed the planters.
Multi colored tiles could be used to mix with the terra cotta rile of the building to add color to the plaza.
Jane Gomery,with the City of Burlingame, has been working with Caltrain on the station platform
project. She noted that pedestrians will still have access to South Lane and there will be a demarcation
line to show where the old roadway was located. Improvements funded by Caltrain is a huge area,
however, there is a small strip on the back of the station owned by Caltrain that they will not be
improving but they do not mind if the City of Burlingame wants to develop it.
Charles Voltz seconded the need to keep the flow of pedestrian traffic open and make the area more
attractive and safe for walkers. He does feel that parking areas can be moved but when a"natural"
gathering place starts to emerge it should not be ignored but rather developed.
Commissioner Castner-Paine does not think the idea of a fence in front of the station would be a good
idea if it blocks the view to the station and asked if it could be vegetation instead. She also thinks the
trees chosen should not block the view to the station or the view which acts as an invitation to the
entrance to Washington Park. She feels that redwood trees would be a good option. She asked why the
slope on the entry area needs to be eliminated. Cahalan replied that the slope was too severe to be a plaza
slope. He mentioned that the fence would be a small decorative fence and that a vegetation hedge was
most defiantly an option.
Commissioner Muller mentioned that she could see confusion for residents over the parking if it is
unavailable on the weekends after being open all week. She asked Cahalan how he would suggest dealing
with this issue. Cahalan replied there could be flush removable poles or banners and awnings to make
people aware of the status.
Commissioner Larios asked about the issue oil stains from cars on a plaza that doubles as a parking lot
during the week.
Commissioner Comaroto reiterated the need to keep plaza users safe.
Portion of the May 2007 Parks&Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
Regarding the Centennial Plaza Agenda Item—page 3
Commissioner Hesselgren thought parking could be limited to 10 minutes. She did not like the idea of a
town clock as people will constantly be calling for maintenance if the time is off by a minute or two.
Fiona Hamilton stressed the need for trees to sit under and lighting for evening use and safety.
Schwartz explained that staff would take feedback from the Commission and the public regarding the
presentation that will be taken back to the Centennial Executive Committee in order to have some sort of
plan to present to the public at the June 2 Kickoff Parade. The main ideas and concerns from the
discussions are as follows:
Public Comment
SCOPE/PHASING OF PROJECT
❖ Should consider extending the project boundary to include the "kiss and ride"parking area to the
south.
❖ Look at the big picture—should be looking to restore the original "Burlingame Square".
❖ Would like to see the center section considered as Phase One, it is the most prominent.
❖ Should include the sidewalk area on Caltrain property in front of the train station as part of the
project, this area is not included in the Caltrain platform project, it is in poor condition, but retain
historic markers within this area.
❖ Have very few public spaces available, if we do something nice, it will be a boon to the
commercial area as well as to the high school and residents in the area.
❖ Make sure there is a common vision with the Caltrain proposal so it will not look disjointed,
should be part of a bigger vision for the area surrounding the train station.
PARKING
❖ Should eliminate the existing parking altogether and make it all a plaza, would not need to be
curb separation since there would be no parking; would also make the entire space available for
activities during the day and night.
❖ Parking could be eliminated, commuters do not park there, should look at current usage and see if
it could be eliminated.
❖ If parking is to stay, could have locking,removable parking meters.
❖ Need a transition/safety zone from parking area to prevent cars from hitting the train station
building.
❖ Could parking be changed from two-hour to 10 minute for dropping off?
SEATING
❖ Need to include permanent places to sit.
❖ Rather not have circular bench, but should include seating, resting places, could use large slabs of
granite for searing.
Portion of the May 2007 Parks&Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
Regarding the Centennial Plaza Agenda Item—page 4
LANDSCAPING
❖ Could plant a seedling from "Tom the Tree".
❖ Needs to include something green, growing, small trees.
BORDERS AND FENCING
❖ Should keep entire plaza area on one grade, consider using bollards instead of curb and change of
grade between parking area and rest of plaza.
❖ Concern that fence will create a barrier between downtown and Washington Park, want to entice
people to visit the park.
❖ Need to have some barrier next to roadway to delineate edge of plaza, could use something to
separate other than a fence.
DRAINAGE AND GRADING
❖ Make sure that in changing the grade and designing drainage that the water will flow away from
the train station building, there has been water damage in the past; consider a decorative channel
to direct water flow.
WATER FEATURE
❖ Like idea of water feature that is flat and has water at specific times.
❖ Like the fountain idea, but concerned with safety, with small children running around it 20 feet
from California Drive,would have to be barrier.
❖ Water feature would be high maintenance and an attractive nuisance.
❖ Fountain idea—can be cool but not here, hard to maintain, would be okay if include small, easy to
maintain water feature.
LIGHTING
❖ Make sure to include enough lighting so plaza is attractive at nighttime.
❖ Could include vintage streetlights.
DONOR RECOGNITION
❖ To acknowledge donations, could design a timeline in the pavement, could be a river, marking
historic events in Burlingame history, each marker could be engraved with the name of the
donor/sponsor, could offer an opportunity for learning history as well as commemorate the
centennial.
Portion of the May 2007 Parks&Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
Regarding the Centennial Plaza Agenda Item—page 5
MATERIALS
❖ Plaza should be multi-color mixed with terra cotta.
❖ Materials used should be durable, should last at least 100 years.
❖ Pavement materials should be easy to maintain, particularly concerned with oil stains from cars in
parking area; surface should be texture that will prevent slipping.
SAFETY
❖ Safety should be a primary consideration, this area is bordered by two transportation corridors,
cars travel faster than 35 mph on California, should be some separation.
❖ This will be a nice gathering place, will attract young people, some features may be an attractive
nuisance,need to address
OTHER FEATURES
❖ Could place a centennial clock on the side of the train station building.
❖ Concerned with clock idea, would have to be responsible to maintain correct time.
❖ Could include a gazebo where a band could play, or at least a raised area to act as a stage.
❖ It is important to have electrical outlets available, could include an outdoor speaker system built
in&Cable TV hookup.
❖ Could include Wi-Fi access.
❖ Concern that the area directly in front of the train station be left open, do not include anything tall
in that area.
Attachment B
From: Juergen Pfaff[mailto:jjpf@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 9:51 AM
To: scwarden50@aol.com; dconwaylll@hotmail.com; jmarkn@gmail.com;
phoenix38@sbcgloba1.net; Mike Bohnert
Cc: GRP-Council; PW/ENG-Gomery, Jane; PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy
Subject: RE: Centennial Plaza design
Dear Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissioners:
Last week a meeting took place at City Hall regarding the design of the future Centennial
Plaza. As you may be aware, the main emphasis of this project(Phase I),will be the
conversion of Parking Lot `V', in front of the station, into a paved,transitional space,that
will double as a public plaza for various events at which time,the lot would be closed to
vehicles.
Several audience members offered feedback about the type of design and landscape
features that could be integrated into the space. As the evening progressed, it became
clear that although details and ideas varied,the one overriding wish of everyone present
was to seize this unique opportunity to create a permanent public space there,by
eliminating the current, underutilized parking lot.
Enthusiasm was so evident, it was suggested by a staff member that citizens first contact
your commission to get feedback on the idea. There was a parking study of the downtown
lots a couple of years ago; perhaps this data can be used to investigate the idea further.
This is time sensitive,however, as the Landscape Architect will approach the plaza
design differently, if the parking spaces need no longer be considered.
The Directors of the Citizens For a Better Burlingame believe that the benefits of a
permanent public plaza in that location far outweigh the potential loss of parking there.
Both the public and Caltrain lots just across North Lane seem to be underutilized. We
consider this to be a golden opportunity to create a vibrant destination for residents and
vistors alike. As such, we would greatly appreciate your feedback and consideration of
this idea.
We greatly look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
The Board of Directors
Citizens For a Better Burlingame
A CITY 0 STAFF REPORT
BURNGAME AGENDA
LI
ITEM# 7a
MTG.
e D
O"oR11TED JYNEDV DATE 6.4.07
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: MAY 21, 2007
APPROVE
FROM: CITY PLANNER BY r
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRON NTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY& SPCA AT 1450
ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. The public hearing should include the Final
Environmental Impact Report and the project including the determination for on-site parking ratio, the
conditional use permits for use and building height with the conditions of approval which include the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan(see end of staff report), and the design review for consistency with the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
Following the public hearing the City Council should take action on the project in the following order:
a. Determine if the Final Environmental Impact Report provides an adequate disclosure of the
effects on the environment of the project as proposed; and if the City Council finds that the Final
EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA, then the Council should determine if the
Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis;
b. Determine a parking ratio for an animal shelter use;
c. Determine if the design of the project is consistent with the Rollins Road design guidelines in the
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan; and
d. Make a determination on the conditional use permits including the conditions
1. for the animal shelter/rescue use; and
2. Building height.
The criteria for certifying the Final EIR and the action alternatives and criteria for required actions on the
project are attached immediately following this Staff Report. The reasons for each action on the Center
project should be clearly stated for the record and should acknowledge that the Final EIR has been certified by
the Council and found to provide an adequate disclosure of the environmental effects of the project as
proposed. The conditions for the Center project,which include the mitigation monitoring plan (conditions in
italics), are listed at the end of this staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ONAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
BACKGROUND:
Project Description
The proposed project is the development of a new Peninsula Humane Society&SPCA"Center for
Compassion"(Center)at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court,zoned light industrial. The site for the
proposed Center is 51,270 SF at the northeast corner of Rollins Road and Edwards Court. Existing on the site
is a one-story pharmaceutical laboratory building(15,916 SF)which is addressed 1450 Rollins Road;and a
three-story vacant building(21,540 SF)which was designed and originally approved by the City for
biomedical use. The remainder of the site is paved parking with landscaped areas.The site is located in the
industrial area of Burlingame;and is surrounded by light industrial,manufacturing,and office/warehouse uses.
The proposal is to demolish the existing one story pharmaceutical laboratory building and replace it with a
35,931 SF building(retaining the 21,540 SF three story structure and making a one story addition to the
retained structure).The connection between the addition and existing building would be along the Edwards
Court frontage,creating a single wall with openings for parking. The proposed project also includes 5,940 SF
of outdoor netted area which will house an aviary and outdoor wild life habitat,for injured and recuperating
native birds and mammals. This outdoor area which is located on the roof of the new one-story building is not
considered`conditioned'or habitable space.The total square footage of the new facility,including the outdoor
habitat area,is 41,871 SF with the outdoor habitat area included. There is 4,415 SF of development being
added to this site. If the added square footage number is based on conditioned space e.g.excludes the
aviary/outdoor habitat area,the new development will be 1,525 SF less than the development on the site now.
The application is being process under the M-1(light industrial)zoning district regulations,because the 1
application was received and processing commenced prior to the adoption of the current Rollins Road(RR)
industrial zoning district provisions. Because the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was adopted
before processing began on the project,the project is subject to the design guidelines setout for the Rollins
Road subarea in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Two tables comparing the proposed
project to the M-1 zoning district regulations(Table 1)and to the design criteria in the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan(Table 2)are included at the end of the staff report for reference.
The attached Planning Commission Action Staff Report includes a detailed discussion of the details of this
project.(See PC Action Staff Report May 14,2007,pp.6—8). It should be noted that the proposed facility
will be open 24 hours a day,seven days a week,it will be staffed by a maximum of 30 employees on site
during the day. The night time hours(after 10:00 p.m.)will be covered by one to two employees. Classes for
the public may be provided between 9:30 a.m.and 10:00 p.m.daily.There would be only two classes ending
at 10:00 P.M.monthly.The Center would accommodate a maximum of 200 domestic animals,such as dogs,
cats,rabbits,and 218 native animals,such as seabirds,raptors,raccoons.
Desi : The exterior of the structure would be terracotta-colored sandstone,with glass block on the portion of
the western wall enclosing the indoor dog exercise area. This area has a rolling roof(large rolling skylight)
which allows open air during the day and can be closed at night. The outdoor habitat and aviary on the roof of
the new one-story addition will be enclosed with a metal painted tube frame enclosed with high strength mesh
fabric used in zoos.The mesh and support frame will be painted the same color. Vehicular access,ingress and
egress,to the site will be from Edwards Court(two driveways).The main pedestrian access to the facility for
visitors is provided to the building directly from the on-site parking lot and from Edwards Court. Employee
access is also provided from the caged parking area adjacent to the new one-story addition and from the
elevator at the north end of the parking area under the three story building. Vehicular egress will also be
provided to Rollins Road using the alley between this property and the property to the north.
2
PUBLIC HEARINGAND ACTION ONAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
Parking: The project includes 62 on-site parking spaces, including 4 disabled accessible spaces and 9 compact
x.(15%) stalls. Forty-eight(48) of the parking stalls are located under the existing three-story building.
Fourteen(14) employee parking stalls next to the one-story addition will be enclosed with fencing to provide
for the safe loading and unloading of animals at the Center. Of the 62 parking spaces provided, 18 are located
so that they are open to the sky e.g. 7 compact and 11 standard stalls. Vehicle parking lifts/double racks could
be placed in these spaces to increase the number of on-site parking spaces. The maximum number of parking
spaces one rack over at grade parking in this 155 foot parking area if it were converted to stacked parking
would be about 34, or 16 additional on-site parking spaces. This would provide a maximum of 78 parking
spaces on site. The consultant's parking demand study shows peak parking demand projected for the project
site to be 61, including the parking for the one aviary staff members (62 parking spaces are provided on the
site). This number assumes 100 percent occupancy at peak parking times.
Because the proposed animal rescue use is a unique land use not specifically addressed in the City's parking
schedule,the zoning code provides a process for establishing the on-site parking requirement(CS 25.70.042).
To address the criteria for a parking requirement for anew use, a traffic consultant evaluated the parking
demand at two facilities whose activities are similar to the proposed Center. Both of these facilities are fairly
new,with their programs running. Because there were no standards for the animal rescue use in the cities
where these facilities were located and the parking standards used to process the projects were based on staff
judgment rather than specific parking studies,the parking consultant based his ratio for Burlingame on the
number of parking spaces actually used during the peak hour of usage at each of the two locations rather than
on the number of parking spaces provided at each facility.
The consultant's initial recommendation considered by the Planning Commission was a parking ratio of 1.56
parking spaces per 1000 SF of conditioned space,plus one space for the outdoor habitat area including the
aviary. This number would require 56 on-site parking spaces (1:642 SF) for the conditioned space plus one
space for the staff member assigned to work in the outdoor habitat/aviary area((1:5,940 SF) for a total of 57
on-site parking spaces.
At the public hearing the Planning Commission noted an error in the calculation f the consultant and corrected
it, approving a parking ratio for animal rescuelshelter use of 1.6 parking spaces per 1000 SF of conditioned
space for the outdoor habitat area including the aviary. This number would require 57 on-site parking spaces
(1:625 SF)plus one for the outdoor habitatlaviary area(1:5,940 SF) for a total 58 on-site parking spaces.
In his memo attached to the staff report the City Attorney reviews the discussion around establishing the on-
site parking ratio for animal rescue/shelter,which will become the city's future zoning standard for this use.
(City Attorney Memorandum, May 29, 2007) He notes in his discussion that while the 1.6/1000 SF or 1:625
SF standard is clear for the conditioned space for animal rescue/shelter use; basing the parking for outdoor
habitat/aviary use on the number of staff serving the are is vague. For the outdoor habitat/aviary space, staff
suggests that the Council consider a standard based on the size of the area which is the approach used for all
other uses in the zoning code. Based on observations for this project that ratio could be 1 space per 4000 SF
or 5000 SF for outdoor habitatlaviary space. The other animal rescue/shelter projects reviewed required no
additional on site parking for outdoor exercise areas or outdoor areas to be used for instruction. One use
which seemed similar in use and staffing to outdoor wildlife habitat was green houses. San Francisco required
1:4000 SF for green houses. Based on the proposed ratios of 1:625 SF for conditioned space and 1:4000 SF
for outdoor habitat/aviary space,the proposed Center would require 59 on-site parking spaces.
Because of the limited experience of any jurisdiction with establishing a parking standard for animal
rescue/shelter use, the Planning Commission added a condition to the project that the on-site parking and its
usage be reviewed each year for at least two years after occupancy of the facility and that the operator shall
3
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY& SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4, 2007
work with the City to address any shortages of on-site parking. One approach which could be used later, for
example, is to add stacked parking racks to the 18 parking spaces which are uncovered. Another approach
could be to alter program to reduce the number of people parking on site at peak demand times. However, the
particular means of addressing any on-site parking problem identified would come out of the annual studies.
Landscaping: The M-I zoning district requires that 10% (5,127 SF) of the site be landscaped; the project
provides 12.3 % (6, 330 SF) of landscaping along the Rollins Road and Edwards Court street frontages. The
landscaping includes increasing the sidewalk from 5 feet to 8 feet, to better serve pedestrians. The street trees
which are the plan recommended Red Oak, will be moved inboard of the sidewalk. This species of tree have a
large enough canopy to shade the sidewalk and provide a street tree ambience to Rollins Road.
Project Applications:
Based on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the M-I zoning district regulations and the
design guidelines for the Rollins Road area, the project requires the following applications:
■ Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report which includes the signage program proposed
for the project.
■ Conditional use permit for the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA Center for Compassion use as an
animal shelter (a use similar in nature to a permitted or conditional use in the M-I zone) (CS
25.44.030 (22);
■ Determination on the parking ratio for a Center for Compassion (1.6 parking spaces per 1, 000 SF plus
one space for staff for aviary/outdoor habitat area. (CS 25.70.042); -�
■ Conditional use permit for a structure over 35 feet in height (41 '-6" proposed to the top of the
mechanical screening as measured from average top of curb) (CS 25.44.030 (17) (26'-8" proposed to
the top of the aviary) (See M-1 Zoning Comparison Table attached); and
■ Design review for compliance with the design guidelines of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan (See Compliance with Design Guidelines Table, attached).
Environmental Review:
An Initial Study and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) have been prepared to assess the impacts of
implementing the proposed project. The Final EIR is composed of the Initial Study, Draft EIR, and Response
to Comments Document. All of these are included in the staff report for your review.
The Final EIR for the Center project discloses that there are no significant unavoidable effects caused by the
proposed Center project. The mitigating actions included (shown in the conditions below) will reduce the
CEQA defined environmental effects of the project to levels which are within the community's or, where there
are no community standards, are within the CEQA established standards. The Final EIR should be viewed as
an informational document. Because it is a disclosure, or informational document, the requirement for
certification is that the report be found to be an adequate disclosure in the judgment of the City Council.
Summary Table 2.0-1 (attached to the Staff Report) documents that the Final EIR for the Center project
disclosed that there were no significant unavoidable effects caused by the issues initially identified as
potentially significant: aesthetics, odor, noise, and transportation and circulation. Disclosures also included
wastewater disposal and land use and planning issues which were found to have less than significant impacts,
based on the design of the proposed project.
4
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ONANENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
Public Review of the Project and Environmental Document:
The Planning Commission held a series of meetings on the proposed Center project and environmental
document:
■ September 26,2005 and February 27,2006:scoping meetings on the environmental document,
including design review of the project. Project was redesigned before the February 27 public meeting.
The meeting included a discussion about environmental issues and a review of the changes to the
project.(See PC Minutes September 26,2005,February 27,2006 attached to Study Staff Report)
■ May 1,2007: Planning Commission Special Study session(see PC Minutes;Planning Commission
Special Study Session Staff Report with attachments,attached)
■ May 14,2007: Planning Commission Action meeting on the Final EIR and Proposed Peninsula
Humane Society&SPCA Center for Compassion.(See PC Minutes May 14,2007;Planning
Commission Action Meeting Staff Report with attachments,attached)
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on May 14,2007,the Planning Commission held a public hearing took a series of votes on
issues addressing the proposed PHS/SPCA Center project. The first vote was on the adequacy and
certification of the Final EIR. The subsequent actions addressed the project.
Final EIR: The votes included a motion to find the Final EIR adequate and to certify the Final EIR. The roll
call vote passed 6-1(C.Auran dissenting).
The reasons stated by the Commissioners for the affirmative vote included:
■ that the document is adequate,that the analysis of odor is supported by the field observations at the
facility in San Francisco;
■ based on the information provided on noise and odor convinced that there will be no significant or
economic impacts created on neighboring properties from the project;
■ that the evaluation of the wastewater issues evolved into solutions built into the project that improved
it,the mixing of stormwater and animal or human sewage is not a choice or option,what is proposed is
appropriate and addresses the possible impacts;dog waste on this site is being handled well and
directed to the sanitary sewer system,there are an estimated 7,300 dogs owned by residents in the city
whose waste is probably not going into the sewer collection system;
■ the analysis is sound and supports the findings that there are no potentially significant effects which
cannot be reduced by mitigation,the mitigations are included as a part of the conditions on the project,
so will be implemented;
■ the issue of PHS/SPCA eviction from the Coyote Point site is not a concern because it is not an issue
within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and was never considered with the merits of this
project;
■ This parking request is not unusual the Commission has,for example,recognized in processing other
applications such as table tennis and badminton that recreational uses have different parking demands
than gyms which are the basis for the parking standard in the table in the zoning code; this is a use
similar to one allowed,veterinary hospital, so different parking standards can be considered,but
should be reviewed periodically to determine that there will not be a problem;
■ need to clarify between the use/project related issues and the environmental disclosure,compelling that
the difference between what is there and what is proposed is 6,500 SF,could have been reviewed as a
Negative Declaration,but chose to complete an EIR to be thorough,the project is better than it would
have been for the thorough review particularly in the areas of noise,odor,traffic,believe the
document is adequate;
5
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY& SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4, 2007
■ EIR addresses the fact that the run-off from the site will not pollute the habitat of endangered species, --�
the Planning Commission has taken great care to protect the Red Legged Frog in appropriate areas
causing their numbers to increase substantially;
■ regarding the alternatives analysis information in the record by the applicant that there are no negative
impacts which exceed community or CEQA standards and that without significant and unavoidable
impacts the alternatives section has a different purpose; the alternatives section offers a reasonable
range of alternatives for comparison with the project: a no project, a reduced density, a similar project
on a site which turned out not to be available for sale and which was not needed if there were no
significant unavoidable impacts, and, for comparison staff developed a similar to the project
alternative. The alternatives analysis also included off site locations in San Carlos and Half Moon
Bay; noted that whether the site for one alternative was available or not, it did represent that a viable
program that would also cause no significant unavoidable impacts; the no project alternative includes
the Coyote Point alternative because there would be no change in the current services at Coyote Point
if the proposed project were not built; the alternatives analysis appears to be a matter of procedure
which has been met since there were no significant unavoidable impacts to be addressed for reduction
in the alternatives analysis.
Reasons cited by Commissioners opposition to Certifying the Final EIR:
■ do not feel that the parking analysis is adequate because all of the square footage of the building was
not included, the aviary and outdoor habitat were left out and given the number of animals will require
more than one full time attendant;
■ this facility will be a destination, concerned about the right of the industrial area to continue as
industrial, uses like classes, retail, funeral services, occurring at this site will conflict with established
industrial uses;
■ site is not big enough for the extent of services proposed;
■ noise from emergency vehicles dispatched from this area will affect the dogs, causing loud barking,
not feel adequately addressed with mitigation;
■ parking problem is an issue without a direct solution, the width of Rollins Road is not pedestrian
friendly, much of the available on street parking is on the west side so people would have to cross
.Rollins to the facility, the pedestrian problem is increased by the proximity of the facility to the
entrance to the Rollins Road industrial area.
Actions on the Project
The Planning Commission then began discussion on the proposed Center project. They noted that additional
conditions had been added for animal rescue facilities addressing: pedestrian safety; access to the facility by
private buses; limitation for delivery times for larger (up to 22 feet) trucks; that the aviary not become
conditioned space in the future; that the building have a LEEDS certification with silver as the goal; sidewalks
fronting both sides of the project be increased from 5 feet to 8 feet and that the street trees be located inside
of the sidewalk; that the landscape plans be reviewed again by the Planning Commission as an FYI; and that
should the warrants for a lighted crosswalk or signal be achieved at the intersection of Edwards Court and
Rollins Road, the property owner shall provide financial support for the cost of the cross walk or cost of
installing two legs of the signal. The Commission also noted that the policy decision to allow a variety of
commercial recreation uses in the industrial area was already made in the recently adopted Specific Plan for
the area. This decision included the subsequent impacts of the commercial recreation uses on the industrial
area. The Commission suggested that the applicant be aware that there will be future development on
Edwards Court and work cooperatively with that developer in the future. Commission suggested that since this
facility would be located in Burlingame, the operator give some special considerations to Burlingame
residents for classes or volunteer positions.
6
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
Throughout their discussion the Commission identified a number of additional conditions to the project.
These are noted in bold face in the conditions of approval at the end of this staff report. It was noted with
each action that the Commission had taken into consideration the information, conclusions, and mitigations set
out in the Final EIR and that each of the actions is consistent with disclosures and mitigations in the Final EIR
which was determined to be adequate and certified as required by CEQA. The mitigation monitoring plan is
included in the conditions of approval (see conditions in italics below). The Commission then considered the
determinations and conditional use permits for the project with findings as follows:
Conditional use permit to exceed 35 feet in height: The Planning Commission voted 7-0 on a voice vote to
approve the conditional use permit to exceed the 35 foot height review line.
The findings cited by the Commissioners included:
■ The design guidelines for the Rollins Road area suggest taller buildings and this building is less than
the maximum proposed in the design guidelines in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
■ The added roof equipment screen which increases the height of the building over the 35 foot review
line, provides an important aesthetic benefit by screening the equipment on the roof so that it cannot be
seen by pedestrians on the sidewalk or cars traveling by on the street.
Determination on parkin ratio:atio: The Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling dissenting)
on a roll call vote to approve a parking ratio of 1.6 parking spaces per 1000 SF (1:625 SF)plus one parking
space for staff for the aviary/outdoor habitat area.
The findings cited by the Commissioners for the parking determination included:
■ the parking ratio would be calculated on the conditioned space which is where the 30 employees work,
the additional space for the aviary/outdoor habitat area is to accommodate the staff person who would
be assigned to work there;
■ this parking ratio would only apply to animal rescue center/shelter facilities which also require a
conditional use permit, so future applications also would be reviewed on a case by case basis and if the
parking ratio is not sufficient it can be adjusted given the parameters of the project and its projected
impacts; conditional uses are subject to continuous review so problems with parking can be identified,
suggest a condition for scheduled reviews of the adequacy of parking for this project and that the City
Traffic Engineer work with the applicant to develop an adequate directional program to the site and
entrances to the facility's parking and building.
Commissioners opposed to the parking determination noted:
■ That a special parking ratio should not be adopted, the city's standard parking ratios based on use by
square footage in the building should be used and a variance required with the parking study as a
justification for a parking variance to the City's standard parking taken from the zoning tables.
Conditional Use Permit for Use: The Planning Commission voted 5-2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling dissenting)
on a roll call vote to approve the conditional use permit for animal shelter/rescue use.
The findings made by the Commissioners for the action:
■ Based on the Final EIR, the mitigations and the amended conditions,the proposed Center would not be
detrimental to the area;
t ■ The use is positive for the community because the facility will care for needy animals; and
■ The Center is a needed facility based on the testimony of members of the public.
7
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
Commissioners opposed noted: —�
■ better location.
Agree with 95% of what was said but would like to see this use on a bigger site and at a
■ Concerned about Rollins Road and the speed of traffic in this area with an influx of pedestrians and
vehicles attracted by this use.
Determination on Consistency with Design Guidelines for the Rollins Road Subarea: The Planning
Commission voted 5-2 (Cers. Auran and Osterling dissenting) on a roll call vote to determine that the
proposed Center project is consistent with the intent of the Rollins Road design guidelines in the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
The findings made by the Commissioners included:
■ the architect made revisions earlier which addressed Commission design concerns,
■ the model was helpful in understanding the circulation on the site and how the design would function,
■ that installing a more decorative roll up grid/door to the parking area on the Rollins Road and Edwards
Court should improve those facades of the building; and
■ The widening of the sidewalk on the Rollins Road and Edwards Court frontages from 5 feet to 8 feet
and moving the proposed large canopied trees inboard of the sidewalk would satisfy the streetscape
design requirements in the Rollins Road area.
No comments were made by those Commissioners opposed.
Conditions Recommended by the Planning Commission:
Those Conditions below which are in italics compose the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The conditions in bold -�
face are conditions added by the Planning Commission in their final review of the project. Affirmative action
on the conditional use permit should include the following ninety-three (93) conditions:
Construction
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 17, 2007, A.1 through A5.2 and CL 1, and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this
permit; that the hardscape in the memorial garden area shall be paved with pervious
material to support the landscaping and runoff from the site and that the aviary and
outdoor habitat shall never be covered with a permanent roof or be converted to
conditioned space (Planning)
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 26, 2006, August 22, 2005 and July 1,
2005, memos, the City Engineer's April 24, 2006, August 24, 2005 and July 7, 2005, memos,
the Fire Marshal's April 24, 2006, memo, the City Arborist's April 26, 2006 and August 31,
2005 memos, the Recycling Specialist's May 5, 2006 and July 6, 2005,memos, and the NPDES
Coordinator's April 24, 2006 and July 5, 2005, memos shall be met; (Building, Public Works,
Fire, Planning)
3. that any hazardous materials on the site and in the existing building to be demolished shall be
investigated and identified by a licensed engineer who will prepare a plan for their removal
which shall be approved by the Burlingame Fire Department and Building Division before a
building permit is issued; and that any such material shall be removed in compliance with
regulations and the plan before demolition of the building can commence; (Building, Fire)
8
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
4. that the building plans for all new construction and remodel of any existing structure on this
site shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention in the
Burlingame Municipal Code before issuance of a building permit, and all construction shall be
inspected for compliance with these requirements as a part of the final building inspection;
(Public Works, Building)
5. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of
the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $5,384.82, made
payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; (Building,
Planning)
6. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; (Public Works)
7. that the project shall include an on-site filtration system designed to remove solid material
generated from this use which could reduce the capacity of the City's sewer collection system
serving this site and area, the location and filter system design and maintenance schedule shall
be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit; the
installation of the filter system shall be inspected by the Building and Public Works as a part of
the regular construction inspections on the site; and following installation during operation of
the facility the filter system installation shall be inspected regularly on a schedule determined
by the staff of the Waste Water Treatment plant; all material cleaned regularly from the filters
shall be stored in containers and disposed of by the same method as the soiled cat litter; failure
to provide, maintain and properly dispose of filtered material and used filters shall cause
review of the conditional use permit for this use on this site. (Public Works, Building)
8. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at
time of permit application; (Public Works)
9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined where possible and installed on
the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (Building)
10. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; (Planning)
11. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a detailed Exterior Lighting Plan shall be provided
to the City of Burlingame for review. The lighting plan shall be based on the following
standards:
(a) The cone of light shall be focused on the site and stray light shall be controlled through use
of low-brightness fixtures with optical controls;
(b) All exterior light sources shall be shielded and fully blocked from off-site views, except for
�.. the street address;
(c) No plighting of the structure or vegetation will be permitted from any outdoor light fixture;
and
(d) On-demand exterior lighting systems shall be employed where feasible. Area lighting and
9
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 ED WARDS COURT June 4,2007
security lighting will be controlled by the use of timed switches and/or motion detectors. --�
(Building, Planning)
12. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading for site preparation shall be required
to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a
demolition and building permit by the Building division; that no such demolition and site
work shall occur until after a building permit has been issued; and that all requirements of the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit shall be complied with during construction;
(Building)
13. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to
submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition
of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (Building)
14. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way
shall be prohibited; (Public Works)
15. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame
Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on
weekdays, 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and
holidays; (Building)
16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or designer, or another
architect or design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural
details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window
locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building
Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; (Planning, Building)
17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the highest
point of the building (roof ridge, parapet or mechanical screening) and provide certification of
that height to the Building Department; (Building)
18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (Planning)
19. that the landscaping noted on sheets L-2 and L-3 shall be installed according to plan and shall
be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site
shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; and that prior to issuance of a
building permit, the Planning Commission shall review the revised landscape plans as an
FYI item; (Planning, Building)
20. that tree grates selected by the City and consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan design criteria shall be installed around all trees to be planted in sidewalk areas
on Trousdale Drive,per City guidelines; (Planning, Building)
10
PUBLICHEARINGAND ACTION ONANENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTAND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
21. that the project landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to
issuance of any grading and/or building permits,and all landscaping shall be installed prior to
scheduling final inspection.(Building)
22. that during demolition of the existing structure(s), site preparation and construction of the
structure(s),the applicant shall use all applicable"best management practices"as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm
water runoff; (Public Works)
23. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs
(Best Management Practices)to be used to prevent soil,dirt and debris from entering the stone
drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and
proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil
storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed
drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately
downstream of a project;and designated construction access routes,Staging areas and washout
areas; that compliance shall also include the requirements of the conditions included the
mitigation monitoring plan;(Public Works)
24. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be
diverted around exposed construction areas;(Public Works)
25. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt
fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and
covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary
erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been
established;(Public Works)
26. that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes,paints, concrete,petroleum
products,chemicals,washwater or sediment,shall be stored,handled and disposed of properly
to prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stonnwater;(Public Works,Fire)
27. that if the project is constructed during the wet season (October through May), an erosion
control and/or sediment control plan,compliant with the City's NPDES (stormwater control)
requirements, shall be prepared and implemented, to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department, prior to the onset of the wet season, and shall be maintained throughout the
construction period;(Public Works)
28. that all project grading, construction and subsequent operations shall comply with the
provisions of the City's NPDES requirements. A Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) outlining construction phase and post-construction phase measures to reduce
pollutant discharge from the site shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering
Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits;(Public Works)
29. that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in
designated areas which runoff is contained and treated;(Public Works)
11
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
30. that construction access routes are limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public
right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; (Public
Works)
31. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote
surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; (Planning,
Public Works)
32. that the property owner shall, as a part of project construction, widen the sidewalks,
place a root barrier along the inner edge of the sidewalk, and build the sidewalks to City
sidewalk standards along the Rollins Road and Edwards Court frontages of the property;
that the sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight (8) feet in width; and that the required
street trees as shown on the approved plans shall be placed two feet from the inner edge
of the sidewalk with supporting irrigation installed from the project site; (Public Works,
Planning, Building)
33. that the project contractor shall implement best management practices for noise reduction, such
as muffling and shielding intakes and exhausts of gas powered tools, generators, and other
noise-producing equipment.; (Building)
34. that trucks shall be fully loaded to minimize the number of necessary trips and to further reduce
noise related to truck travel; (Public Works)
35. that during construction radios on-site shall be limited to those needed to manage the
construction activity. (Building)
36. that the project shall have a LEEDS certification with silver as the goal, and that the
LEEDS checklist shall be submitted as an FYI item to the Planning Commission before
the building permit is issued; (Planning)
37. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire
Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building)
Operation
38. that the following services shall never be allowed at the PHS/SPCA Center for
Compassion: initial triage; dead animal pick-up and disposal; housing of stray animals;
housing of aggressive animals prior to a mandated hearing; quarantine for rabies and
other possible zoonoitic illnesses; euthanasia of animals without the presence of their
owners and an appointment; spay/neuter for the public's animals and shelter animals;
lost and found services, 24/7 animal ambulance service, local code enforcement, and,
except in circumstances of individual members of the public misunderstanding, animal
receiving; (Planning)'
39. that the Center shall have a maximum of 30 staff people on-site at any one time consisting of
both paid professionals and volunteers; the Center shall have a maximum of two people present
This condition relates to operation of the facility,so it was moved from number 3 as approved by the Planning Commission to
number 38 so that it is combined with the conditions relating to operation of the Center.
12
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ONAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
on-site after business hours for 24-hour coverage; that any permanent increase in the number of
employees over 30 on site at any one time shall require an amendment to this permit; shall
accommodate a maximum of 200 domestic animals and 218 native animals at one time, and
shall never exceed the number of 45 dogs on site at one time, (Planning)
z
40. that to reduce barking, all dogs kept at the facility shall be neutered at the Coyote Point
or other site before arrival unless a veterinarian recommends that the neutering
procedure would be unsafe for the animal's health or age, when this is the case the
Center shall be responsible for the neutering of the animal when it is determined to be
safe; (Planning)
41. that the Center may not be open for business for adoptions, animal deliveries or permitted
veterinary services except during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven days a week; in
addition to business hours classes/educational activities may occur between 10:00 a.m. and 10
p.m. seven days a week, with the last class ending no later than 10:00 p.m.; class and
educational events shall be scheduled with a minimum of fifteen (15) minutes between
classes/educational events to insure adequate turnover of on-site parking; (Planning)
42. that because of on-site parking the maximum class size shall be limited to 20 students; for
animal behavior classes, the class size shall be limited to ten pet owners and a maximum of 2
instructors at one time; instructors of animal behavior classes shall be in the parking lot to meet
students and shall escort them to their vehicles at the end of the class; (Planning)
43. that the facility operator shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to determine a feasible
directional program to the facility site including on site parking, the facility operator shall
fund the signage and its installation; (Public Works, Planning)
44. that only one bus at a time shall bring visitors or students to the animal rescue and
shelter facility, parking for the bus shall be provided on-site at a pre-arranged location
and the green curb adequate for loading and unloading shall be retained along the Rollins
Road street frontage of the site; (Planning)
45. that a parking study using methodology approved by the City shall be prepared one year
after the Center opens and again two years after the center opens and at regular intervals
there after should it be determined to be necessary based on the first two studies; that this
study shall evaluate the use of the on-site parking throughout the week and particularly
during peak usage periods (including during class sessions); the study shall be submitted
to the Community Development Director for review, should the study document that on-
site parking is inadequate or that those seeking parking regularly prefer to use the public
street, then the facility operator shall prepare,within 3 months, an alternative parking
plan which shall address the parking shortages identified and the reasons for them; this
plan shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic
Engineer and submitted to the Planning Commission for review and amendment to the
conditional use permit; failure to provide a remedial plan and appropriate, effective
Z The number of animals,domestic and native,to be served at the Center was inadvertently left out of the operating conditions when
this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission.The bold italic text has been added to define this operating parameter for the
Center which was described in the staff report for the Planning Commission action on the project,May 14,2007. .
13
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ONAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
solutions for on-site and off-site parking problems identified in the studies shall result in
Planning Commission review of the conditional use permit for the on-site program;
(Planning, Public Works)
46. that the retail sales area in the Center for Compassion shall be designed to serve the needs of
those adopting animals from the site,the sales area shall be limited to 800 SF and shall not be
designed to be a destination or wholesale/discount location for pet supplies; (Planning)
47. that any and all cleaning agents used by the facility which will be washed into the public sewer
or into the surface drainage serving the site shall be approved by the operator of the
Burlingame Wastewater Treatment Plant and by the City's NPDES inspector,prior to their
being used; failure to use approved products and demonstrated problems at the City's
treatment plant or surface drainage channels shall require a public hearing before the Planning
Commission including consideration of amendments to the conditional use permit for this use;
(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
48. that all animals arriving at the Center for Compassion, except those accompanied by their
owners to participate in behavior training classes and those brought by their owners for
veterinarian services within 30 days of adoption, shall enter the facility only through the
enclosed, staff parking area; the arrival and departure of animals with their owners outside of
the caged parking area shall be supervised by a trained staff member who shall supervise the
quiet unloading and loading of the animals into their owners vehicles; (Planning)
49. that no stray animals shall be accepted at the Center for Compassion,that should an
animal be abandoned at the Center the facility shall provide a holding cage in side the
building to secure the animal until the Animal Control Services have been contacted and
arrive to remove the animal; (Planning)
50. that the 62 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the visitors and employees of the
Center and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on this
site or by other businesses for off-site parking; (Planning)
51. that no more than fifteen(15)percent of the domestic animals, cats and dogs,housed for
adoption at the San Mateo Center for Compassion each year shall enter the facility from
locations outside of San Mateo County; that the facility operator shall provide to the
Community Development Director an annual report documenting by month the source of the
domestic animals housed on the site; this report shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director no later than December 30, of each year; failure to submit such a report
will result in review by the Planning Commission; (Planning)
52. that the facility shall have posted on the site at an accessible location an odor management plan
to address basic and additional measures to minimize odors such as more frequent pick up,
earlier in the day, application of deodorizing agents, etc.; this plan shall be prepared and
reviewed by the City prior to the scheduling of the final inspection; the site shall be inspected
for compliance with the posting of the plan and the procedures set out in the plan at the same
time that the waste water filter facilities are inspected, failure to comply with the requirements
of the plan or valid complaints shall result in a report to the Bay Area Air Quality Control
Board and review by the Planning Commission; (Public Works,Wastewater Treatment Plant)
14
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
53. that, in the event of air quality violations based on odor, the property owner shall install
charcoal air filters or any other devise required by the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board on
air exhaust vents and that the air evacuation system for the building shall provide for a
minimum of twelve (12) air exchanges per hour; (Public Works, Building, Planning)
54. that the rolling roof over the dog exercise area shall be closed between the hours of 9:00 P.M.
and 7:00 a.m. each day; (Planning)
55. that the facility operator shall comply with the behavioral selection criteria setout in the
Response to Comments document on pages 3.0-28and 29, attached to the project approval,
these requirement will be enforced by requiring that this operator or any other operator of this
use shall comply with these criteria for selection of animals to be housed on the Center site;
failure to comply with these selection criteria shall cause this permit to be subject to public
hearing before the Planning Commission and remediation addressed to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission for continued use of the site; (Planning)
56. that in the interest of safe pedestrian access to the Center and safe access across Rollins
Road at Edwards Court to the Center,should the traffic warrants based on the City's
standards for traffic signal or lighted pedestrian crosswalk ever be achieved, the property
owner shall fund the installation of a lighted pedestrian crosswalk or two legs of the
required traffic signal, whichever the City's Traffic Engineer determines to be necessary;
( Public Works)
57. that deliveries of equipment and supplies to the facility shall be limited to trucks with a
maximum length of 22 feet,that such deliveries shall not be made during peak traffic
hours (7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or during the on-site peak parking demand
hours of 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. daily; the peak parking demand hours shall be confirmed in the
first year parking study and the truck delivery limitations adjusted if the peak on-site
parking hours of use is different. (Public Works, Planning)
Miti ation Monitoring Plan
58. that the project's design shall be consistent with the proposed site plan, building elevations,
and landscaping plan illustrated in Figures 3.0-2, 3.0-3, and 3.0-6 of the Draft EIR. Any
alternations to the final approved design shall require approval from the City prior to
implementation and be determined to be consistent with the conclusions of the environmental
impact report; (Planning)
59. that the landscaping on-site shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. Trees along
Rollins Road and Edwards Court shall be replaced in minimum 24-inch box size if any of the
trees planted along these roads become severely diseased or do not survive. The City shall
approve any changes to the landscaping plan illustrated on Figure 3.0-6 of this EIR;
(Planning)
15
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ANENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
Lighting —�
60. that to minimize light and glare low profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward shall be
used for the parking lot area and all security lighting including that in the rear of the
building;(Building)
61. that shielded fixtures shall be used on all exterior fixtures except lights to illuminate signs at
the project site to minimize glare produced by lighting on-site; (Building)
62. that all lighting associated with the project shall comply with by the City's Illumination
Ordinance;(Planning, Building)
63. that all signs shall have indirect illumination with shielded focused fixtures or be back lit or
ground lit to avoid flooding adjacent walls with light; (Planning, Building)
Waste Handling and Treatment
64. that cat feces and urine, including cat litter, shall be bagged daily into heavy duty industrial
plastic bags, sealed tight with duct tape, and placed in United Nations (UN) and Title 49 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) approved sealed-tight steel drums, up to 55-gallons, with
removable lids and locking ring located in an enclosed are within the building or parking
structure of the Center. The drums shall be picked up weekly by a qualified contractor and
disposed of at a landfill that accepts cat litter and diatomaceous earth;(Public Works)
65. that waste from dogs shall be disposed into the sanitary sewer. Each individual kennel and
room shall have drains that feed into the sanitary sewer. A manual grate shall be placed over
each drain to allow PHS/SPCA staff to dispose of feces directly into the sewer line. The grate
shall be closed at all times, except during cleaning. The disposal drain shall have an automatic
flushing system, with a flush valve. Kennel floors shall be washed frequently and appropriately
disinfected daily; (Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
66. that dog feces produced in the Indoor Dog Exercise area shall be collected in the kennel drain
system into the sanitary sewer,-(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
67. that animal waste from the wildlife housed in small enclosures shall be disposed of into drains
that discharge into the sanitary sewer;(Building, Public Works)
68. that the animal waste from the native wildlife enclosed in the stationary aviaries and
duck1diving pools shall be hosed down into sewage drains, which connect to the sanitary sewer.
The outdoor wildlife areas shall be hosed with water and appropriately disinfected
daily,-(Public Works)
Odor
69. that an odor management plan shall be developed and approved by the City of Burlingame.
The odor management plan shall include:
a. Outdoor areas shall be cleaned frequently;
b. Waste shall be stored properly and collected for disposal frequently;
16
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ONAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
c. Odor neutralizers shall be used;
d. A wind sock shall be used to determine in what direction the odors would drift and trash
containers shall be placed in order to minimize drift created by prevailing winds;
e. Trash receptacles shall not be left in sunlight; and
f. Trash receptacles shall have high surrounding fences and overhang.(Public Works,
Wastewater Treatment Plant)
Noise
70. that dogs shall be housed in kennels that are designed to minimize the view of other dogs to
eliminate or reduce barking. Dogs shall only share a kennel with dogs that have been
specifically matched for compatibility as approved by the licensed veterinarian on-site;
(Planning)
71. that the acoustics of the facility shall be constructed and designed with specific materials and
elements as approved by a noise consultant to attenuate noise, including barking. This
includes, but is not limited to the following:
a. Minimum sound isolation properties of the classroom exterior windows shall be STC 24;
b. Acoustical tile shall be used for the ceiling above the dog kennels;
c. The windows and ceiling pads in the lobby area shall have a minimum STC 24 isolation
rating, with a single layer of 5/8 gypsum for the ceiling and a single pane of 1/8-inch glass
for the window; and
d. The minimum reduction from any component of the exterior wall of the building shall be
STC 24 for the windows, assuming a single pane of 1/8-inch glass.(Planning)
72. that prior to acceptance at the Center, dogs shall be screened by professional animal
behaviorists for serious behavioral problems (e.g., constant barking, aggression, food
guarding, etc). A dog diagnosed with behavioral problems shall not be transferred to the
Center unless that behavior is treated and determined to be resolved by a licensed veterinarian
prior to transfer,-(Planning)
Parking/Circulation/Traffic
73. that the applicant shall notify vendors using the site that deliveries made by vehicles greater
than 22 feet must use the joint access easement. Vehicles less than 22 feet would be allowed to
use the parking area. To the extent possible, the applicant shall work with vendors to schedule
deliveries during non peak traff c times;(Planning)
74. that the project applicant shall design a marked loading zone on-site;(Planning, Public Works)
75. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a dust control plan that is compliant
with City requirements. This plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame Public Works
Department, which shall be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction.
The dust control plan shall include the basic, enhanced, and optional dust control measures
recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), including the
measures listed below.
Basic Control Measures (for all construction sites)
17
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY& SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4, 2007
(a) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
(b) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
(c) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
(d) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas
at construction sites.
(e) Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) or more frequently as required by the City if
visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Enhanced Control Measures (for individual or combined construction sites of larger than
four acres)
(a) Hydro seed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
(b) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc).
(c) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour (mph).
(d) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
(e) Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Optional Measures (based on requirements by the City)
(a) Install wheel washers for all existing, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
(b) Suspend excavation and grading activity when sustained winds exceed 25 mph.
(c) Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one
time.(Public Works)
Cultural
76. that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction
activities, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper
protection measures, as determined by a qualified expert, can be implemented; (Planning)
77. that if previous unknown human remains are encountered during construction, an appropriate
representative of Native American groups and the County Coroner shall be informed and
consulted, as required by State law; (Planning)
78. that any new structures shall be constructed and installed according to the standards of the
Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at the
time a building permit is issued;(Building, Public Works)
Construction
79. that a design-level final geotechnical report shall be required for the project. This report shall
include specific recommendations to minimize post construction settlements. The design-level
geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed by the Burlingame Department of Public Works
for compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. The City field inspectors shall
18
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ONANENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
inspect construction for implementation of the recommend site preparation activities;(Building,
Public Works)
80. that all storm water discharge shall adhere to State and Federal requirements. All storm
drainage that discharges into public water shall be required to meet water quality standards
outlined in the NPDES permit requirements;(Public Works)
81. that best Management Practices (BMPs)shall be developed for the site and approved by the
City;(Public Works)
82. that hazardous materials or wastes found or generated at the project site shall be transported
and handled in accordance with applicable disposal regulations;(Building,Fire)
83. that any hazardous waste generated at the project site shall be removed by a licensed
hazardous waste hauler for approved disposal off-site;(Building,Fire)
84. that the BAAQMD shall issue a permit and be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed
demolition or abatement work on-site;(Building)
85. that the local office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration(OSHA)shall be notified
in writing of any asbestos abatement to be carried out as a part of demolition;(Building,Fire)
86. that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs(SWPPP)shall be developed and approved
by the City. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs that will minimize sedimentation and
contamination of storm water runoff generated during construction;(Public Works)
87. that the modifications to the existing buildings on-site, as well as new construction, shall
comply with the requirements in Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention of the Burlingame
Municipal Code;(Public Works)
88. that an acoustical engineer,familiar with aviation noise,shall prepare an acoustical study in
accordance with Title 24. The study shall determine if construction design of the project site
would comply with the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound Transmission
Controls and FAR Part 150,Appendix A, table I criteria, in order to achieve an indoor noise
level of 45 dB or less for noise episodes associated with aircrafts;(Building,)
89. that the project shall incorporate appropriate design measures(interior sounds insulation)to
reduce aviation noise if the acoustical study(prepared as part of mitigation measure Noise 1)
determines that the design of the project would not achieve an indoor noise level of 45
dB;(Planning,Building)
90. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with requirements found in the California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and
Disposal, Article 5 Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards. The containers shall be
replaced as needed to ensure compliance with this regulation;(Planning)
91. that the applicant shall obtain a sanitary sewer discharge permit from the City's Office of
Environmental Compliance. The design of this project's system shall be approved by the City's
19
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY& SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4, 2007
Office of Environmental Compliance through the permitting process;(Public Works,
Wastewater Treatment Plant)
92. that no cat litter or diatomaceous earth shall be disposed of into drains that feed into the
sanitary sewer system. Such litter will be disposed of into SS-gallon steel drums;(Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
93. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with the following requirements found in the
California Code of Regulations Title 14 Chapter 3: Minimum Standards for Solid Waste
Handling and Disposal Article S; and Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards,
particularly Section 17315, Garbage Containers.(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
Staff Comments:
Staff would note that some of the attachments to this staff report are under separate cover. These include:
■ Draft EIR document;
■ Response to Comments/Final EIR document;
■ Planning Commission Action Staff Report;
■ Transcript of the May 1, 2007, Planning Commission Special Study Session; and
■ Planning Commission Special Study Session staff report May 1, 2007, with attachments.
Together, these documents along with the City Council Action Staff Report, June 4, 2007, compose the Center
project staff report and record for Council consideration at the June 4, 2007 public hearing. A list of
attachments for the City Council Action Staff Report, June 4, 2007, is included under Attachments below. For
your reference a listing of all the separate cover attachments with each report's attachments are also listed
below.
ATTACHMENTS:
To the City Council Action Staff Report, June 4, 2007
Action Alternatives and Criteria for Findings, 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court
Table 1 : Compliance with M-1 District Regulations, Planning Commission Staff Report, May 14, 2007
Table 2: Compliance with Design Guidelines North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan,
Planning Commission Minutes, Unapproved, May 14, 2007
Table 2.0-1 Summary Table of Significant Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Level of Significance after
Mitigation, Final EIR Center for Compassion, 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, September 2006
and Response to Comments-Final Environmental Impact Report April 2007.
Fehr & Peers Memorandum, May 23, 2007, Re: PHS/SPCA Burlingame Center for Compassion- Parking
Memorandum
City Attorney Memorandum: Parking Determination for Animal Shelters and Animal Rescue Facilities, May
3052007
Planning Commission Minutes, May 1, 2007, Special Study Session
Planning Commission Minutes, May 14, 2007, Regular Meeting
Jennifer Renk, attorney, Luce Forward, letter May 16, 2007, requesting appeal
Public Notice, 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, mailed May 24, 2007
Application Forms Submitted by Applicant
o Application to the Planning Commission, dated April 27, 2005
o Ken White, letter to Ruben Hurin, Planner, dated June 23, 2005
o Commercial Application Form, dated May 10, 2005
20
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ONAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD120 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
o Environmental Information Form,dated January 6,2006
City Department Project Review Comments
o Chief Building Official Comments,dated April 24,2006,August 22,2005 and July 1,2005
o City Engineer Comments,dated April 24,2006,August 24,2005 and July 7,2005
o Fire Marshal Comments,dated April 24,2006
o City Arborist Comments,dated April 26,2006 and August 31,2005
o Recycling Specialist Comments,dated May 5,2006 and July 6,2005
o NPDES Coordinator Comments,dated April 24,2006 and July 5,2005.
Correspondence Received after May 14,2007
o Michael Moore,Square Peg Design,letter May 29,2007,Re: Wayfindings at the new Peninsula
Humane Society&SPCA
o Elise Clows,Attorney,letter May 24,2007,Re:Peninsula Humane Society Center for Compassion
o Hooper,paperback book,received May 15,2007.
o E-mail received between May 11,2007 and May 30,2007
Items Submitted at the Planning Commission Hearing,May 14,2007
• Kevin Guibara,Executive Director Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Council,
California Watershed Posse,letter,May 14,2007.
• David Moutoux,attorney,letter,May 14,2007,Re: PHS FEIR/CUP 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards
Court with attachment
• David Moutoux,attorney,letter,May 14,2007,Re:PHS FEIR/CUP 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards
Court with two attachments
• David Moutoux,attorney,letter,May 14,2007,Re:PHS FEIR/CUP 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards
Court,copy of May 1,2007 letter for the record.
Desk Items at the Planning Commission Hearing,May 14,2007
• Lauren Speeth,Creative Director,Efenworks Foundation,letter May 14,2007,in support of project.
John Steere,Senior Project Manger,EIP/PBS&J,letter May 14,2007,Re: Response to Comments on
Watershed Posse Letter,for PHS/SPCA
• Kevin Guibara,e-mail,May 14,2007,Re:Hearing process.
• 40 e-mail documents,in support of the PHS/SPCA received between May 10,2007 and May 14,2007
Items Included in City Council Staff Report June 4 2007,Bound Separately
➢ Draft Environmental Impact Report,Impact Sciences,September 2006
➢ Response to Comments-Final Environmental Impact Report,April 2007
➢ Planning Commission Staff Report,Action meeting,May 14,2007 and attachments:
• City Department Project Review Comments
• Chief Building Official Comments,dated April 24,2006,August 22,2005 and July 1,2005
• City Engineer Comments,dated April 24,2006,August 24,2005 and July 7,2005
• Fire Marshal Comments,dated April 24,2006
• City Arborist Comments,dated April 26,2006 and August 31,2005
21
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY& SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4, 2007
• Recycling Specialist Comments, dated May 5, 2006 and July 6, 2005 -�
• NPDES Coordinator Comments, dated April 24, 2006 and July 5, 2005
➢ Transcript: Special Study Session of Environmental Impact Report and Proposed Project for the
Peninsula Humane Society/SPCA at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court, Tuesday, May 1, 2007,
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA.
➢ Planning Commission Staff Report, Study meeting, May 1, 2007, binder, with attachments:
• Application Forms Submitted by Applicant
Application to the Planning Commission, dated April 27, 2005
Ken White, letter to Ruben Hurin, Planner, dated June 23, 2005
Commercial Application Form, dated May 10, 2005
Environmental Information Form, dated January 6, 2006
• Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
September 25, 2006 - Public Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report
February 27, 2006 - Second Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study
September 26, 2005 - Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study
May 9, 2005 - Application for Use Determination of M-1 Zoning District
• Design Guidelines - North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
Design Standards for All Areas, pp. 51-57 -�
Rollins Road Design District, pp. 76-79
• Table 3 - Signage for Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA Center for Compassion
• Property Value Analysis Report, prepared by Brion & Associates, dated December, 2006
• Correspondence Submitted Before End of Comment Period on the Draft EIR (October 20, 2006)
Charlie Potts, letter to the Planning Department, dated September 19, 2005
David T. Moutoux, letter to Margaret Monroe, City Planner, dated September 20, 2005
Joe Gurkoff, letter to Ruben Hurin, Planner, dated September 20, 2005
E. James Hannay, letter to Margaret Monroe, City Planner, dated September 22, 2005
Henry N. Kuechler IV, letter to City of Burlingame Planning Commission, dated September 23,
2005
David T. Moutoux, letter to City of Burlingame Planning Commission, dated
September 26, 2005
Albert Guibara, letter to City of Burlingame Planning Commission, dated September 26, 2005
Petition submitted and signed by tenants and property owners in the Rollins Road area, date
stamped September 26, 2005
Photographs taken at the San Mateo Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA, 12 Airport
Boulevard, submitted at the September 26, 2005, Environmental Scoping and Design
Review Study meeting, dated stamped September 26, 2005
Timothy A. Tosta of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, letter to Margaret Monroe, City Planner, dated
December 15, 2005
Ken White, letter Margaret Monroe, City Planner, dated January 13, 2006
Albert Guibara, letter to City of Burlingame Planning Commission, dated February 24, 2007
22
PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PROPOSED PROJECT FOR THE
PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY&SPCA AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT June 4,2007
David T. Moutoux, letter to City of Burlingame Planning Commission, dated February 27,
2006
Map submitted at the February 27, 2006, Second Environmental Scoping and Design Review
Study, Property Owners that Object to the SPCA and Any Type of Boarding of Animals,
date stamped February 27, 2006
Andre' Ellen Legos, e-mail date stamped March 1, 2006
Les Terry, letter to City of Burlingame Planning Commission, dated March 25, 2006
Ross Bruce, letter to City of Burlingame Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission, dated
April 21, 2006
Barbara Nagata, e-mail dated May 9, 2006
David T. Moutoux, letter to Larry Anderson, City Attorney, dated August 17, 2006
• Correspondence Submitted After End of Comment Period on the Draft EIR(October 20, 2006)
Ken White, letter to Michael Brownrigg, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Chair and
Planning Commission, dated October 25, 2006
Ken White, letter to Cathy Baylock, City of Burlingame Mayor and City Council, dated
October 25, 2006
Mark Melbye, letter to City of Burlingame, dated October 31, 2006
David T. Moutoux, letter to Margaret Monroe, City Planner, dated November 20, 2006
Oscar Braun, information packet submitted at November 27, 2006 Planning Commission
Meeting-North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, dated stamped
November 27, 2006
Albert Guibara, information packet submitted at November 27, 2006 Planning Commission
Meeting - North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, dated stamped November 27,
2006
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated December 10, 2006
David F. Carbone, letter to Margaret Monroe, City Planner, dated December 18, 2006
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated December 18, 2006 (1)
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated December 18, 2006 (2)
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated December 20, 2006
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated December 27, 2006
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated December 28, 2006
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated December 30, 2006
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated January 1, 2007
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated January 5, 2007
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated January 15, 2007 (1)
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated January 15, 2007 (2)
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated January 24, 2007 (1)
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated January 24, 2007 (2)
Oscar Braun, e-mail dated February 3, 2007
David T. Moutoux, letter to Margaret Monroe, City Planner, dated February 14, 2007
Timothy A. Tosta of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss, letter to Larry Anderson, City Attorney, dated
March 20, 2007, regarding boarding of animals
Jennifer Pfaff, e-mail dated March 30, 2007
L
23
1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court
Action Alternatives and Requirements for Findings June 4, 2007
REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICAITON OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
CEQA Code Section 15090: (a) Prior to approving a project the lead agency shall certify that:
(1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA;
(2) The final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and that the
decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR
prior to approving the project; and
(3) The final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.
(b) When an EIR is certified by a non-elected decision-making body within a local lead agency,
that certification may be appealed to the local lead agency's elected decision-making body, if
one exists. For example, certification of an EIR for a tentative subdivision map by a city's
Planning Commission may be appealed to the city council. Each local lead agency shall
provide for such appeals."
PROJECT ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1 . City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit,
hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna
ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to
the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the
Council members must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion.
2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for
the record.
3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the
application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission;
when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without
prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like
additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about
additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City
Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether
any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission.
REQUIREMENTS FOR DETERMINING THE ON-SITE PARKING RATIO
Code section 25.70.042 provides that "for uses not listed in the above schedule of the required parking , spaces
shall be supplied on the same basis as provided for the most similar use, or as determined by the city planner:
For such determination such matters as:
■ Type of use and user;
■ Number of employees;
■ Number of visitors; and
■ Similar factors shall be considered.
If the decision of the City Planner is contested, " the Commission may approve, disapprove or modify the
decision of the City Planner."
1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court
Action Alternatives and Requirements for Findings June 4, 2007
The City Council should determine if the proposed parking ratio of 1.6 parking spaces per 1, 000 SF of
conditioned space,plus one parking space for the aviary staff is sufficient for this project. For the record,the
Council should state their reasons for their decision.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(Burlingame Municipal CS 25.52.020)
The zoning code requires that the following criteria must be met on the property in order to grant a conditional
use permit or amendment to a conditional use permit:
(a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property
or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience;
(b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame
general plan and the purposes of this title;
(c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it
deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a
manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential
uses on adjoining properties.
FINDINGS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH
BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: —�
The design guidelines of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan should be used to guide
achievement of the vision and goals of the Specific Plan. The design guidelines are not intended to be
directive but to establish the guiding principles for determining good design to effectively implement
the goals and policies of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
Table 2 on pages 3 and 4 of the staff report indicates whether the proposed project complies or requires
a determination with the intent of the design guidelines of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific
Plan. A copy of the design guidelines of the Rollins Road Design District is included as an attachment
to the staff report. The Planning Commission must find that the proposed design effectively
implements the goals and policies of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
Table 1 - Compliance with M-1 District Regulations
Lot Area: 51,270 SF Based on plans date stamped April 17,2007
Existing Proposed Allowed/Required
i
Setbacks:
i
Front(Rollins Road) (1"flr): 15'-0" i 20'-0" 15'-0"
Interior Side(1"flr): 13'-0" 10'-0" 10'-0"
Exterior Side(Edwards Court): 15'-1" 11'-0" to bay window 10'-0" —
............._ ..._.__._..... ....................._.............._..............-....................._...._._..............-....^._-___._...__.---...._..__-_......---....1..._.......--_..._...._._....__.._.......-._._.._ ----!...._-..........._._._._
Rear 48'-0" 48'-0"
none
Building Height: 34-11" 41'-6" to top of 35'-0"
screening i
(26'-8" to top of
aviary)
Parking: 65 spaces 62 spaces 57 spaces
49 standard (based on 1.56 spaces
9 compact per thousand feet of
4 disabled accessible j conditioned space
j1 (35,931 SF)using
average peak daytime
parking rate in EIR+
one employee for
aviary)
---.._._....._....-.........
_..__..__..
Lot Coverage: 48.7% 59.9% ; 60%
1
24,972 SF 30,732 SF – 30,762 SF
Impervious Surface: 88.2% 87.9% i n/a
45,234 SF I 45,080 i
On-site Landscaping: N/A 12.3% 2 10%
6,330 SF i 5,127 SF
Front setback Landscaping: N/A 100% 3 60%
2,415 SF 1,449 SF
Conditional use permit for overall building height (41'-6" proposed where 35'-0" is the maximum
allowed (CS 25.44.030 (17)).
2 This a minor change from the table in the Draft EIR from 14.9%to 12.3%.
Table 2—Compliance w/Design Guidelines
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
Rollins Road District Based on plans date stamped April 17, 2007
Design Guidelines Compliance
Build-To Lines:
20'-0" required on Rollins Road Complies — 20'-0" build-to line provided on Rollins
Proposed RR zoning(in process for this area)would Rd; 15'-0"build-to line provided on Edwards Ct.
require 15'build-to line on Edwards Court
Maximum Building Height:
60'maximum on both Rollins Road and Edwards Complies—41'-6" proposed
Court
Minimum Parcel Frontage:
60% of building frontage must be at build-to line on Complies—74%proposed on Rollins Rd.
Rollins Road and on Edwards Court —77%proposed on Edwards Ct.
Front Setback Areas:
Except for driveways, all areas between the sidewalk Complies
and the front fagades of buildings shall be adequately
designed and maintained, including installation of an
irrigation system for planted areas.
Fencing:
Fencing in the area between the sidewalk and the Planning Commission to determine compliance as a part
building should be semi-transparent. "Chain-link" of project review design review process.
fencing is highly discouraged.
Fencing proposed would not exceed eight feet in height,
would not be longer than 60 feet, and would have less
than 16 feet of distance between piers. The fence would
be open with some articulation.
Building Facade—Articulation
Building facades should avoid long, single planes in Planning Commission to determine compliance as a part
excess of 100 feet. Building facades should include of project review design review process.
elements that emphasize a scale that relates to human
form.
Building entries facing public streets are
encouraged.
Window reveals of greater than 3 inches should
be employed to create shadow lines and greater
visual interest on building facades.
A variety of materials is encouraged to articulate
building elements, such as the base, the ground
floor, and upper floors, if any.
Table 2—Compliance w/Design Guidelines
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
Rollins Road District Based on plans date stamped April 17, 2007
Design Guidelines/FAR Compliance
Rooftop Equipment
Mechanical equipment located on rooftops shall be Complies
screened from ground plain view by extended walls
or parapets that are an integral component of the
building architecture. Painting equipment or
constructing enclosing fences shall not be acceptable
remedies.
Service Areas
Services areas and ground-mounted equipment shall No service areas or loading docks proposed.
be screened from view by fences or walls that
conform to the style and materials of the
accompanying building.
Landscaping
Landscaping shall be provided on a minimum of ten Complies— 12.3%on-site landscaping proposed where
percent of the developed site area of a parcel. 10%is minimum required.
Fences and Walls - Height
Fences and walls shall be no more than eight feet Complies—proposed fence is less than 8'high
high.
Fences and Walls -Articulation
Walls and fences 60 feet or longer shall be articulated
Planning Commission to determine compliance as a part
of project review design review process.
Fencing proposed would not exceed eight feet in
height, would not be longer than 60 feet, and would
have less than 16 feet of distance between piers.
The fence would be open with some articulation.
Fences and Walls—Materials and Detailing
Walls and fences shall have a maximum of 16 feet Planning Commission to determine as part of
between piers. Walls visible from public streets shall design review process—fencing is semi-transparent
be constructed of durable materials and be detailed to and has eight-foot spacing between piers.
include a base,body and a distinctive cap. Along
street frontages, semi-transparent fences are
encouraged.
Streetscape Improvements—Trees
Red Oak on Rollins Road Complies—Red Oak proposed for Rollins Rd
Alternate: Chinese Tallow tree Chinese Hackberry proposed for Edwards Ct
No street tree recommendations for Edwards Court
2.0 Executive Summary
Table 2.0-1
Summary Table of Significant Impacts,Mitigation Measures,and Level of Significance after Mitigation
Level of Level of
Significance Significance
Environmental Topic and Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After
Mitigation
AESTHETICS
Impact 4.1-1: Potentially Mitigation Measure 4.1-1a: The project's design shall be consistent Less than
Project implementation would replace and Significant with the proposed site plan, building elevations, and landscaping Significant
modify existing buildings on the site, plan illustrated in Figures 3.0-2, 3.0-3, and 3.0-6 of this EIR. Any
introduce new vegetation,and introduce a alternations to the final approved design shall require approval from
new building design(color and style)to the City prior to implementation and be determined to be consistent
the project area. This is considered a with the conclusions of this environmental impact report.
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b: The landscaping on-site shall be
maintained throughout the life of the project. Trees along Rollins
Road and Edwards Court shall be replaced in minimum 24-inch box
size if any of the trees planted along these roads become severely
diseased or do not survive. The City shall approve any changes to the
landscaping lan illustrated on Figure 3.0-6 of this EIR.
Impact 4.1-2 Potentially Mitigation Measure 4.1-2a: To minimize light and glare low profile, Less than
Implementation of the project would Significant low-intensity lighting directed downward shall be used for the Significant
result in new sources of lighting on-site. parking lot area and all security lighting including that in the rear of
This is considered a potentially significant the building.
impact.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2b: Shielded fixtures shall be used on all
exterior fixtures except lights to illuminate signs at the project site to
minimize glare produced by lighting on-site.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2c: All lighting associated with the project
shall comply with by the City's Illumination Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2d: All signs shall have indirect illumination
with shielded focused fixtures or be back lit or ground lit to avoid
flooding adjacent walls with light.
Impact Sciences,Inc 2.0-8 Center far Compassion EIR
824-0- 1 September M06
Level f Level of
Level
oSignificance
Significancelof
Environmental Topic and Impact Beforitigation Mitigation Measures After
Mitigation
ODOR
Impact 4.2-1: Potentially Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: Cat feces and urine, including cat litter, Less than
The project would generate a new odor Significant shall be bagged daily into heavy duty industrial plastic bags sealed Significant
source through animal waste(urine and tight with duct tape, and placed in United Nations (UN) and Title 49
feces). This is considered a potentially Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) approved 55-gallon sealed-tight
significant impact. steel drums with removable lids and locking ring, located in an
enclosed area within the building or parking structure of the Center.
The drums shall be picked up at least weekly by a qualified contractor
and disposed of at the landfill that accepts cat litter and diatomaceous
earth. Trash shall be collected twice a week by Allied Waste or the
appropriate waste collection provider for the project site.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b: Waste from dogs shall be disposed into
the sanitary sewer. Each individual kennel and room shall have
drains that feed into the sanitary sewer. A manual grate shall be
placed over each drain to allow PHS/SPCA staff to dispose of feces
directly into the sewer line. The grate shall be closed at all times,
except during cleaning. The disposal drain shall have an automatic
flushing system, with a flush valve. Kennel floors shall be washed
frequently and appropriately disinfected daily.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1c: Dog feces produced in the Indoor Dog
Exercise area shall be collected in the kennel drain system into the
sanitary sewer.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d: Animal waste from the wildlife housed
in small enclosures shall be disposed of into drains that discharge into
the sanitary sewer.
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1e: The animal waste from the native
wildlife enclosed in the stationary aviaries and duck/diving pools
shall be hosed down into sewage drains, which connect to the
sanitary sewer. The outdoor wildlife areas shall be hosed with water
and appropriately disinfected daily.
Mitigation Measures 4.2-1f: An odor management plan shall be
Impact Sciences,Inc. 2.0-9 Center for Compassion EIR
824-02 September 2006
Level of
Level of
Significance Significance
Environmental Topic and Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After
Mitigation
developed and approved by the City of Burlingame. The odor
management plan shall include:
• Trash receptacles shall be cleaned frequently;
• Waste shall be stored property and collected for disposal
frequently;
• POdor neutralizers shall be used;
• A wind sock shall be used to determine in what direction the
odors would drift and trash receptacles shall be placed in
order to most minimize drift created by prevailing winds;
• Trash receptacles shall not be left in sunlight;and
• Trash receptacles shall have high surrounding fences and
overhang.
• This odor management plan shall remain at the Center and
be referred to in the event that odor complaints are filed.
NOISE
Impact 4.4-1: Significant Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Dogs shall be housed in kennels that are Less than
The project would introduce new noise designed to minimize the view of other dogs to eliminate or reduce Significant
sources to the area,including dog barking. barking. Dogs shall only share a kennel with dogs that have been
This is considered significant prior to specifically matched for compatibility as approved by the licensed
mitigation. veterinarian on-site.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: The acoustics of the facility shall be
constructed and designed with specific materials and elements as
approved by a noise consultant to attenuate noise,including barking.
This includes,but is not limited to the following:
• Minimum sound isolation properties of the classroom exterior
windows shall be STC 24;
• Acoustical tile shall be used for the ceiling above the dog
kennels;
• The windows and ceiling pads in the lobby area shall have a
minimum STC 24 isolation rating, with a single layer of 5/8
Impact Sciences,Inc. 2.0-10 Center for Compassion EIR
824-02 / September 2006
(Level of Level of
Significance Significance
Environmental Topic and Impact Before Mitigation Mitigation Measures After
Mitigation
gypsum for the ceiling and a single pane of 1/8-inch glass for the
window;and
• The minimum reduction from any component of the exterior
wall of the building shall be STC 24 for the windows,assuming a
single pane of 1/8-inch glass.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c: Prior to acceptance at the Center, dogs
shall be screened by professional animal behaviorists for serious
behavioral problems (e.g., constant barking, aggression, food
guarding,etc.). A dog diagnosed with behavioral problems shall not
be transferred to the Center unless that behavior is treated and
determined to be resolved by a licensed veterinarian prior to transfer.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impact 4.5-2: Potentially Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a: The applicant shall notify vendors using Less than
With mitigation,the existing access and Significant the site that deliveries made by vehicles greater than 22 feet must use Significant
circulation on-site is adequate to serve the the joint access easement. Vehicles less than 22 feet would be allowed
proposed project and does not pose safety to use the parking area. To the extent possible, the applicant shall
hazards. Therefore,this is considered a work with vendors to schedule deliveries during non-peak traffic
less than significant impact. times.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2b: The project applicant shall design a
marked loading zone on-site.
Impact Sciences,Inc. 2.0-11 Center for Compassion EIR
824-02 September 2006
f? -�
Fr: I-Iii & PFFRs
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 23, 2007
To: Audrey Darnell, Impact Sciences
From: Greg Saur&Chris Mitchell, PE, Fehr& Peers
Subject: PHS/SPCA Burlingame Center for Compassion—Parking Memorandum
SF05-0215
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify an administrative error contained in the PHS/SPCA
Burlingame Center for Compassion Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA). The information
presented in the TIA was subsequently used in the proposed project's Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). This memo is intended to clarify questions raised by the City of Burlingame
Planning Commission.
TRIP GENERATION
Page 16 of the PHS/SPCA Burlingame Center for Compassion TIA identifies existing animal
shelters within the Bay Area that are analogous to the proposed project. On this page, the sizes
of the San Jose Animal Care Center and Tony LaRussa's Animal Rescue Foundation are
correctly identified as:
• San Jose Animal Care Center—50,000 sq.ft.
• Tony LaRussa's Animal Rescue Foundation—37,700 sq. ft.
On the following page 17, in Tables 3 and 4, the sizes of the two animal shelters were reversed.
Tables 1 and 2, below, present the corrected building square footages, observed vehicle trips,
and resulting traffic generation rates.
These corrected tables do not affect the resulting trip generation rates. In fact, the trip generation
rates were calculated correctly based on the correct building square footages. The discrepancy
was due to an administrative error.
332 Pine Street,4thFloor,San Francisco,CA 94104 (415)348-0300 Fax(415)773-1790
www.fehrandpeers.com
Audrey Darnell, Impact Sciences
May 23, 2007
Page 2of3 FEI-i f: & Pi=ERS
iRAN SLUR IA 1164 (ON SJtiAHiS
TABLE 1
SIMILAR FACILITY TRIP GENERATION DATA(CORRECTED TABLE)
Observed Trips
Facility Size SizeUnit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out I Total In Out Total
San Jose Animal Care Center 50.0 ksf N/A 23 37 60
Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation 37.7 ksf 31 53 84
Tri-Valley SPCA 25.0 ksf 3 1 1 4 N/A
Source:Fehr&Peers,2006.
TABLE 2
SIMILAR FACILITY TRIP GENERATION RATES(CORRECTED TABLE)
Weekday
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Trip Rate per ksf Trip Rate per ksf
Facility Size Unit In Out Total In Out Total
San Jose Animal Care Center 50.0 ksf N/A 0.46 0.74 1.20
Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation 37.7 ksf 0.82 1.41 2.23
Tri-Valley SPCA 25.0 ksf 0.12 10.04 1 0.16 N/A
Typical Bay Area Shelter(Average Trip Generation Rate) n/a ksf 0.12 1 0.04 1 0.16 0.64 1 1.08 1 1.72
Source:Fehr&Peers,2006.
PARKING DEMAND
The parking demand rates observed at existing sites, and described on page 33, were
miscalculated based on the incorrect building square footages. This information should be
updated to reflect the correct peak parking demand rates of:
• San Jose Animal Care Center—peak daytime rate of 1.08 spaces per ksf
• Tony LaRussa's Animal Rescue Foundation—peak daytime rate of 2.23 spaces per ksf
• Typical Bay Area animal shelter (average of two observed sites) — peak daytime rate of
1.66 spaces per ksf
Using the correct average peak daytime parking rate, the proposed Burlingame PHS/SPCA
facility would generate demand for 60 spaces on a typical weekday, including visitors and
employees, plus an additional space associated with the aviary, for a total a of 61 spaces, which
332 Pine Street,4th Floor,San Francisco,CA 94104 (415)348-0300 Fax(415)773-1790
www.fehrandpeers.com
Audrey Darnell, Impact Sciences fj
May 23, 2007 `` ��
Page 3of3 FEi-ii, & PE:ERs
I kAH SP 0 R IA.t;OU CGHSU t A NIS
would be accommodated by the 62 proposed spaces. Therefore, the change in the peak parking
demand does not alter the original conclusions drawn from the parking supply/demand analysis.
Please feel free to contact Greg Saur at 415-348-0300 if you have additional questions.
332 Pine Street,4th Floor,San Francisco,CA 94104 (415)348-0300 Fax(415)773-1790
www.fehrandpeers.com
M E M O R A N D U M
`— CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: May 30, 2007
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
RE : Parking Determination for Animal Shelters and Animal Rescue Facilities
One of the decisions that the Council is being asked to make as part of the appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision on the proposed project at 1450 Rollins Road is what the parking
requirement for animal shelters and animal rescue facilities should be. This determination would
apply to any future applications for such facilities in the City and will eventually be placed in the
Zoning Code itself.
Fehr&Peers,the subconsultant to Impact Sciences in preparing the EIR, surveyed three Bay Area
facilities to determine parking demand, and found that the observed peak parking demand at the
facilities was in the range of 1.08 per thousand square feet (San Jose) to 2.23 per thousand square
feet (Tony La Russa). Tri-Valley SPCA in Dublin had so little traffic because of the way in which
its facility is operated that only a few parking spaces seemed necessary.
Kevin Guibara, an owner of property near the proposed project, has calculated the numbers
differently and believes that Fehr & Peers' numbers are incorrect. Mr. Guibara found a reference
that indicates that the San Jose facility may actually have 43,500 square feet, rather than 50,000
square feet as found by Fehr&Peers. Mr. Guibara points out that this would push the lower range
value up to 1.24 per thousand square feet,and the calculated average up to 1.73 per thousand square
feet.
Staff obtained the project drawings for the San Jose facility, which are attached. Measured by
Burlingame square footage standards for parking,the facility seems to actually exceed 50,000 square
feet(see also attached San Francisco Chronicle article on facility's opening). In addition,the facility
has an outdoor exercise/training area of some 18,000 square feet that is above and beyond the square
footage of the enclosed facility (the proposed project in Burlingame has an indoor exercise area).
Therefore, the San Jose facility parking demand ratio determined by Fehr & Peers may actually
overstate the ratio if some or all of the exercise area is added to the facility's square footage.
Staff also followed up by speaking with planners in Santa Clara, Walnut Creek, Dublin, and San
Jose, staff found that none of the four cities had an adopted standard; each had followed a different
path in approving each facility. Parking ratios ranged from 1 space per 1,433 square feet to 1 space
�-- per 269 square feet. However, Santa Clara had based the parking analysis on number of employees.
Outdoor exercise areas were apparently not counted in any of these calculations. None of the
Mayor and Council
Re: Parking Determination for Animal Shelters and Animal Rescue Facilities
May 30, 2007
Page 2
planners reported any parking problems at any of the facilities. In response to the concerns expressed
at the Planning Commission hearing, staff has also done further research on adopted parking
standards that other communities use for animal shelters and animal rescue facilities.
With regard to specific parking standards for animal shelters,the requirements range from 1 space
per 400 square feet (2.5 per thousand square feet) in Encinitas (Section 30.54.030) to 1 space per
2000 square feet(0.5 per thousand square feet) in Seattle (Chart A to Section 23.54.015).
With regard to accessory outdoor habitats such as aviaries, staff did not find any standards.
However, greenhouses might be viewed as a similar type of use. The City of Encinitas applies a
standard of 3 parking spaces per acre (0.07 per thousand square feet) to greenhouses (Section
30.54.030). The City & County of San Francisco applies a standard of 1 parking space per 4,000
square feet (0.25 per thousand square feet) for greenhouses (Article 1.5, Section 151 of Planning
Code).
The Burlingame Planning Commission determined that a parking ratio of 1.6 parking spaces per
thousand square feet(or 1 parking space per 625 square feet)for an animal shelter or animal rescue
facility was a good standard to apply to such uses in the City.' In addition, the Commission
determined that when used in conjunction with such animal shelter or rescue facility, an aviary
would require 1 parking space. This was based on the analysis that found that the presence of one
employee on the project site would be attributable to the aviary.
While staff believes that the 1.6 parking space ratio is supportable and well-defined,the one parking
space for the aviary may be a bit vague for future applications and projects. Therefore, staff
recommends that the Council consider further defining the outdoor habitat or aviary requirement by
placing an actual ratio on the use,such as the number of employees attributable to the outdoor habitat
or aviary(one parking space per employee attributable). An alternative would be to establish a ratio
based on square footage, such as 1 parking space per 4,000 or 5,000 square feet of aviary.
Therefore, in making its determination on the parking standard to be applied, the Council should
determine the following:
'Fehr and Peers used a straight averaging of the two facilities it surveyed and derived a
peak parking demand of 1.66 per thousand square feet. Fehr& Peers memo of May 23, 2007, at
page 2. However, if one were to use a weighted average (which might make more sense in
leavening the different aspects of such a facility), the calculation comes out as follows:
(1.08 X 50,000 sf) + (2.23 X 37,000 so= 1.57 parking spaces per thousand sf
T 50,000 sf+ 37,700 sf
Mayor and Council
Re: Parking Determination for Animal Shelters and Animal Rescue Facilities
May 30, 2007
Page 3
a) What is the appropriate parking standard ratio for the enclosed animal shelter/animal
rescue facility? The Planning Commission has recommended a standard of 1.6 parking spaces per
thousand square feet.
b) What is the appropriate parking standard for an outdoor habitat such as an aviary in
conjunction with another use? The Planning Commission has recommended a standard of one
parking space, and staff recommends that this be further refined by either requiring a parking space
per employee attributable to the habitat,or a set parking space per thousand square feet such as one
space per 4,000 square feet of habitat.
GEORGE NIERS
&ASSOWATES
�X�fGLCe � a�
LLI
PLAN Z
W
U
mi or.un a. - aw rm.n.m CO
ANj i4 SERVICES CEti7'E
ELEVATION
E
Lu
Q o
I O
U.
a i;ajl• I IS�
mk$e .aTa.6s -+
\ _ 1F. ° �o�'❑ `Q I d .P / •°• O
TV
4 gi p�
mmea rp.mNe.mioalE aumv°nc a a>v0
TOTAL ACRES: 3.93 GROSS
394 NET
TOTAL I OF OWELLNG UNITS: 0
r TOTAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED
Saa dose Animal Service Feclli GROSS S0.FOOTAGE OF FLOOR
_ Yabu1 10—Ings Bab 3/5101 SPACE FOR EACH NON-RESIDENML
USE: !3.517 SF SffF/R00F
TOTAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED P�
r ° Q' d NET SO.FOOTAGE OF F100R
SPACE(55%OF GROSS)FOR s[xF
EACH NON-RE51DEWK USE: 37,006 SF _
SIaRB Volunlaen 401nrl anon s0 53
- Ywikxa 301Wr/emOn 30 4 OFF-STPEET PAANING: 107 STANDARD SPACES
4 ACCESSIBLE SPACES
.. 1 LOADING SPACE 31EOCF1
Hbbb— 2=111 - 5 SPACES IN SALLYPORT
-7u 012 Lp
� 01/07A1 /
BEST AVAILABLE
All
GIVING SHELTER Page 1 of 1
SFGate.com
GIVING SHELTER
-,—junday, September 26, 2004
�W
With 50,000 square feet of space, San Jose's new animal care center is the largest pet shelter on the West
Coast, a palace for puppies, a castle for cats.
On Saturday, the center on Monterey Road hummed during an open house. For Max,top, the day meant
leaving his regular routine for a new life with Ray and Paula Martinez of San Jose, who waited for
approval to adopt the fuzzball distinguished from a mere dog by perky ears,bright eyes and a nose.
Over in the kitty section, the question was who's casing who? Is Thomas, center, checking out Teresa
Eames and her 2-year-old son, Joshua Moreno, as the right kind of human for a feline like him? Or are
they giving Thomas serious consideration as a possible family member?
The shelter also provides services unrelated to adoptions,like the license Marsden,bottom, needs to stay
legal and keep Noel and Betty Lanctot of San Jose out of trouble.
�*-"For more information on the center, go to www.sanjoseanimals.com on the Web.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bi n/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/09/26/BAGVR8VCR31.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
CPICPI(%07
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the May 1, 2007, special meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
IL ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer Don Chang; Wastewater
Treatment Plant Manager, Bill Toci.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
THE REVISED PROJECT FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA
CENTER FOR COMPASSION AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT,
ZONED M-1 - review of the Final Environmental Impact Report and Revised Project to build a
41,871 SF Center for Compassion (35,931 SF) with outdoor netted aviary and wild life habitat -.
(5,960 SF). The project would be an addition to an existing three story shell office/laboratory
structure. The completed building would have a maximum height of 41'6" and 62 parking spaces
would be provided on site.
Chair Brownrigg reviewed the procedure for the study meeting,noting that the purpose of the meeting was
for the Commissioner's to gain as much information as they can about the impacts and benefits of the
project. He also noted that for efficiency the discussion would be organized by topic.
CP Monroe gave a brief description of the project.
Chair Brownrigg identified the technical experts present: Charles Salter and Associates (noise
consultants)Anthony Nash; Air Permitting Specialists (odor consultants)Ray Kapahi; Fehr and Peers
Associates (traffic consultants) Chris Mitchell; Impact Sciences (environmental consultants) Shabnam
Barati, Audrey Darnell. City staff present represented: Wastewater Treatment Plant Manager, Bill Toci;
Senior Engineer(Sewer Collection system)Don Chang. He noted that at this point comments on the
project should be limited to process issues; after the discussion on the Final EIR the Commission may
want to identify additional issues on the project to be included in the action staff report.
Regarding process Commissioners asked:
• Is the sign permit included in the Commission's action on the project?
• How will the items in the two letters received at the desk tonight be included?
• What is the relationship between Impact Sciences and Brion and Associates?
• Is this the Final environmental document?
• Can additional information be included in the action Staff Report?
• Was the information on the CD included at the back of the Draft EIR made available to
the public in other form?
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Meeting Unapproved Minutes May 1, 2007
PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court
• How does the project address animal drop off for services provided on this site?
• Provide an analysis to document available on street parking, including distance and
number of spaces within given distances?
• When studied parking trends at other facilities how were activities on site, such as
classes, addressed?
• Does the location of the ADA designated parking spaces meet requirements?
• How do visitors get to the door after they park?
• When will the roll-up gates be down?
• There is no elevator access in ammal/staff unloading area? Elevators appear to be too
small for the proposed use? How will animals be moved to up stair locations from the
drop-off area?
• Was the fact that the building behind this site is empty considered in the trip generation
for the area?
What is involved in the retail space? Will it be a destination for pet owners?
• The parking ratio used here is unique, outside of the rule book; has the applicant
considered mitigation which can be added if the on-site parking does not work e.g. racked
parking?
• Very helpful for review and decision making at action hearing to have a three
dimensional model (physical or electronic) for the Commission to see.
Provide information on the capacity of the classrooms and/or class size, and how the
timing of that use will affect the on-site parking.
Chair Brownrigg called for a break at 8:25 p.m. The Special Study Session reconvened at 8:32 p.m.
Odor
• How do the threshold levels for odor work?
• Would scrubbers be recommended for the exhaust from this site?
Is it possible to contain all sensitive odors in side the building? Should odors be detected
off the site after construction how could they be addressed?
• What is the relationship between `housekeeping' inside the facility and sensitive odors
outside?
• Odor studies were based on 6 air exchanges an hour, the report note that there will be 10
to 12 air exchanges an hour? What will be the impact of the increased number of air
exchanges on the detectable odors outside the facility?
• How would odor complaints from nearby uses be handled?
Noise
• Study indicates that the barking of a dog in the exercise area with the roof open will be
audible only on the Rollins Road side of the building, is that correct?
• What is the acoustical difference between one dog barking and many dogs barking at the
same time?
• There is a fire station in this area, engines depart with sirens on, which will cause a
number of dogs to bark at once? Was this measured? How will the management of the
facility address this problem during the day and at night?
• Does the height of the parapet affect the dissemination of noise from the dog exercise
area when the roof is open? Would there be a benefit from increasing the height of the
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Special Study Meeting Unapproved Minutes May 1, 2007
PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court
inadequate and directed Impact Sciences and the City down a different path; and PHS/SPCA was
always in negotiations for the site at Coyote Point and did not tell the City.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed.
Chair Brownrigg asked the Commission if they had any questions on the project for the staff or applicant to
address at the action hearing. Commissioners noted:
• Clarify the difference between the animal control service as contracted with the County vs.
the other services provided by the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA. This is critical to
understanding the proposed use vs. Coyote Point.
• How do you plan to address the four-hour construction required in the CCandRs?
• Will the metal tubing at the aviary and wildlife habitat be the same color as the mesh netting?
• Provide information on the details of the metal mesh/grill at the openings to the parking area
on the Rollins Road and other elevations.
• A materials board would be useful.
• The project before the Commission is not a pet hospital,it is different from what was agreed
upon in terms of size,parking and staffing, entire package.
• Why does the parking not need a parking variance?
• Interested in the site at 12 Airport Blvd. is it a viable site for this use, like to see it included.
• Clarify under CEQA what is required for alternatives, both quantity and quality.
• Does it mean anything to this project that PHS/SPCA are in negotiations with Coyote Point.
• Note that the building is intended to be LEED certified, think Silver, provide a check list -�
which identifies the points aim for to achieve the credits.
• What treatment will be included for back flow preventers for water service?
• Regarding the signage proposed, do not want the parking direction as shown on the Rollins
Road corner.
• On M-1 zoning review chart in the Staff Report the numbers for percent of front setback
landscaping are reversed.
There were no further questions for the project from the Commission.
Chair Brownrigg note that a vote is not required tonight to set this item for the action calendar. He asked the
Commission if there was a consensus that there was enough information on which to make a decision. CP
noted that the action staff report would include information on the questions asked. It was noted that the EIR
is in its final form, and no changes would be made to that document before the action meeting. The
consensus of the commission was that there was enough information to make a decision on the Final EIR
and the project; and that the Final EIR and project should go forward to the Commission's action calendar.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
David Cauchi, Secretary
5
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
May 14, 2007
..� Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the May 14, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling,
Terrones and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin;
Community Development Director,William Meeker; City Attorney,Larry
Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell;
III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 23, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed and approved with the following changes: page
2, first paragraph, bullet 9, correct desk-to deck; page 2, first paragraph,
bullet 10, delete"Need to know who is responsible for water quality in this
reach of creek"because it is a duplicate;page 2,paragraph 6 bullet 3,insert
"Existing picket fence needs to be repaired,if it is to remain, show on plans";
page 6, paragraph 3, bullet 9, revise to read: "Change the guardrail on the
�. fient rear stairs-to raftsma st*match the deck rail".
The minutes of the May 1, 2007, Special Study Session were approved as
mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe noted that because of the
Regular Action Calendar tonight,any items called off the Consent Calendar
will be set for action on the Regular Action Calendar, Tuesday May 29,
2007.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut Avenue, commented on the three common
styles of architecture in Burlingame, asked the Planning Commission to be
particularly attentive to requiring details like true divided light windows and
roofing material consistent with the architectural tradition of the proposed
building in all residential and commercial buildings. Chair Brownrigg noted
window detail is also a high priority for residential development for the
Commission, and this focus on windows has been extended to commercial
development now that there is commercial design review.
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke to FYI 2212 Hillside Drive, think
that plans presented do not include all the changes requested by the City
Council at the appeal hearing including planting wells along the driveway;
should hold this item over to action for complete plans.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
VI. STUDY ITEMS
There were no study items for discussion.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. He noted that there was a request among the desk items tonight to remove item 1 c, 1249
Cabrillo Avenue, from the consent calendar. There were no requests to remove any other items from the
Consent Calendar.
Ia. 755 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,SPECIAL PERMITS AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
AND FOR A NEW OFFICE IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JONATHAN FELDMAN,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;ANN STOWE&MICHAEL CELICEO,PROPERTY OWNERS) (72
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
lb. 1863 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 — APPLICATION FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION"
FACILITY (YOGA STUDIO) ROBIN DUFFY, APPLICANT, STEVE AND MERRY-LEE MUSICH,
PROPERTY OWNERS; AND KEVIN KARL, ARCHITECT) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
lc. 1249 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR A CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT
FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING WOOD DECK WITH A NEW CONCRETE DECK OVER A
CREEK BED (JOHN & GAIL DISERENS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD &
ASSOCIATES DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Set for first item on the Action Calendar for the Planning Commission meeting of May 29, 2007.
1d. 1412 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR A FIRST FLOOR PORCH ADDITION(MARK AND MAGALI LEIALOHA,APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS;BLAISE DESCOLLONGES,RSS ARCHITECTURE,AND ARCHITECT) (77
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Osterling moved approval of Consent Calendar items la 755 Paloma Avenue; item Ib 1863 El Camino
Real;and item 1 d 1412 Capuchino Avenue based on the facts in the staff reports,commissioners comments
and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED RR — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND APPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR USE AND BUILDING
HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS
ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING
FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA (KEN WHITE, PENINSULA HUMANE
SOCIETY&SPCA,APPLICANT,GEORGE MIERS&ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECT,HENRY HORN&
SONS,PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: RUBEN HURIN/MARGARET
MONROE
Reference staff report May 14, 2007,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed action
criteria and staff comments. Eighty-seven(87) conditions were suggested for consideration including the
mitigation monitoring plan. The staff report included as attachments the Draft Environmental Impact
Report and the Response to Comments Document which together are the Final Environment Impact Report
for the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA project at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court. Chair
Brownrigg reviewed the ground rules for processing the item. Commissioners asked if there was any
relationship between the author of the letter at their desks on EIP letter head and Impact Sciences who
prepared the environmental documents.CP noted that the EIP letter was an independent comment.The two
firms are not related. Commissioner asked how the 22 foot maximum length of delivery truck would be
enforced. Staff noted that the conditions would be the enforcement tool,and the deliveries by truck could be
limited to off a.m. and p.m. peak hours when there is less traffic in the area or other times when there are
fewer cars in the parking lot. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg asked the
Commissioners and noted that all had visited the site.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. He called on the applicant to make a 20 minutes presentation.
Then he noted that he would give Mr.Guibara 10 minutes to present since he was a local property owner in
the area.Noting the level of audience interest in testifying tonight,he then noted he would give everyone
else three minutes to comment; and the applicant could return at the end of the public testimony for a final
comment.
Ken White, President of the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA in San Mateo County; George Miers,
Architect, presented the project; Elaine Chey, Green Building Specialist. They noted: mission of
PHS&SPCA; age of facility at Coyote Point; Final EIR identified no significant unavoidable impacts;
introduced key project consultants present in the areas of noise, green building, landscape, mechanical
plumbing;and economics will answer questions. Noted building would be LEEDS certified,although don't
know level;cleaning agents will be dispersed via pump system,reduce water usage;interior odor would be
addressed by walls with smooth covering and no joints to reduce bacteria;roof screen hide roof equipment,
add to height of building; if noise is a problem, exercise area has rolling roof which can be kept closed;
classroom area can be divided into two classrooms; showed a diagram of ways animals can enter and exit
the facility.
Commissioners asked about how animals enter building;number of animals euthanized at this site;clarify
services provided on this site as opposed to Coyote Point; four hour construction on property line; metal
frame and mesh on aviary and outdoor habitat; metal grill on Rollins Road side of building; LEED
�. certification;how would public traffic enter and leave the site;procedure for departing with animal;variety
of classes offered.
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14,1007
Kevin Guibara,Executive Director for Coordinating Resources and Development,California Watershed
Posse;Albert Guibara,property owner in area.Neighboring property owners addressed:land use;on-site
parking requirement;driveway width and on-site circulation;not meet ADA requirements;designated staff
parking inadequate;traffic table wrong size for ARF facility,question parking ratio,not include classes;
basic error in comparative parking count;no designated on-site loading;on street parking close by is very
limited;property value study should base value on rental income;CCandR's require four hour building;
parking violates CCandR's;added roof equipment requires screen which increases height;and staff had
pointed out problem of comparative parking analysis not including class use.
Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing.He asked each,speaker to limit their presentation to three
minutes and to focus on new information. The following spoke:Oscar Braun,Executive Director of Half
Moon Bay Coastside Foundation and California Watershed Posse;Debbie Fischer,President,Peninsula
Humane Society&SPCA,361 Half Moon Lane,Daly City; William St.Lawrence,832 Morrell Avenue;
William Nack,1153 Chess Drive,Foster City;David Moutoux,Law Office at 1400 Rollins Road;Jennifer
Pfaff,615 Bayswater Drive;John Root,728 Crossway Drive;Scott Delucchi,190 E.O'Keefe Street,Menlo
Park;Maria Eguren, 1222 Oak Grove Avenue;Katie Dinneen,536 Johnson Avenue,Pacifica;Rebecca
Allen,217 Arkansas Street; Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue;Karen Key, 1499 Oak Grove Avenue;
Michele Moffat,Peninsula Humane Society volunteer;Susan Castner-Paine,728 Concord Way;Nick
Brownrigg, 1524 Columbus Drive;Jim Knapp,Citizens for Accountability spoke. Issues noted were:
consideration should be limited to Final EIR;position on no alternative;must certify EIR within one year;
time for the city to decide;give the people working for animals a better facility;three building trades
property owners at 1511,1519,and 1521 Rollins Road support PHS/SPCA,good neighbor,will generate
jobs;confirm that letter on recirculation of EIR and failure to act in one year in record;project being
processed under M-I zoning,violates section prohibiting boarding of animals;activity not contained withit
building,noise is audible;permitted uses allow a wide variety of uses;traffic volume is light on 4 lane
Rollins Road;good location for this project/good for county residents;noise from freeway incredible in this
area;review outreach services,animal behavior,wildlife rescue services offered by PHS/SPCA;no threat
to endangered species; Mills Creek needs refuse removal; 50 Edwards Court needs to maintain their
landscaping; loud during day, at night no one lives there; not affect land values,cited San Francisco
examples;Burlingame should be honored to be selected as site;little noise audible from animals at Coyote
Point,lots of parking there too;this area not good choice,decision should be based on law,administrative
record and CEQA; EIR alternatives inadequate; Red Legged Frog not adequately addressed; post-
construction pollution control not adequately addressed; Response to Comments document was not
circulated to public;where is the Final EIR.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chair Brownrigg called for a break at 9:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:32 p.m.
Chair Brownrigg asked the applicant if they would like to respond. Jennifer Renk,attorney,Luce,Forward,
Hamilton and Scripps,121 Spear Street,San Francisco;Timothy Tosta,attorney Luce,Forward,Hamilton
and Scripps, 121 Spear Street, San Francisco, commented on: euthanasia, on-site parking includes
employees and visitors; explained error in parking table; agree to review parking in one year; ADA
accessible parking requirements;loading areas;CCandR's private property owner issue;if any existing
hazards in building required by City code to address before demolition;project creates 6,500 SF of
additional space,could have been addressed by Negative Declaration;no significant impacts;no need to—,,,
recirculate; new information on Red Legged Frogs and drainage does not raise a significant impac,
permit streamlining designed for benefit of applicants to move project along.
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14,2007
Commissioners asked the applicant: eviction from Coyote Point; continue to look for a site until find one;
animal control; sufficient funding for project; PHS/SPCA not oppose high density use at east end of
Edwards Court. Applicant agreed to conditions: add list of services which would never occur on this site-
stay at Coyote Point or elsewhere, never convert aviary and outdoor habitat to conditioned space, study
parking after one year and again two or three years later, all dogs kept at the Center are neutered unless a
veterinarian recommends that it is not safe for the animal's health,required to have LEEDS certification
with silver as the goal and submittal of program to Planning Commission for FYI before issuance of a
building permit,increase the width of the sidewalks on Rollins Road and Edwards Court to 8 feet and place
the street trees on the private property adjacent to the sidewalk. There were no further comments from the
floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: Chair Brownrigg suggested that the discussion begin with the adequacy of the
Final EIF,since if the document is not determined to be adequate there is no point in discussing the project.
Find Final EIR overly adequate,comfortable with analysis of odor,supported by testimony at public hearing
that at existing sites in San Francisco located in more sensitive neighborhoods than this and there is no
detectable odor,went to San Francisco and had the same experience; traffic analysis is adequate both that
done by Fehr & Peers but also the responses at the Study and Public hearing; noise conclusions are
adequate;moreover the water evaluation evolved into something that addressed the problem of animal waste
effectively;adequate due process has been provided though the number of public hearings,study and action
meetings outlined in the staff report;the purpose of the CEQA process is to inform the public,particularly
the.alternatives, there are adequate alternatives explored to determine that there are no significant issues
which are not mitigated at the proposed site and the report is adequate to determine that there are no
significant unavoidable impacts or significant impacts which cannot be reduced to acceptable levels with
mitigation on this site,the analysis is sound;the issue of eviction is not a concern,it is not an issue which is
within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction, and was never considered in the merits of this project.
Never would storm water and animal or human sewage be allowed to mix, the on site sewage collection
system is not a choice or an option,and what is proposed is appropriate and addresses possible impacts. The
study of the parking is adequate,Commission has approved different parking standards for a number ofuse
applications such as table tennis and badminton, it is clear that these recreational uses are different in use
than commercial recreation gyms which is the basis for the parking table in the zoning code;this is a similar
use to one allowed so different standards can be considered,however,as a project requirement do need to
review periodically to determine that there will not be a problem.
Commission discussion of the Final EIR continued: do not feel that the parking analysis is adequate,all of
the square footage of the building was not included, aviary and outdoor wildlife habitat were left out;200
birds will have more than one attendant, the aviary and outdoor wildlife areas should be held to the same
parking standard as conditioned space; this facility will be a destination, concerned about the right of the
industrial area to continue as industrial, this use will conflict—classes, retail, funeral services; site is too
compressed this is not addressed in the Final EIR;noise from emergency vehicles and the effect on the dogs
and birds was not mitigated. Feel that those comments address the use not the Final EIR; found it
compelling that the net increase in area on this site is 6, 500 SF,could have been addressed by a Mitigated
Negative Declaration but chose to prepare an EIR for more thorough review; project is better for the
thorough review than it would have been otherwise,particularly in the areas of odor,noise,traffic,believe
the document is adequate. The parking problem is an issue without a direct solution;the width of Rollins
Road is not pedestrian friendly,parking on the west side of the street;Final EIR is thorough and complete,
the problem is the location of the facility particularly with traffic at the entrance to the industrial area,other
locations in the industrial area would be more appropriate, Adrian Court or at the end of Edwards Court.
Final EIR did a good job of evaluating the number of issues raised, the record is exhaustive, does the
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14,2007
disclosure j ob it is supposed to do. Final EIR addresses the fact that the runoff from the site will not pollute
habitat of endangered species, Planning Commission has taken great care and has been successful in
protecting the Red Legged Frog causing the numbers in Burlingame to increase substantially;dog waste on
this site is handled well by being directed into the sanitary sewer system,there are an estimated 7,300 dogs
in Burlingame all of whose waste we can guarantee is not going into the sewer collection system;based on
information on noise and odor in the Final EIR opinion that the Final EIR did reach a level to convince that
there will be no significant or economic impacts created on neighboring properties from the project.
Regarding the alternatives analysis the information put into the record by the applicant that the Final EIR
concludes that there are no negative impacts which exceed CEQA and community standards and that
without significant unavoidable impacts the alternatives section has a different purpose. The alternatives
section offers a reasonable range of alternatives for comparison with the project. It was noted by staff that
the alternatives section included addressed the no project alternative, a reduced density alternatives, an
alternative similar to the proposed project at a different location on a site which turned out not to be
available for sale,which was not needed if there were no significant impacts;nonetheless staff developed an
alternative on Rollins Road for an alternative similar to the proposed project for comparison,the discussion
in the Final EIR also included a site in Half Moon Bay and one in San Carlos. Commissioner noted that
whether the one alternative was on a site which was not available, it did represent a viable program and
showed that no significant environmental impacts would be caused, the no build/no project alternative
includes the Coyote Point alternative because there would be no change in the current services there if the
project were not built.Alternatives analysis appears to be a matter of procedure which had been met since
there were no significant unavoidable impacts to be addressed for reduction though the alternatives analysis.
Chair Brownrigg asked for a motion on the adequacy of the Final EIR prepared for the PHS/SPCA project
at 1450 Rollins Road. C.Terrones made a motion to approve the Final EIR as adequate and to certify it a
required by the California Environmental Quality Act based on the reasons given by the Planning
Commission. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to fmd that the Final EIR for the PHS/SPCA
project is adequate and to certify the Final EIR as required by CEQA. The motion passed on a roll call vote
6-1 (C. Auran dissenting).
The Commission discussion on the PHS/SPCA project:issues noted for additional conditions were parking
for animal rescue facilities,pedestrian safety,access to facility by private buses;limitation for delivery times
for larger(up to 22 feet)trucks; aviary not become conditioned space;LEEDS certification; sidewalk size
and location of street trees; warrants for traffic signal and financial support if needed. Other issues noted:
presence of commercial recreation uses in area and their impacts;promote Burlingame businesses on site
and provide consideration for Burlingame residents; not opposed new development on Edwards Court in
future.
Chair Brownrigg made a motion to approve the conditional use permit to exceed the 35 foot height review
line because the design guidelines in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan suggest taller
buildings in the Rollins Road area, and this building is less than the maximum proposed in the design
guidelines, the added roof equipment screen which increases the height of the building provides an
important aesthetic benefit by screening the equipment on the roof so it cannot be seen from the street or
sidewalk. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit to exceed the
35 foot height review line. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
C.Deal made a motion to approve the parking ratio for animal rescue facilities and shelters with an increase
from the 1.56 proposed to 1.6 parking spaces per 1,000 SF plus one space for outdoor habitat/aviary. The
motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Discussion on the motion: opposed because the city's standard parking ratios should be used and a variance
required with parking study as justification. Staff noted that the determination for 1.6 parking spaces for the
animal rescue/shelter facility would include the conditioned space and one additional space for outdoor
habitat area. Commission clarified that this parking ratio would only apply to animal rescue and shelter
facilities and that since such facilities require a conditional use permit they would be reviewed and their
parking studied at the time of submittal. Conditional uses are subject to constant review, could bring
parking and traffic back on a semi-annual or other basis as do in other areas of the city;could add parking
with vehicle lifts,could reduce activities on the site,could add signage to direct people to parking,suggested
condition for the project was that the applicant could work with City Traffic Engineer to develop an
adequate directional program to the site and facility.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to accept 1.6 parking spaces per 1,000 SF plus one
space for outdoor habitat/aviary space as the parking ratio for animal rescue and shelter uses. The motion
passed on a 5 —2 (Cern. Auran and Osterling dissenting).
Through their discussion the Commissioners identified a number of additional conditions for the project.
These are summarized:
• add list of services which would never occur on this site-stay at Coyote Point or elsewhere e.g. the
following services shall never be allowed at the PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion:an initial triage;
dead animal pick-up and disposal;housing of stray animals;housing of aggressive animals prior to
hearing;quarantine for rabies and other possible zoonoitic illnesses;euthanasia of animals without
the presence of their owners and an appointment; spay/neuter for the public's animals and shelter
animals; lost and found services, 24/7 animal ambulance service, local code enforcement, and,
except in circumstances of individual members of the public misunderstanding,animal receiving;
• that the aviary and outdoor habitat shall never be covered with a permanent roof or be converted to
conditioned space;
• that a parking supply and demand study shall be prepared one year after the facility opens and again
two years later and at a regular interval following the first study, should it be determined to be
necessary;
• that all dogs kept at the Center shall be neutered unless a veterinarian recommends that neutering is
not safe for the animal's health and age;and the animal,while it is in the care of the SPCA,shall be
neutered when it is safe;
• that the project shall have a LEEDS certification with silver as the goal;and that the LEEDS check
list shall be submitted to Planning Commission for FYI review before the building permit is issued;
• that the property owner shall increase the width of the sidewalks along the Rollins Road and
Edwards Court property frontages to 8 feet,as measured from face of curb, and that the street trees
shall be placed on the private property adjacent to the sidewalk;
• that delivery trucks shall be limited to a maximum of 22 feet in length and shall load and unload on
the site only during off peak traffic hours(outside of 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.to 6 p.m.) and not
during the peak on-site parking demand on—site, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. daily;
• that, in the interest of pedestrian safety and access across Rollins Road at Edwards Court to the
facility, should the traffic warrants based on the City's standards for a traffic signal or lighted
pedestrian crosswalk ever be achieved,the property owner shall fund the installation of a lighted
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
crosswalk or two legs of the traffic signal whichever the City's Traffic Engineer determines to be
appropriate;
• that the green curb zone on Rollins Road at Edwards Court along this property frontage shall remain
and that one privately owned bus at a time shall be allowed access to the PHS/SPCA facility;
• that the hardscape in the memorial garden shall be paved with pervious material to support the
landscaping and drainage on the site;
• that the facility operator shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to develop and implement a
directional signage program for the facility and that is include direction to on-site parking; and
• that during construction radios on-site shall be limited to those needed to manage the construction
activity.
C. Deal made a motion to approve by resolution the conditional use permit to allow an animal rescue and
shelter facility as defined by the applicant at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court with the conditions in the
staff report which include the mitigation monitoring plan from the Final EIR which the Commission
detemrined to be adequate and certified as required by CEQA and including the amended conditions to the
project which were added by the Commission during the public review and following it because the animal
rescue and shelter use as proposed would not be detrimental to the area, the use is positive for the
community and in order to care for the needy animals the proposed project is a needed facility in the city as
shown by the applicant and supporters, the action includes the following amended conditions:
Construction
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 17, 2007, A.1 through A5.2 and CLI, and that any changes to building materials--�
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit,
that the hardscape in the memorial garden area shall be paved with pervious material to
support the landscaping and drainage on the site and that the aviary and outdoor habitat shall
never be covered with a permanent roof or be converted to conditioned space(Planning)
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 26,2006,August 22,2005 and July 1,2005,
memos, the City Engineer's April 24, 2006, August 24, 2005 and July 7, 2005, memos, the Fire
Marshal's April 24,2006,memo,the City Arborist's April 26,2006 and August 31,2005 memos,the
Recycling Specialist's May 5,2006 and July 6,2005,memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April
24, 2006 and July 5, 2005, memos shall be met; (Building,Public Works,Fire, Planning)
3. that the following services shall never be allowed at the PHS/SPCA Center for Compassion:
and initial triage; dead animal pick-up and disposal; housing of stray animals; housing of
aggressive animals prior to a mandated hearing; quarantine for rabies and other possible
zoonoitic illnesses; euthanasia of animals without the presence of their owners and an
appointment; spay/neuter for the public's animals and shelter animals; lost and found
services,24/7 animal ambulance service,local code enforcement, and,except in circumstances
of individual members of the public misunderstanding, animal receiving; (Planning)
4. that any hazardous materials on the site and in the existing building to be demolished shall be
investigated and identified by a licensed engineer who will prepare a plan for their removal
which shall be approved by the Burlingame Fire Department and Building Division before a '1
building pen-nit is issued; and that any such material shall be removed in compliance with
regulations and the plan before demolition of the building can commence; (Building,Fire)
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14,2007
5. that the building plans for all new construction and remodel of any existing structure on this site
shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention in the
Burlingame Municipal Code before issuance of a building permit, and all construction shall be
inspected for compliance with these requirements as a part of the final building inspection;
(Public Works,Building)
6. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection,the applicant shall pay the second half of the
North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of$5,384.82,made payable to the
City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; (Building, Planning)
7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; (Public Works)
8. that the project shall include an on-site filtration system designed to remove solid material generated
from this use which could reduce the capacity of the City's sewer collection system serving this site
and area,the location and filter system design and maintenance schedule shall be approved by the
Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit; the installation of the filter
system shall be inspected by the Building and Public Works as a part of the regular construction
inspections on the site; and following installation during operation of the facility the filter system
installation shall be inspected regularly on a schedule determined by the staff of the Waste Water
Treatment plant; all material cleaned regularly from the filters shall be stored in containers and
disposed of by the same method as the soiled cat litter; failure to provide, maintain and properly
dispose of filtered material and used filters shall cause review of the conditional use permit for this
use on this site. (Public Works,Building)
9. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application; (Public Works)
10. that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined where possible and installed on the
portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and
approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; (Building)
11. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding
exterior walls or parapet walls,moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing
the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; (Planning)
12. that prior to issuance of a building permit,a detailed Exterior Lighting Plan shall be provided to the
City of Burlingame for review. The lighting plan shall be based on the following standards:
(a) The cone of light shall be focused on the site and stray light shall be controlled through use of
low-brightness fixtures with optical controls;
(b) All exterior light sources shall be shielded and fully blocked from off-site views,except for the
street address;
(c) No lighting of the structure or vegetation will be permitted from any outdoor light fixture; and
(d) On-demand exterior lighting systems shall be employed where feasible. Area lighting and
security lighting will be controlled by the use of timed switches and/or motion detectors.
(Building, Planning)
9
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14,2007 `
13. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading for site preparation shall be required tc
receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a
demolition and building permit by the Building division; that no such demolition and site work
shall occur until after a building permit has been issued; and that all requirements of the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District permit shall be complied with during construction; (Building)
14. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; (Building)
15, that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall
be prohibited; (Public Works)
16. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame
Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays,
9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays;
(Building)
17. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or designer,or another architect
or design professional,shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown
in the approved design which should be evident at framing,such as window locations and bays,are.
built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing complianc
with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection
shall be scheduled; (Planning,Building)
18. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the highest point of
the building(roof ridge,parapet or mechanical screening)and provide certification of that height to
the Building Department; (Building)
19. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (Planning)
20. that the landscaping noted on sheets L-2 and L-3 shall be installed according to plan and shall be
irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be
immediately replaced with an equivalent species;and that before issuance of a building permit,the
Planning Commission shall review the revised landscape plans as an FYI item;(Planning,Building)
21. that tree grates selected by the City and consistent with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific
Plan design criteria shall be installed around all trees to be planted in sidewalk areas on Trousdale
Drive,per City guidelines; (Planning,Building)
22. that the project landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior tp-%,
issuance of any grading and/or building permits, and all landscaping shall be installed prior .
scheduling final inspection. This work shall include installation of all trees within sidewalk areas
and the installation of the curb, gutter and sidewalk; (Building)
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
23. that during demolition of the existing structure(s), site preparation and construction of the
structure(s), the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
runoff; (Public Works)
24. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best
Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain
system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed
topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cuttfill and soil storage/disposal areas;
areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and
structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and
designated construction access routes,Staging areas and washout areas;that compliance shall also
include the requirements of the conditions included the mitigation monitoring plan;(Public Works)
25. that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be
diverted around exposed construction areas; (Public Works)
26. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences,
straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil
stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and
sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; (Public
Works)
27. that all construction materials and waste, including solid wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum
products, chemicals, washwater or sediment, shall be stored, handled and disposed of properly to
prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants into stormwater; (Public Works, Fire)
28. that if the project is constructed during the wet season(October through May), an erosion control
and/or sediment control plan,compliant with the City's NPDES(stormwater control)requirements,
shall be prepared and implemented,to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department,prior to the
onset of the wet season,and shall be maintained throughout the construction period;(Public Works)
29. that all project grading,construction and subsequent operations shall comply with the provisions of
the City's NPDES requirements. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) outlining
construction phase and post-construction phase measures to reduce pollutant discharge from the site
shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of
grading or building permits; (Public Works)
30. that no vehicles or equipment shall be cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site, except in designated
areas which runoff is contained and treated; (Public Works)
31. that construction access routes are limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public
right-of-way,clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods;(Public Works)
`-' 32. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off,promote surface
filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; (Planning,Public Works)
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
33. that the property owner shall, as a part of project construction,widen the sidewalks,place a
root barrier along the inner edge of the sidewalk, and build the sidewalks to City sidewalk
standards along the Rollins Road and Edwards Court frontages of the property; that the
sidewalks shall be a minimum of eight(8) feet in width; and that the required street trees as
shown on the approved plans shall be placed two feet from the inner edge of the sidewalk with
supporting irrigation installed from the project site; (Public Works, Planning, Building)
34. that the project contractor shall implement best management practices for noise reduction, such as
muffling and shielding intakes and exhausts of gas powered tools, generators, and other noise-
producing equipment.; (Building)
35. that trucks shall be fully loaded to minimize the number of necessary trips and to further reduce
noise related to truck travel; (Public Works)
36. that ; during construction
radios on-site shall be limited to those needed to manage the construction activity. (Building)
37. that the project shall have a LEEDS certification with silver as the goal, and that the LEEDS
checklist shall be submitted as an FYI item to the Planning Commission before the building
permit is issued; (Planning)
38. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; (Building)
Operation
39. that the Center shall have a maximum of 30 staff people on-site at any one time consisting of both
paid professionals and volunteers; the Center shall have a maximum of two people present on-site
after business hours for 24-hour coverage;that any permanent increase in the number of employees
over 30 on site at any one time shall require an amendment to this permit; (Planning)
40. that all dogs kept at the facility shall be neutered before arrival unless a veterinarian
recommends that the neutering procedure would be unsafe for the animal's health or age,if
this is the case the animal shall be neutered when it is safe; (Planning)
41. that the Center may not be open for business for adoptions,animal deliveries or permitted veterinary
services except during the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. seven days a week; in addition to
business hours classes/educational activities may occur between 10:00 a.m. and IOp.m.seven days
a week, with the last class ending no later than 10:00 p.m.; class and educational events shall be
scheduled with a minimum of fifteen (15) minutes between classes/educational events to insure
adequate turnover of on-site parking; (Planning)
42. that because of on-site parking the maximum class size shall be limited to 35 students; for animal
behavior classes, the class size shall be limited to ten pet owners and a maximum of 2 instructors
at one time; instructors of animal behavior classes shall be in the parking lot to meet students and
shall escort them to their vehicles at the end of the class; (Planning)
43. that the facility operator shall work with the City Traffic Engineer to determine a feasible
directional program to the facility site including on site parking, the facility operator shall fund
the signage and its installation; (Public Works, Planning)
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
44. that
only one bus at a time shall bring visitors or students to
the animal rescue and shelter facility, parking for the bus shall be provided on-site at a
pre-arranged location and the green curb adequate for loading and unloading shall be
retained along the Rollins Road street frontage of the site; (Planning)
45. that a parking study using methodology approved by the City shall be prepared one year after the
Center opens and again two years after the center opens and at regular intervals there after
should it be determined to be necessary based on the first two studies; that this study shall
evaluate the use of the on-site parking throughout the week and particularly during peak usage
periods (including during class sessions); the study shall be submitted to the Community
Development Director for review, should the study document that on-site parking is inadequate
or that those seeking parking regularly prefer to use the public street, then the facility operator
shall prepare, within 3 months, an alternative parking plan which shall address the parking
shortages identified and the reasons for them; this plan shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer and submitted to the Planning Commission
for review and amendment to the conditional use permit; failure to provide a remedial plan and
appropriate, effective solutions for on-site and off-site parking problems identified in the
studies shall result in Planning Commission review of the conditional use permit; (Planning,
Public Works)
46. that the retail sales area in the Center for Compassion shall be designed to serve the needs of
those adopting animals from the site,the sales area shall be limited to 800 SF and shall not be
designed to be a destination or wholesale/discount location for pet supplies; (Planning)
47. that any and all cleaning agents used by the facility which will be washed into the public sewer
or into the surface drainage serving the site shall be approved by the operator of the Burlingame
Wastewater Treatment Plant and by the City's NPDES inspector,prior to their being used;
failure to use approved products and demonstrated problems at the City's treatment plant or
surface drainage channels shall require a public hearing before the Planning Commission
including consideration of amendments to the conditional use permit for this use; (Public
Works,Wastewater Treatment Plant)
48. that all animals arriving at the Center for Compassion, except those accompanied by their
owners to participate in behavior training classes and those brought by their owners for
veterinarian services within 30 days of adoption, shall enter the facility only through the
enclosed, staff parking area; the arrival and departure of animals with their owners outside of
the caged parking area shall be supervised by a trained staff member who shall supervise the
quiet unloading and loading of the animals into their owners vehicles; (Planning)
49. that no stray animals shall be accepted at the Center for Compassion,that should an animal be
abandoned at the Center the facility shall provide a holding cage in side the building to secure
the animal until the Animal Control Services have been contacted and arrive to remove the
animal; (Planning)
50. that the 62 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the visitors and employees of the Center and
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14,2007
shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on this site or by other
businesses for off-site parking; (Planning)
51. that no more than fifteen(15)percent of the domestic animals, cats and dogs,housed for
adoption at the San Mateo Center for Compassion each year shall enter the facility from
locations outside of San Mateo County; that the facility operator shall provide to the Community
Development Director an annual report documenting by month the source of the domestic
animals housed on the site; this report shall be submitted to the Community Development
Director no later than December 30, of each year; failure to submit such a report will result in
review by the Planning Commission; (Planning)
52. that the facility shall have posted on the site at an accessible location an odor management plan to
address basic and additional measures to minimize odors such as more frequent pick up,earlier in
the day,application of deodorizing agents,etc.;this plan shall be prepared and reviewed by the City
prior to the scheduling of the final inspection; the site shall be inspected for compliance with the
posting of the plan and the procedures set out in the plan at the same time that the waste water filter
facilities are inspected,failure to comply with the requirements of the plan or valid complaints shall
result in a report to the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board and review by the Planning
Commission; (Public Works,Wastewater Treatment Plant)
53. that, in the event of air quality violations based on odor, the property owner shall install
charcoal air filters or any other devise required by the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board on air
exhaust vents and that the air evacuation system for the building shall provide for a minimum of
twelve (12) air exchanges per hour; (Public Works,Building,Planning)
54. that the rolling roof over the dog exercise area shall be closed between the hours of 9:00 p.m.
and 7:00 a.m. each day; (Planning)
55. that the facility operator shall comply with the behavioral selection criteria setout in the
Response to Comments document on pages 3.0-28and 29, attached to the project approval,these
requirement will be enforced by requiring that this operator or any other operator of this use shall
comply with these criteria for selection of animals to be housed on the Center site; failure to
comply with these selection criteria shall cause this permit to be subject to public hearing before
the Planning Commission and remediation addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning
Commission for continued use of the site; (Planning)
56. that in the interest of pedestrian safety and access across Rollins Road at Edwards Court to
the facility, should the traffic warrants based on the City's standards for traffic signal or
lighted pedestrian crosswalk ever be achieved,the property owner shall fund the
installation of a lighted pedestrian crosswalk or two legs of the required traffic signal,
whichever the City's Traffic Engineer determines to be necessary; (Public Works)
57. that deliveries of equipment and supplies to the facility shall be limited to trucks with a
maximum length of 22 feet,that such deliveries shall not be made during peak traffic hours
(7 a.m.-9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.) or during the on-site peak parking demand hours of 2 1
p.m. to 4 p.m. daily; the peak parking demand hours shall be confirmed in the first year
parking study and the truck delivery limitations adjusted if the peak on-site parking hours
of use is different.
14
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
Mitigation Monitorine Plan
58. that the project's design shall be consistent with the proposed site plan, building elevations, and
landscaping plan illustrated in Figures 3.0-2, 3.0-3, and 3.0-6 of the Draft EIR. Any alternations to
the final approved design shall require approval from the City prior to implementation and be
determined to be consistent with the conclusions of the environmental impact report; (Planning)
59. that the landscaping on-site shall be maintained throughout the life of the project. Trees along
Rollins Road and Edwards Court shall be replaced in minimum 24-inch box size if any of the trees
planted along these roads become severely diseased or do not survive. The City shall approve any
changes to the landscaping plan illustrated on Figure 3.0-6 of this EIR;(Planning)
Lighting
60. that to minimize light and glare lowprofile, low-intensity lighting directed downward shall be used
for the parking lot area and all security lighting including that in the rear of the building;(Building)
61. that shielded fixtures shall be used on all exterior fixtures except lights to illuminate signs at the
project site to minimize glare produced by lighting on-site; (Building)
62. that all lighting associated with the project shall comply with by the City's Illumination
Ordinance;(Planning, Building)
�. 63. that all signs shall have indirect illumination with shielded focused fixtures or be back lit orground
lit to avoid flooding adjacent walls with light; (Planning, Building)
Waste Handling and Treatment
64. that cat feces and urine, including cat litter,shall be bagged daily into heavy duty industrial plastic
bags, sealed tight with duct tape, and placed in United Nations(UN) and Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) approved sealed-tight steel drum, up to 55-gallons, with removable lids and
locking ring located in an enclosed are within the building or parking structure of the Center. The
drums shall be picked up weekly by a qualified contractor and disposed of at a landfill that accepts
cat litter and diatomaceous earth;(Public Works)
65. that waste from dogs shall be disposed into the sanitary sewer. Each individual kennel and room
shall have drains that feed into the sanitary sewer. A manual grate shall be placed over each drain
to allow PHS/SPCA staff to dispose offeces directly into the sewer line. The grate shall be closed at
all times, except during cleaning. The disposal drain shall have an automatic flushing system, with
a flush valve. Kennel floors shall be washed frequently and appropriately disinfected daily; (Public
Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
66. that dog feces produced in the Indoor Dog Exercise area shall be collected in the kennel drain
system into the sanitary sewer;(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
67. that animal waste from the wildlife housed in small enclosures shall be disposed of into drains that
discharge into the sanitary sewer,-(Building, Public Works)
15
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
68. that the animal waste from the native wildlife enclosed in the stationary aviaries and duck/diving -�
pools shall be hosed down into sewage drains, which connect to the sanitary sewer. The outdoor
wildlife areas shall be hosed with water and appropriately disinfected daily;(Public Works)
Odor
69. that an odor management plan shall be developed and approved by the City of Burlingame. The
odor management plan shall include:
a. Outdoor areas shall be cleaned frequently;
b. Waste shall be stored properly and collected for disposal frequently;
c. Odor neutralizers shall be used;
d. A wind sock shall be used to determine in what direction the odors would drift and trash
containers shall be placed in order to minimize drift created by prevailing winds;
e. Trash receptacles shall not be left in sunlight; and
f Trash receptacles shall have high surroundingfences and overhang.(Public Works, Wastewater
Treatment Plant)
Noise
70. that dogs shall be housed in kennels that are designed to minimize the view of other dogs to
eliminate or reduce barking. Dogs shall only share a kennel with dogs that have been specifically
matched for compatibility as approved by the licensed veterinarian on-site; (Planning)
71 . that the acoustics of the facility shall be constructed and designed with specific materials an(
elements as approved by a noise consultant,to attenuate noise, including barking. This includes, but
is not limited to the following:
a. Minimum sound isolation properties of the classroom exterior windows shall be STC 24;
b. Acoustical tile shall be used for the ceiling above the dog kennels;
c. The windows and ceiling pads in the lobby area shall have a minimum STC 24 isolation rating,
with a single layer of 5/8 gypsum for the ceiling and a single pane of 1/8-inch glass for the
window; and
d. The minimum reduction from any component of the exterior wall of the building shall be STC 24
for the windows, assuming a single pane of 1/8-inch glass.(Planning)
72. that prior to acceptance at the Center, dogs shall be screened by professional animal behaviorists
for serious behavioral problems (e.g., constant barking, aggression, food guarding, etc). A dog
diagnosed with behavioral problems shall not be transferred to the Center unless that behavior is
treated and determined to be resolved by a licensed veterinarian prior to transfer;(Planning)
Pa rki ng/Ci rcu la ti o nITraffi c
73. that the applicant shall notify vendors using the site that deliveries made by vehicles greater than 22
feet must use the joint access easement. Vehicles less than 22 feet would be allowed to use the
parking area. To the extent possible, the applicant shall work with vendors to schedule deliveries.
during non peak traffic times;(Planning)
74. that the project applicant shall design a marked loading zone on-site;(Planning, Public Works)
16
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
75. that the project applicant shall prepare and implement a dust control plan that is compliant with
City requirements. This plan shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame Public Works
Department, which shall be responsible for field verification of the plan during construction. The
dust control plan shall include the basic, enhanced, and optional dust control measures
recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), including the
measures listed below.
Basic Control Measures (for all construction sites)
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least
two feet of freeboard.
c. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
d. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at
construction sites.
e. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) or more frequently as required by the City if visible soil
material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
Enhanced Control Measures (for individual or combined construction sites of larger than fow-aoq)
a. Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic)soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas(previously graded areas
inactive for ten days or more).
b. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand,
etc).
c. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 miles per hour(mph).
d. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
e. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
Optional Measures (based on requirements by the City)
a. Install wheel washers for all existing, or wash off the tires or tracks of all trucks and equipment leaving
the site.
b. Suspend excavation and grading activity when sustained winds exceed 25 mph.
c. Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time.(Public
Works)
Cultural
76. that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction activities,
all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures,
as determined by a qualified expert, can be implemented; (Planning)
77. that if previous unknown human remains are encountered during construction, an appropriate
representative of Native American groups and the County Coroner shall be informed and consulted,
as required by State law; (Planning)
78. that any new structures shall be constructed and installed according to the standards of the
Burlingame Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at the time a
building permit is issued;(Building, Public Works)
Construction
17
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
79. that a design-level final geotechnical report shall be required for the project. This report shall.-,
include specific recommendations to minimize post construction settlements. The design-leve,
geotechnical investigation shall be reviewed by the Burlingame Department of Public Works for
compliance with existing building codes and ordinances. The City field inspectors shall inspect
construction for implementation of the recommend site preparation activities;(Building, Public
Works)
80. that all storm water discharge shall adhere to State and Federal requirements. All storm drainage
that discharges into public water shall be required to meet water quality standards outlined in the
NPDES permit requirements;(Public Works)
81. that best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be developed for the site and approved by the
City;(Public Works)
82. that hazardous materials or wastes found or generated at the project site shall be transported and
handled in accordance with applicable disposal regulations;(Building, Fire)
83. that any hazardous waste generated at the project site shall be removed by a licensed hazardous
waste hauler for approved disposal off-site;(Building, Fire)
84. that the BAAQMD shall issue a permit and be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed
demolition or abatement work on-site;(Building)
85. that the local office of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)shall be notified i,
writing of any asbestos abatement to be carried out as a part of demolition;(Building, Fire)
86. that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Programs(SWPPP)shall be developed and approved by
the City. The SWPPP shall identify BMPs that will minimize sedimentation and contamination of
storm water runoff generated during construction;(Public Works)
87. that the modifications to the existing buildings on-site, as well as new construction, shall comply
with the requirements in Chapter 18.22 Flood Damage Prevention of the Burlingame Municipal
Code;(Public Works)
88. that an acoustical engineer, familiar with aviation noise, shall prepare an acoustical study in
accordance with Title 24. The study shall determine if construction design of the project site would
comply with the Uniform Building Code Title 24, Appendix 36, Sound Transmission Controls and
FAR Part 150, Appendix A, table 1 criteria, in order to achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB or
less for noise episodes associated with aircrafts; (Building,)
89. that the project shall incorporate appropriate design measures(interior sounds insulation)to reduce
aviation noise if the acoustical study(prepared as part of mitigation measure Noise 1) determines
that the design of the project would not achieve an indoor noise level of 45 dB;(Planning,Building)
90. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with requirements found in the California Code o£.
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Dispost<
Article 5 Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards. The containers shall be replaced as needed
to ensure compliance with this regulation; (Planning)
18
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14,2007
91. that the applicant shall obtain a sanitary sewer discharge permit from the City's Office of
Environmental Compliance. The design of this project's system shall be approved by the City's
Office ofEnvironmental Compliance through the permitting process;(Public Works, Wastewater
Treatment Plant)
92. that no cat litter or diatomaceous earth shall be disposed of into drains that feed into the sanitary
sewer system. Such litter will be disposed of into 55-gallon steel drums;(Public Works,Wastewater
Treatment Plant)
93. that the waste containers shall be in compliance with the following requirements found in the
California Code of Regulations Title 14 Chapter 3:Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling
and Disposal Article 5;and Solid Waste Storage and Removal Standards,particularly Section
17315,Garbage Containers.(Public Works, Wastewater Treatment Plant)
The motion was seconded by C.Terrones.
Comment on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for an animal rescue/shelter use in the Rollins
Road zoning area: does the motion include all the conditions and all the amendments discussed?Maker and
second agreed that the motion included all the conditions in the staff report and the amendments discussed
through the public hearing and commission comments.Generally agree with 95%of what was said,but
would like to see a better location and a bigger site;all concerned about Rollins Road and the speed of
traffic.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permit for an animal
shelter and rescue center at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court with the conditions in the staffreport as
amended and with the conditions which compose the mitigation monitoring plan as outlined in the Final EIR
for the project which was determined to be adequate and certified by the Planning Commission as required
by CEQA.
C.Vistica made a motion to find that the proposed design and project and the previous motions on the
project take into consideration the information,conclusions,and mitigations included in the Final EIR and
that the actions are consistent with the disclosures and mitigations in the Final EIR as well as the project
being consistent with the design guidelines for the Rollins Road area set out in the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan,noting that the fencing shown along the Rollins Road frontage
meets the open design intent and that the fencing and walls provide sufficient articulation to be consistent
with the design guidelines for the area. The motion was seconded by C.Deal.
Commission comment on the design review motion:thank the architect for making the revisions which the
Commission identified earlier in the review process,the model provided was very helpful in understanding
how the design would function;maker and second to the motion agreed to amend the motion to add that in
considering this motion and the previous three motions addressing the project that the information,
conclusions and mitigations in the Final EIR were considered and the actions are consistent with the
disclosures and information in the Final EIR.
Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to the determination that the proposed project is
consistent with the intent of the Rollins Road design guidelines of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan. The motion passed on a 5-2(Cers.Auran and Osterling dissenting)roll call vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m.
19
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 14, 2007
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
There were no design review study items for discussion.
X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports for review.
XI. ROTATION OF OFFICERS
XII. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of May 7, 2007
CP Monroe noted that the City Council reappointed Commissioners Brownrigg and Deal, each for
another four year term on the Commission. The City Council also adopted a new procedure for
interviewing and selecting commissioners.
FYI: Update to a previously approved design review project at 2212 Hillside Drive.
Commissioner asked that this item be placed on the action calendar when the submitted plans
include the divided light grid pattern on all of the windows through out the house and all of the
conditions added by the City Council are shown on the plans.
Confirm Rotation of Commission Officers. -�
The rules of procedure of the Planning Commission require that the officers of the Commissiol
rotate annually at the first regular Commission meeting in May. Commission confirmed the rotation
of officers with C. Deal becoming Chair; C. Cauchi becoming Vice-Chair; and C. Terrones
becoming Secretary. Out going Chair Brownrigg thanked the Commissioners for a great year, he
noted that they did not always agree, but that was the way it should be. He then passed the gavel to
Chair Deal.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 11 :35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Terrones, Secretary
V:IMINUTESIunapproved 05.14.07.doc
20
121 Spear Street
Suite 200
San Francisco,CA 94105
ATTORNEYS AT LAW • FOUNDED 1873 MAY 1 6 2007 415.356.4600
LuCE,FORWARD,HAMILTON&SCRIPPS LLP 415.356.4610 fax
www.luce.com
JENNIFER E.RENK,ASSOCIATE
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER 415.356.4619
DIRECTFAXNUMBER 415.356.3867 Honorable Mayor and City Council:
EMAIL ADDRESS jrenk@1uce.com
Please schedule an appeal hearing for
1450 Rollins Road to be heard at the
May 16, 2007 June 4, 2007 Council meeting.
VIA HAND DELIVERY City Clerk
Doris Mortenson, City Clerk
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA Planning Commission Appeal
Dear Ms. Mortenson:
On behalf of the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA(PHS/SPCA), we appeal the
Plamling Commission's following approvals on May 14, 2007: Certification of the Final
Environmental Impact Report, Conditional Use Permit,Determination of the parking ratio,
Conditional Use Permit for a Structure over 35 Feet in Height,Design Review for Compliance
with the Design Guidelines of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. We are
seeking final action by the City Council on these items at its earliest opportunity so that this
project may proceed to successful conclusion.
PHS/SPCA is delighted that the Planning Commission overwhelmingly approved the
PHS/SPCA project. We file to avert delay,findlch will a checksrise 1 the amountom the last minute of$270 for ling
ost of the
of an
appeal by our opponents. Attached please
appeal.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
cl-'�.__— r 1
Jennifer E. Renk
for
LUCE, FORWARD, HAMILTON & SCRIPPS LLP
cc: Ken White
301000571.3
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD .>• �>• ::. 015165O43225
BURLINGAME,CA 94010
TEL:(650)558-7250•(650)696-3790
www.burlingame.orgg " r
;7::j e. t
rd72;lEdrrbfn 94010
4 � CJS POSTAGE
Site: 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court
The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public PUBLIC HEARING
hearing on Monday, June 4, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. in the City NOTICE
Hall Council Chambers,501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA:
Application for Environmental Impact Report and applications for
conditional use permits for use and building height and design
review for compliance with the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan for reconstruction and addition to an existing building
for the Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA at 1450 Rollins
Road/20 Edwards Court zoned RR. (APN 026-102-050)
Mailed: May 24,2007
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed
prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
' described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing
their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call
(650) 558-7250. Thank you.
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
I
CITYAGENDA 7b
°� ITEM#
BUFt!.JNAME MTG
STAFF REPORT
4
DATE 6/4/2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: May 25, 2007 APPROV
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
ADOPT ORDINANCE CLARIFYING CLAIM FILINGS REQUIREMENTS
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt ordinance clarifying the application and process of claim filing requirements for claims not encompassed
by the Tort Claims Act and direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance within 15 days of
adoption.
DISCUSSION:
In order to ensure that written claims are submitted to the City before suit is brought seeking money or damages,
the Government Code permits the City to establish procedures for claims not brought under the State Tort
Claims Act. The proposed ordinance will better establish what information and signatures are required for these
types of claims.
The ordinance was introduced on May 21, 2007, and further reading was waived at that time.
Attachment:
Proposed Ordinance
I ORDINANCE No.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING SECTION 4.15.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
3 TO CLARIFY CLAIM REQUIREMENTS
4
5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
6 Section 1. Government Code section 935 provides that the City may adopt claim filing
7 requirements for claims that are exempt from the California Tort Claims Act. The City has done
8 so in Municipal Code section 4.15.010. This ordinance is intended to clarify the standard form and
9 prerequisites for these claims.
10
11 Section 3. Section 4.15.010 is amended to read as follows:
12 4.15.010 Claims for money or damages.
13 (a) Claims against the city, its officers or employees for money or damages which are
14 exempted by Government Code Section 905 from Chapter I and Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division
15 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California, and which are not governed by
16 any other statutes or regulations expressly related thereto, shall be governed by this section. A
17 claim relating to such a cause of action shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual
18 of the cause of action. Such claims shall be presented and processed as provided by Chapters 1 and
19 2 of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code insofar as the provisions are not in
20 conflict with this section.
21 (b) No suit for money or damages may be brought or maintained against the city, its
22 officers or employees until a written claim therefor has been presented to the city council and has
23 been acted upon or has been deemed to have been rejected by the city in accordance with this
24 section. The time within which the city will act on the claim presented will conform to the time
25 requirements set forth in section 912.4 of the Government Code. All claims shall be verified by
26 the claimant or by his or her guardian, conservator, executor, or administrator. No claim may be
27 filed on behalf of a class of persons unless verified by every member of that class as required by
28 this section. In addition, all claims shall contain the information required by California
1
I Government Code section 910.
2 (c) Pursuant to Chapter 5 of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code,
3 written agreements entered into by or in behalf of the city may provide all claims arising out of or
4 related to the agreement must be presented not later than six (6) months after the accrual of the
5 cause of action, and such claims shall be governed by the provisions of this section.
6
7 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
8
Mayor
9
10 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21s`day
11 of May, 2007, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day
of , 2007, by the following vote:
12
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
1' NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
14 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
15
City Clerk
16
17
18 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\claimsrregs2007.fin.wpd
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
' AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
S' MEETING DATE: JUNE 4,2007
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY:
DATE: May 25, 2007 APPROVEDj��z� `
BY: t
FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
SPANGLE ASSOCIATES FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATIVE TO
THE PREPARATION OF THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME SPECIFIC PLAN
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with
Spangle Associates for project management services related to the preparation of the Downtown
Burlingame Specific Plan.
BACKGROUND:
On April 16, 2007, the City Council awarded a contract to Kevin Gardiner & Associates for preparation of
the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan. Work is about to commence on the project, with stakeholder
interviews to occur during the summer months. To supplement the staffing of the Planning Division of
the Community Development Department, the Community Development Director solicited a proposal
from Spangle Associates for project management services related to the Specific Plan program. The
role of the contract project manager would be to participate in all public meetings related to the project,
coordinate the work of the various consultants, review plan documents as they are generated,
preparation of staff reports, and to keep the City staff informed throughout the process (a detailed scope
of work is attached to this report). In short, Ms. Kristiansson would work with the Community
Development Director to shepherd the program through to a successful conclusion.
DISCUSSION:
Spangle Associates, and more specifically Karen Kristiansson, has provided project management
services to the City of Burlingame in the past. Ms. Kristiansson served as the Planning Division's project
manager for the Mills-Peninsula Hospital replacement project. Ms. Kristiansson possesses a high level
of familiarity with the City of Burlingame's planning process, policies and regulations. We feel confident
that she would be a valuable asset as part of the City's staff team working on the Downtown Specific
Plan program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding the project management services, as proposed by Spangle Associates, was anticipated in the
budget for the Downtown Specific Plan program. Funding for the program is provided through a
$400,000.00 allocation of funds from the City's Parking Enterprise Fund. This allocation is intended to
fund the preparation of the Specific Plan document ($250,000.00), the required environmental analysis
Professional Services Agreement—Spangle Associates Page 2
Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan—Project Management
Meeting Date: June 4,2007
(estimated at$75,000.00)and supplemental staffing (project management-$51,000.00). A portion of
the funding($10,000.00)was previously expended for consultant services related to the development of
the scope of work for the Specific Plan program. The funding does not include costs associated with
implementation of the Specific Plan once adopted.
Attachment:
Proposed Scope of Work—Spangle Associates—Downtown Specific Plan Project Management
Proposed Scope of Work for
Assisting the City of Burlingame with Managing
the Downtown Specific Plan Project
INTRODUCTION
At the request of the City of Burlingame, Spangle Associates has prepared this scope of
work to aid the city's planning department staff with managing the Downtown Specific
Plan project. The project tasks and budget are set forth in detail in the sections below.
PROJECT TASKS
Based on initial discussions with staff, the project consists of acting as the city's project
planner for the Downtown Specific Plan Project. This work will include:
• coordinating the efforts of the specific plan consultants, environmental consultants,
and city staff;
• ensuring that the project team works together to craft a specific plan that meets the
city's needs and goals, and that is also environmentally feasible;
• reviewing drafts of all studies, analyses, plans and related documents for
consistency with each other and city plans and policies; and
• shepherding the plan through the city's public review and action process, including
drafting staff reports.
Throughout the project, we will act as the liaison between the planning consultants, the
environmental consultants, and city staff and officials. We will provide city staff with
verbal status reports throughout the project as needed to ensure that staff are consistently
aware of the progress of the project.
These efforts are described in more detail below. For consistency, this description is
organized according to the tasks outlined in the specific plan proposal prepared by Kevin
Gardiner and Associates with the Metropolitan Planning Group. The descriptions below
and the budget make certain assumptions about the level of effort needed. However, the
scope of work and/or budget may be adjusted if appropriate, with city approval.
Task 1. Project Kick-Off and Civic Engagement
We will prepare for and attend the initial planning meeting for the project, together with the
plan consultants and city staff. As the project starts up, we will assist the consultants with
obtaining data for the base map and identifying community interests and stakeholders. We
will prepare a draft staff report for the City Council kick-off meeting, and will attend the
Council meeting.
Throughout the civic engagement process, we will review drafts of all outreach documents
and attend key meetings. In addition, we will review the process to make sure that all of the
identified stakeholders are appropriately involved. We will attend the Citizen Advisory
Scope of Work for Providing Project PlannerAssistance with the Downtown Specific Plan 1
Committee meetings, take notes at the meetings and assist with preparing agendas and
similar basic materials for the meetings.
In addition,we will meet with the CEQA consultant as they are hired to review the overall
process and how the CEQA process will relate to the plan preparation process. Based on
that discussion, we will prepare a master schedule for the project that includes all tasks for
both sets of consultants,as well as anticipated work by the project planner and city staff.
Early in the project, we will also talk with staff about the status of the Safeway Working
Group and how their efforts can be brought into the specific plan process. We will review
notes from any previous Working Group meetings and will work with staff for the Working
Group throughout the project to ensure that the specific plan process and the Working
Group process are coordinated.
Task 2. Opportunities and Constraints Analysis
At the start of this task, we will assist the project consultants with finding and collecting
studies and data from city staff that could be helpful in developing a downtown specific
plan for Burlingame. As the plan consultants begin preparing summaries and analyses of
this data, we will review those reports for accuracy and completeness, and will work with
staff to identify and address any issues. At this point, we also anticipate starting to work
with the CEQA consultant for the project. We will provide the background materials as
well as the analyses prepared by the plan consultant to the CEQA consultant.
Once the plan consultant has prepared the draft Existing Conditions Analysis, we will
review that document and provide comments. We will also attend a staff meeting to
discuss the report and work on refining the next phase of work. Once the final Existing
Conditions Analysis is prepared, we will review it briefly and pass it on to the CEQA
consultant for their information and use.
Task 3. Downtown Vision
This task involves a series of public workshops and meetings. We will work with the plan
consultants to prepare for these, and will attend each and take notes to keep a written
record of the process. If appropriate,we will help to answer questions at the meetings, and
may also assist with facilitating the discussion groups if requested to do so.
Task 4. Plan Alternatives
When the plan consultant begins to assemble three specific plan alternatives, we will work
with them to ensure that the alternatives fit with the city's goals and visions for the
downtown area. In addition,we will coordinate efforts with the CEQA consultant to ensure
that any potential significant environmental impacts of the alternatives are identified and
considered early in the planning process. Throughout this process, we will work closely
with city staff to ensure that staff are aware of the potential alternatives, and their potential
impacts.
Another part of this task is the development of guidelines for historic structures. We will
work with city staff and the plan consultant to discuss options and ensure that the city has
appropriate input into these guidelines.
Scope of Work for Providing Project PlannerAssistance with the Downtown Specific Plan 2
As the plan consultant's work on the task progresses, we will attend and assist with the
Citizens' Advisory Committee meeting as described previously. We will also review the
draft Alternatives Workbook and ensure that the CEQA consultant has an opportunity to
comment on the document as well. Once the final Alternatives Workbook is ready,we will
provide it to the Safeway Working Group and possibly arrange for the plan consultant to
present the Workbook at one of their meetings.
Task 5. Preferred Alternative: The Specific Plan
At the beginning of this task, we will prepare for and attend the public workshop and the
joint study session of the Planning Commission and City Council. This will include drafting
a staff report for the latter meeting. We will also continue to take notes and maintain a
written record of the process.
As the plan consultants are developing a preferred alternative based on the comments from
these two meetings, we will coordinate their efforts with those of staff and the CEQA
consultant to ensure that the preferred alternative meets the city's goals and is
environmentally feasible. We will also review all draft documents, discuss the drafts with
city staff as appropriate,and provide comments to the plan consultants.
We will provide support to the plan consultant as they hold meetings to review first the
preferred alternative and then the draft specific plan. We will attend each of these
meetings, provide limited assistance at the meetings if necessary, and draft staff reports for
the Planning Commission and City Council study sessions and meetings.
During this process,we will also assist the CEQA consultant as they draft the environmental
document for the project. We will review and comment on drafts of the CEQA documents,
and will discuss any issues with city staff. If the specific plan is revised during the public
review and comment period, we will ensure that the CEQA documents are also revised as
necessary.
Finally, we will assist with the project wrap-up, including the plan consultant's follow up
activities. As part of this work,we will review the city's project file and make sure that it
contains all necessary documents.
MEETINGS
This scope of work includes the number of working meetings, public meetings and formal
meetings shown in the table below. For all of the meetings represented,we will attend and
take notes. In addition,we will assist at public meetings by answering questions,helping to
facilitate discussion groups, or carrying out similar tasks. For formal Planning Commission
and/or City Council meetings and study sessions, we will prepare initial drafts of the staff
reports.
Scope of Work for Providing Project PlannerAssistance with the Downtown Specific Plan 3
Working Public Formal Total
Meetings Meetin s Meetings Meetings
Task 1 1 1 1 3
Task 2 1 0 0 1
Task 3 0 8* 0 8
Task 4 1 2 1 0 1 3
Task 5 0 3 1 5 8
*6 of these meetings are assumed to be small discussion groups.
Additional meetings will be billed on a time and materials basis.
PROJECT BUDGET
The estimated budget for the project is $50,820. This is an estimate based on the work
described above under "Project Tasks." This budget would be roughly divided among
tasks as shown below,although the amounts could vary from those presented here:
Task Estimated Budget
Task 1 $4,950
Task 2 $5,390
Task 3 $4,510
Task 4 $14,520
Task 5 $21,450
TOTAL $50,820
The budget is presented with the following qualifications:
1. The majority of the work described above will be completed by Senior Planner Karen
Kristiansson. Others in the firm may also provide assistance as appropriate. As agreed
on in discussions with staff,work by Karen Kristiansson will be charged at a negotiated
rate of $110 per hour. This rate will be provided through the anticipated end of the
project in October 2008. Time spent on this project after October 2008 will be charged
at 87%of Ms. Kristiansson's normal hourly charge rate at that time.
2. Any work done by others in the firm will be charged at our normal hourly rates which
are adjusted each year on July 1. For the period from July 1, 2006 through June 30,
2007,our rates are as follows:
George Mader,Principal Planner___________________________________ ___ _ $204.00
Tom Vlasic,Principal Planner--- -_-_.-__ $196.00
--------- --------- --------- --- --------
Karen Kristiansson,Senior Planner______________________ __ _ ___ $127.00
3. Spangle Associates will invoice at the end of each work month, and payment from the
city is to be received within 30 days of the billing date. Invoices will include the
Scope of Work for Providing Project PlannerAssistance with the Downtown Specific Plan 4
amount of time spent on the project that month by each member of the firm, along with
a description of the work completed during the month. More detailed information is
available upon request. Our time is charged by the tenth of the hour.
4. The City of Burlingame or its designee is responsible for the costs of copying and
distributing all documents, the costs for mailings and public hearing notices, the costs
of all materials, and other similar costs. In addition, all clerical and administrative
tasks will be carried out by City of Burlingame staff.
5. This scope of work does not include time for tasks such as researching or drafting
significant reports, or producing any written products other than draft staff reports, or
setting up or organizing meetings or public events.
6. Based on discussions with city staff, time for the community studio and charrette
described in the proposal by Kevin Gardiner and Associates are not included in this
scope of work. In addition, one of the Planning Commission study sessions from that
proposal is also not included.
7. If additional work is needed beyond that described above, Spangle Associates will
consult verbally with the city before performing that work.
Scope of Work for Providing Project PlannerAssistance with the Downtown Specific Plan 5
Board of Trustees Minutes
March 20, 2007
I. Call to Order
President Toft called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
II. Roll Call
Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Deborah
Griffith, Katie McCormack, Pat Toft
Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian
Sidney Poland, Recorder
III. Warrants and Special Funds
The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C
(Griffith/McCormack)
IV. Minutes
The Trustees approved with corrections the minutes of the February
20, 2007 meeting. M/S/C (McCormack/Carlton)
V. Correspondence and Attachments
The Trustees reviewed the correspondence.
VI. From the Floor - No one from the public attended.
VII. Reports
A. City Librarian's Report - Highlight of Report
1. The Big Read: To Kill a Mockingbird - The Library will
host a reception featuring music from the era played by
the Ron Gariffo Orchestra and readings from the novel given
by noted actor Charles Shaw Robinson (Berkeley Rep., San
Jose Rep.) and San Mateo High School Drama Director, Brad
Friedman. The event will begin at 7:00pm in the Lane
Community Room.
2. Update on Patron Banned from Library for 60 Days
The City Librarian received correspondence from Marika
Martyus regarding the fact she was banned from the library
due to improper behavior for a period of 60 days. This letter
was referred to Larry Anderson, the City Attorney. Facilitation
of the situation by an outside agency, such as Conflict
Resolution, is being considered as the next procedural step.
B. Library Foundation
Author's Luncheon - The invitations are ready and the
committee will meet Saturday March 24th to prepare the
mailing.
C. Centennial Committee
Excerpts from three Burlingame History publications were
prepared by Library staff and given to Burlingame High School
and the six Burlingame elementary schools to be used as
reference materials for the Centennial Essay Contest.
Students are being requested to write an essay, poem or create
a poster on the first 100 years of Burlingame History.
Participating students will receive a certificate; winners will
have the opportunity to be in the June 2, 2007 parade which
is the official opening of Burlingame's Centennial.
VIII. Unfinished Business - None
IX. New Business
A. Budget Proposal
The City Librarian presented a power point of the Library's 2007-
20008 budget which is due to the City on March 23rd. The overall
budget is similar to the 2006-2007 budget. Personnel requests
include an increase in staff hours for the Children's Department and
the maintenance crew. Additions will be made to the entire
collection, as well as to the databases. Providing more public service
hours was not a part of the budget requests. However, The List of
Unfunded Items does include an increase in the service hours.
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm. M/S/C (Carlton/McCormack).
The next meeting will be held April 17, 2007 in the Library Conference
Room.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alfred H. Escoffier
City Librarian
Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2
March 20,2007
Board of Trustees Minutes
April 17,2007
I. Call to Order
President Toft called the meeting to order at 5:30pm.
Il. Roll Call
Trustees Present: Nancy Brock,Deborah Griffith,Pat Toft
Trustees Absent: Bruce Carlton, Katie McCormack
Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian
Sidney Poland,Recorder
III. Warrants and Special Funds
The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C
(Griffith/Brock)
IV. Minutes
The approval of the March 20,2007 minutes was tabled until the
May 17, 2007 meeting. M/S/C(Griffith/Toft)
V. Correspondence and Attachments
The Trustees reviewed the three Library financial accounts:
Revolving Account,Trustees Account and the Roger and Jean Hunt
Duncan Fund which is managed by the Silicon Valley Community
Foundation.Trustee Toft inquired as to whether funds in the
Revolving Account could be used to help fund Tutor.com. The City
Librarian noted that undesignated funds in this account could be
used to pay for programs or data bases.
VI. From the Floor-No one from the public attended.
VII. Reports
A. City Librarian's Report-Highlight of Report
1. The Big Read: To Kill a Mockingbird-The Library
opened the"Big Read"event with a reception featuring music
from the era played by the Ron Gariffo Orchestra. Brad
Friedman and Charles Robinson Shaw read excerpts from the
book. The program was attended by 150 people. On April
24th,the Library will host its final event in the series featuring
a"Q&A with Mary Badam",who played Scout in the movie.
This program will be held in the Council Chambers.
2. Legislative Day - The City Librarian has been asked by
the State Librarian to testify at the hearings in Sacramento on
April 25th in support of the program "Live Homework Help"
which currently is funded partially by the State and by
individual libraries. Initially, the State offered this program to
California libraries through a grant. Congressman Mullen
has sponsored a bill seeking State funding for the entire
program at a current cost of $3.5M. The cost to our library
without state funding would be $3,000.
3. Patron Ban - Agreement has been reached by all parties
involved that Marika Matyus may return to the Burlingame
Library in May at the conclusion of her 60 day banning period.
This is agreement is contingent on Ms. Matyus exhibiting
proper library behavior to patrons and staff.
B. Foundation Report - Plans for the Author's luncheon are in
place. Reservations have now reached 100.
C. Centennial Committee
Pat Toft noted that the students in participating schools were
given an extra week to complete their individual entries for the
Centennial Essay Contest. The new deadline is April 27th.
VIII. Unfinished Business - None
IX. New Business
A. Possible Author's Program
1 . Foundation Interest - The City Librarian advised the
Trustees that the Foundation has shown an interest in
funding an author's event featuring Mark Mathabane and his
work entitled "Kaffir Boy", which was pulled from the
Burlingame Intermediate school curriculum. Mr. Mathabane
has been scheduled to speak at BIS on April 30th.
2. Trustee Directive - The Trustees felt that a library
event would be another opportunity for Mr. Mathabane to
present his work to the public but were concerned that each
event would probably be drawing from the same audience.
Therefore, the Trustees agreed that it would be better to have
one well attended program and recommended to the City
Librarian that the Library support the BIS program and
provide information on this event to its patrons.
B. American Library Association - The City Librarian advised
the Trustees that he would be attending the ALA Conference in
Washington D.C. June 21st through June 25th.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2
April 17, 2007
X. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:15. The next meeting will be held
on May 15, 2007 in the Library Conference Room
M/S/C (Griffith/Toft)
Respectfully Submitted,
Alfred H. Escoffier
City Librarian
Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3
April 17,2007
City Librarian's Report
May 15,2007
THE BIG READ: To Kill a Mockingbird a Great Success!
Almost 200 people packed the City Hall Council Chambers for"An
Evening with Scout"featuring former child actress Mary Badham.Mary
spoke of her experiences as an 11 year old actress playing a major role in
the film with Gregory Peck. She stayed in touch with a number of the
cast members and related stories about them.Attendees at the event also
were treated to an encore performance of the"Ron Gariffo Orchestra."
Students from the San Mateo High School Production of TKM to be held
on May 3,4, and 5 were also on hand.All in all,it was a great closing
party.My thanks go to the many BPL staff who worked so hard to make
this a classy and enjoyable event.
THE BIG READ culminated with a performance of the play by the San
Mateo High School Drama Department under the direction of Brad
Friedman.The students provided a touching and very skillful portrayal.
We were fortunate to have had Brad in partnership with Peninsula
Library System on this project.
Live Homework Help:Tutor.com
On Wednesday,April 25th,I had the privilege of testifying before the
California Assembly Education Committee,chaired by local
Assemblyman Gene Mullin.It was an invigorating day at the Capitol.
There were many issues before the committee. Our issue, support of live
homework help,received the only unanimous"yes"vote of the
committee.Assemblyman Mullen also complimented Peninsula Library
System and particularly Burlingame Public Library for THE BIG READ
"To Kill a Mockingbird"project.Assemblyman Mullen led a discussion on
the film at the Belmont library earlier in April.It's great to have such
support at the state level!
Harry Potter Comes to Burlingame!
Sue Reiterman and the Children's staff are working on a very special
program for the publication of the last Harry Potter book. Children and
families will be invited to the library on Friday,July 30th at 9 PM to view
the latest film and at 11:30 will parade over to Books,Inc. to purchase
copies of the book at the strike of midnight!
2007-2008 Library Budget Submitted
The library budget has been submitted with several small increases for
10 additional hours for professional librarians.We are also asking for
1
additional funding for electronic databases, as the need for more
specialized databases increases. The big ticket item this year will be the
re-carpeting of the public areas of the library. The budget hearing will be
May 30th at 6 PM in the Lane Room.
Re-carpeting of Main Level Office Areas
This fiscal year we were funded for re-carpeting for the main level office
areas, back hall, stairwell and staff elevator. These "back of house" areas
have ripped and worn carpet due to the heavy traffic of book trucks and
deliveries. The new carpet will be installed the week of May 14th. Staff will
relocate to the Lane Room. We will be using carpet tiles made of "green"
recycled materials (which even include fishing line!). The carpet tiles are
durable and can be replaced in the future on a tile by tile basis as
needed. We expect no interruption in service to the public.
Foundation Author's Luncheon Underwritten
I extend my heartfelt thanks on the work of the Foundation Event
Committee on a very successful first annual author's luncheon, featuring
two of the authors of "This is not the life I ordered." Attendance peaked at
165 people at the Crystal Spring Golf Course. I hope this event will
evolve and grow as the years go by. What a great way to reach out to the
public and bring them authors and raise funds for the library at the
same time.
Upcoming Events:
• "Inconvenient Truth" film with commentary by Stanford professor, Tuesday, May
22, 7 PM
• Memorial Day Closure, May 27 and 28; reopen May 29
• City Budget Study Session, May 30, 6 PM, Lane Community Room
• Burlingame Centennial Parade, Saturday, June 2nd
Alfred H. Escoffier
City Librarian
May 7, 2007
2
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA
May 29,2007
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Deal called the May 29, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran,Brownrigg,Deal,Osterling and Terrones
Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi and Vistica
Staff Present: Community Development Director,William Meeker;Zoning
Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior
Engineer;Doug Bell.
III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 14, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were reviewed and continued until a time when C.Brownrigg
has had the opportunity to review them,with the following changes:page 3,
third paragraph,line three,correct sigaifisatiea to significant;page 7,fifth
bullet from bottom,insert"and that the animal,while in the care ofthe SPCA,
shall be neutered when it is safe';page 9,bottom of page,item(c),correct
plighting to lighting; page 10, item 20, inset"replaced with an equivalent
species, and before the issuance of a Building Permit, the Planning
Commission shall review the revised landscape plans as an FYI item';page
15,item 64,remove 55 gallon and add following drums"up to 55 gallons';
and page 17,item 75,the statement"for individual or combined construction
sites of larger than four acres"is irrelevant because the site is less than four
acres in size.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke to FYI 2212 Hillside Drive,
concerned that changes went forward as an FYI; requested that the
Commission give thought to a window instead of a door in the sunken garden
because that exit should be used only in case of an emergency.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1101 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(MARISA
RAMOS,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;AND ONI RAMOS,DESIGNER)PROJECT PLANNER:
ERICA STROHMEIER
ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• How do we know when a Building Permit is issued? In future,should notify neighborhood when a
Building Permit is issued;could discuss with Neighborhood Consistency Sub-Committee;suggest
posting schematic diagram on-site if project is up for review;
• If proposal had come to the Commission before installation, Commission would have required
simulated true divided light windows;project would look better with simulated true divided light
windows;
• How was a permit issued to put the windows in before it came to the Commission for review?
• Would like clarification on open ended comments on sheet A-4 concerning the metal roof and posts
to be replaced;and
• Would like to see a full landscape plan.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007 ,
• Would like to see a full landscape plan.
This item was set for the Regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted anc�
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
2. 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR REAL ESTATE USE (COLDWELL BANKER, APPLICANT; GRAY PEAK FORK LLC SERIES B,
PROPERTY OWNER:AND FARRO ESSALAT AIA ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
CDD Meeker presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Should hold weekly meetings at the same time as they currently do;
• Applicant needs to provide more information concerning the business at their current location on
Primrose Road; what is the square footage of the current space? How many parking spaces are
there on-site?, etc;
• Although it will not be part of the approval,would like to see proposed signage for this site because
it is a historical building; and
• Weekly meetings are the problem here;could applicant possibly hold weekly meetings elsewhere?
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.
3. 1828 EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 802,ZONED ECN—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT (ELIZABETH S. ANGELES, APPLICANT; INDEPENDENT
HOLDINGS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND KEN MARRA, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
CDD Meeker presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Interesting that massage use has a waiting room and exam rooms; are the exam rooms the
massage rooms?
• Would like to see a history on the company itself, a corporate background, including locations in
other cities, operation of facility, etc;
• There will only be six people on site at any one time? doesn't seem like enough; and
• No business growth is shown on the commercial application.
This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by
the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on
simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the
public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt.
There were no Consent Calendar items.
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 1249 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR A CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT FOR
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING WOOD DECK WITH A NEW CONCRETE DECK OVER A CREEK
BED (JOHN & GAIL DISERENS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES,
DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued from 5114107
Planning Commission meeting)
Chair Deal noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he had a business relationship with the
applicant. He passed the gavel to C.Terrones, stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission commented to
staff: rinsing the concrete truck into the creek would harm the creek environment;could staff add a condition
from the Regional Water Quality Control Board?; only a small amount of concrete is proposed in the
retaining walls, which will not drain into the creek;and there are BMP's in the code that require that runoff
from trucklmachine cleaning be kept in a contained area as to not enter into the storm drain system and
therefore the creek.
C. Terrones opened the public hearing. There were no comments concerning the project and the public
hearing was closed.
C. Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the new concrete deck, as built, shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped April 30, 2007, sheets 1 through 4 and landscape plan; that the
proposed concrete deck shall be located 2.4 feet above the existing redwood deck; and that any
changes to building materials or location of the deck shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that the project shall comply with any regulations or additional comments established by the
California Department of Fish and Game;
3. that tree protection measures shall be installed as to protect the Live Oak tree in the rear of the
property;
4. that no new concrete should be added in the creek during or after construction;
5. that the property owner shall keep the portion of the creek located at 1249 Cabrillo Avenue clear of
debris and shall maintain the channel and protection structures on their property to insure free flow
of the creek and to minimize erosion;
6. that the deck shall remain independent of the retaining walls as designed,and shall be constructed
to be removable to clear debris if necessary;
7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshall's February 15,2007 memos,the
NPDES Coordinator's February 20, 2007 memo and the City Engineer's February 22, 2007 memo
shall be met;
8. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007 ;
The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
C. Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Chair Dea
abstaining and C. Cauchi and C.Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at
7:35 p.m.
Chair Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
5. 1813 CASTENADA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION (LINCOLN LUE, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; MARK AND AMY LIEW, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report May 29,2007,with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. 9 conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Liew, properly owner,represented the project. He stated: they
were not trying to disregard the permit process; problem with loss of original contractor; ordered windows
did not fit,so window trim was cut;they were trying to keep within Title 24;the architect was contacted about
removal of the shutters and said to keep the house consistent in the front and back; neighbor on left side
has no privacy problem with second story deck as built; and they didn't intend to make changes to the
project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented: a decision was made to not contact the City for all changes made;difficult to see
this number of as-built changes;was architect engaged for info about detailing the shutters?;need a wayto
dress up front elevation; lost design elements when lost shutters; shutters are intended to look set off frorr'�
the wall; shutters should be reinstalled or an alternative should be researched; using Title 24 as an excuse
is not valid; can easily re-do Title 24;expansion of rear deck can affect neighbors privacy, deck should be
reduced to what it was approved at; and grey trim on rear windows is not in front.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application if the original shutters are installed and if the deck is
reduced to its originally approved size, by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped April 3, 2007, sheets Al,A3 and A4, and date stamped January 11, 2005,sheets A2 and
A5,and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes,footprint orfloorarea of the building
shall require an amendment to this permit; that the shutters shall be installed as shown on the
originally approved plans and the second story deck shall be reduced to its originally approved size;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,or garage,which would include
adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the-,
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been bui
according to the approved Planning and Building plans.
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
5. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
7. that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's June 7, 2004,
memos shall be met;
8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and
9. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the shutters installed as shown on the
originally approved plans and the deck reduced to its originally approved size. The motion passed on a 5-0-
2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
6. 2561 POPPY DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (SAM AND MARIE
FAILLACE, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (65
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. 11 conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, project designer, represented the project.
Commissioners comments: does current garage get used for parking?; cannot imagine backing out of a
garage at a 90 degree angle up a 15%slope; seems an enormous and complicated project to not add any
square footage; landscaping in rear is all on top of each other; suggest move pear tree out from the laurel
trees; item#3 calls for common ivy, do not make it Algerian ivy which is too invasive; taking concrete floor
down could undermine footings; most houses that age have dry-rot and termite damage;may need to come
back to Commission for full demo of house; and there are no roof overhangs as existing drawings show.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling moved to approve the application with the landscape comments made concerning the ivy, by
resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped May 4, 2007, sheets 1 through 7, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes,footprint orfloor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;and that
the proposed ivy on the property shall not be Algerian Ivy;
2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 29,2007 memo,and the City Engineer's,
Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's April 2, 2007 memos shall be met;
3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007 ;
4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
5. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or
another architect or residential design professional,shall provide an architectural certification that
the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such
as window locations and bays,are built as shown on the approved plans;architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled.
6. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is
issued;
9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
'1
10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance
which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and
11. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.
Comment on the motion: have concerns with driveway and garage usability;driveway has been made better
and new garage improves front facade from street; if garage is not useable, what precedent is the
Commission setting?; and self training will make driveway useable.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and
C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m.
7. 1452 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GARAGE HEIGHT FOR A
NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND
ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAN STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN
Chair Deal noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of the Special Permit for declining heigh
envelope since he had a business relationship with the applicant next door to the subject property, but that
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
he would participate in the discussion of the garage. He passed the gavel to C. Terrones to take over as
chair and remained on the dias.
Reference staff report May 29,2007,with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria
and staff comments. 17 conditions were suggested for consideration.
C. Terrones opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 W. 43rd Ave, San Mateo; Dan Strambi, property
owner; Dan Porter, 1444 Drake Ave; Chi-Hua Hung, 1456 Drake Ave; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave,
spoke. Issues noted: neighbor to right has no problem with garage; property at 1436 Drake Ave has garage
that has a floor 4' higher than rear easement; rear easement is 10', provides extra separation; stairwell
window unit is one unit with grid pattern at upper portion; sump pump installed under garage for water
collected in garage and under garage; large Oak at rear will help mitigate height of garage;existing house is
an eyesore; problem with declining height envelope,will make family room very dark;would like a condition
to have a common fence between subject property and 1456 Drake Ave; urge PC to look at sump pump;
give better drainage without such an impact; and large setbacks proposed between 1452 and 1456 Drake
Ave.
Commission commented: garage solution does not address problem; garage at rear is 6'-7' higher then
adjacent properties; most neighbors have long driveway to single-car garage, no increase in grade;garage
is too big; issue is not if wall is retaining, issue is garage being raised; discrepancy in plans concerning
stairwell window; concern if retaining wall will be retaining a lot of water over time; and uncomfortable with
proposed garage, significant visual impact at back. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission discussion of CUP for garage: sloped lot with house that's designed for a flat lot; building is
articulated and looks nice; adjoining neighbors will have Thigh fence,then a garage over that; garage will
tower above adjacent properties; house is going to read like a 3-storywith a 2-story garage;retaining wall is
fighting mother nature; not compatible with the neighborhood; like having sump pump underneath garage;
visited site, made note of applicants property down the street which did not look obtrusive; generally
uncomfortable with raising garage, but in this case the raising is creating a more usable backyard and more
useable garage; this situation provides a lot of privacy; and support project the way it is.
C. Osterling moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for garage height. The motion was seconded by
C. Auran.
C.Terrones called fora roll call vote on the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permitforgarage height.
The motion passed 3-2-2 (Chair Deal and C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m.
Commission discussion of project and Special Permit for declining height envelope:could move forward in
favor of neighbors; could plant vines in 2'strip on side to crawl up garage; neighbor on right could add more
landscaping; view at back is dominated by Oak tree and Acacia trees; and condition should be added for
vines to be planted 4' apart on a drip irrigation system in 2' strip around garage on both sides.
C. Auran moved to approve the application with the added landscape condition, by resolution, with the
following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped May 9, sheets A.1 through A.7, L.1, and CA and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;
2. that there shall be vines planted in the 2'wide strip between the garage and the right side and rear
property lines; that these vines shall be planted 4' apart; and that a drip irrigation system shall be
installed for watering of the vines;
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 19 and April 27, 2007 memos, the City
Engineer's March 19 and May 2, 2007 memos, the Fire Marshal's March 19, 2007 memo, the City
Arborist's April 10 and May 9, 2007 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 19, 2007 memo
shall be met;
4. that the sump pumps and backup generator shall be enclosed in a sound attenuating structure so
that noise levels at property line shall meet city standards;
5. that an electric gate will be installed across the driveway;
6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District;
7. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
8. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
9, that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new
structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer,or another
architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the''1
architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as
window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification
documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division
before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled.
11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
13. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and thatthese venting
details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;
14. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame;
15. that the project shall complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
16. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the ne%A
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
runoff;
17. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
18. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of
permit application.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
C. Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added landscape condition. The
motion passed 3-1-1-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, Chair Deal abstaining, C. Cauchi and C.Vistica absent).
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
8. 2724 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED
GARAGE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING-(JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN,APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; AND WAYNE PAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA
WHITMAN
Reference staff report May 29, 2007,with attachments. CDD Meeker presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. 14 conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Ave; Bruce and Joann Thompson,
1600 Granada Drive; Una Kinsella, 501 A Vermont St, San Francisco;Chris Wong,2720 Martinez Dr;and
Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Ave, spoke. Issues noted: story poles installed with three additional scenarios;
additional drop can be implemented into residence; photos provided do not depict current story poles;
alternatives show flexibility; most significant view will be blocked; disappointed that property owners didn't
work with neighbors; confused by options in story poles; blue option obviously blocks a significant view;
opportunity for design to be developed that will protect neighbors view; privacy issues downhill; design
against traditional ranch style in neighborhood; front porch is unusable; ask Commission to deny without
prejudice; and would like to work with neighbors. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
Commissioners comments: confused what project is presented in story poles; no way to move forward with
any alternative scheme; have to vote on what is in plans, blue story pole scheme;alternate story poles were
to develop new plans for project;front porch to right is unusable; like design and detail,good revisions have
been made; issue is with view blockage and extension of roof element; neighbors should communicate to
address view blockage issues; addition away from neighbor on downhill helps reduce privacy impacts;and
master bedroom should be dropped to patio level.
C. Terrones moved to deny the application without prejudice, based on the view blockage issue. The
motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 5-0-2 (C.
Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m.
9
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007 ,
9. 110 CLARENDON ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED DESIGN
REVIEW PROJECT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED.
GARAGE (TINA CHENG,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;AND JD&ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER)
(65NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
Chair Deal noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he had a business relationship with the
applicant. He passed the gavel to C.Terrones,stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers.
Reference staff report May 29, 2007, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. 15 conditions were suggested for consideration.
C. Terrones opened the public hearing. Tina Cheng, property owner; Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa, spoke.
Issues noted: removal of opening was not caught, could put it back in; second opening in turret should be
put back in; spark arrestor too visible; and panels box at front does not look right. There were no further
comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission comment:garage door could have same single door in a carriage style design;grill over round
openings on turret should be painted black;second opening on turret needs to be put back in;garage door
needs to look more like what was approved, could add better hardware and dress it up; and garage should
come back as an FYI when the door is complete.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application with the requested changes to the turret and garage door,
by resolution, with the following conditions:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped May 17, 2007,revised site plan,revised building elevations and revised garage plan;date
stamped August 16, 2006, landscape plan;date stamped June 13, 2006, floor plans, roof plan ander
floor area calculations;and date stamped April 25, 2006, Boundary and Topographic Survey;anc
that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this
permit,
2. that the second opening with grill shall be added back into the left side of the front turret;and that
the garage door shall be improved with new hardware and other details;
3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 31, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire
Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's April 3, 2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's April 5,
2006 memo shall be met;
4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site
shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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;
6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty
of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
7. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the 'N,
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all windows shall be simulated true
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions and shall contain a stucco-mould
trim;
8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single
termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these
venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit
is issued;
9. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the
roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property
corners and set the building footprint;
11. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the
new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer;
12. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new
residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in
Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm
water runoff;
13. that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete
Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time
of permit application;
14. that the project shall complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction
Plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior orexterior,
shall require a demolition permit;
15. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water
Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and
16. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire
Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Terrones.
C. Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the requested changes. The
motion passed 4-0-1-2 (Chair Deal abstaining,C. Cauchi and C.Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m.
Chair Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
10. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, LOTS 9 AND 10, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EMERGING LOTS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE (LOT 9) AND BUILDING
`.. HEIGHT (LOT 10) TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (OTTO
MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC.,
DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
CA Anderson noted that he would recuse himself from this item. He stepped down from the dais and left
the Council Chambers.
CDD Meeker briefly presented the project description. Commission asked:where was master bedroom wall
previously?
Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Mark Hudak,216 Park Road;James Chu,55 W.43 rd Ave.,
San Mateo; Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue;Chris McCrum, 1540 Drake Avenue;and Janet Garcia, 1561
Drake Avenue, spoke. They noted: was extensive design review when project was originally submitted;
trees have had 3 %:years of breathing room and are healthy; new foundation designed to eliminate root
damage, raised houses up; design of houses is virtually unchanged; master bedroom wall before was set
back in an "L" shape; consulting arborist in 2004 was hired by the City; new grading restrictions; designs
were approved three years ago; deposit should not be returned until 5 years after houses are finaled;
designer is asking to go higher than allowed again; house too bold from street;do not want Special Permit
for height approved; City Arborist letter concerning pier and beam foundation;and could work with neighbor
to left concerning fencing. There were no other comments from the floorand the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented on lot#9:
• Not seeing on site plan or landscape plan if there will be a new fence constructed on left side
property line; will it be in place of existing grape stakes?, should work with neighbor;
• Is there going to be a fence to separate the two properties?
• Roof pitch is being taken down, house has stepped up, but roof pitch has been made shallower?
• Should eliminate the flat portion of the roof and go fora Special Permit for height;height of homes is
mitigated by the extremely tall redwood trees;
• A condition should be added that states the applicant shall work with the neighbor to the left
concerning the installation of a new fence;
• Arborists are very talented; don't think there will be any issues with the trees if the tree protectior
measures are carried through construction;
• Landscape plan shows a fence between lots 9 and 10, there should be no fence in front of the
house;
• Project should be brought back on action so that neighborhood does not have to pull project off
Consent Calendar for discussion; and
• Either the home on Lot 9 or Lot 10 should have only one chimney.
C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar with the addition of a
Special Permit for height for the change in the roof configuration; that one chimney should be eliminated
from one of the two properties;and that the landscape architect should look at the redwood grove as a unit
between the two properties instead of as two separate,distinct landscape plans. This motion was seconded
by C. Auran.
Chair Deal called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendarwhen plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C.Vistica absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m.
Commission commented on lot# 10:
• Urge architect to look and see if the shed roof can drop to a 3:12 pitch, even though it has already
been dropped; could see roof drop a few inches;
• Don't believe that the Special Permit for declining height envelope is a large impediment on
neighbors; and
• Roof ridge is going to be set back very far from the street; shed roof would help to create some
additional relief.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar with the requested revision
to the roof pitch. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
Commission commented that the discussion of the deposit will be continued to the action hearing.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendarwhen plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2(C. Cauchi and C.Vistica absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m.
11. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (MIKE AND AMY KERWIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN
MANISCALLO ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (47NOTICED) PROJECTPLANNER: LISAWHITMAN
CDD Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Mike Kerwin, property owner;John Maniscallo, 1501 Waller
St, San Francisco; and Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive, spoke. They noted: project is mostly
excavation instead of building up; designed house in order to preserve the view of the surrounding
neighbors; new scheme addresses all previous concerns from previous projects on this site; roof material
will be consistent; upper level addition at right side property line is at ground level then slopes down; upper
level addition will effect view from 1560 Los Montes Drive; ask for story poles; and Commissioners should
stop by 1560 Los Montes prior to action meeting when story poles are installed. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission commented:
• Consider stepping kitchen down?;could lower upper level addition into the crawl space which would
help view from neighbors and story poles; and
• Addition is rather modest; issue is with the view; will need to see story poles.
C. Terrones made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar once the story poles have
been installed and certified by a licensed surveyor and there is room on the agenda. This motion was
seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: would like to have contact number for property owners at 1560 Los Montes Drive to
visit site before action hearing; and would encourage applicant to plant two smaller scale trees in the front
yard.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when story
poles have been installed and surveyed and there is room on the agenda. The motion passed on a voice
vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m.
12. 1268 Cortez Avenue,zoned R-1 —application for design review and Special Permitfor an attached garage
for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling (Heidi Richardson, Richardson Architects,
applicant and architect;Andrew and Taryn Sutton, property owners) (85 noticed) Project Planner: Ruben
Hurin
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Deal opened the public comment. Heidi Richardson,319 Miller Ave suite 5, Mill Valley, represented
the project and stated that the owners have spoken with the neighbors who express no concern with the
project. Commission commented:
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
• Concerned with broad face of proposed garage from street elevation; can it look more like existing
setup with a separation look between house and garage?
• Could guest bedroom over garage be more of an attic/guest bedroom with a steeper pitched roof
and dormers?
• Beautiful house as is with house as major element and garage as minor element, which is being
eliminated due to the scale and massiveness of the proposed garage;
• Bay window would break up the mass at the front but would not reduce the mass of the building;
lowering the plate height would reduce the mass significantly;
• Concerned with how guest bedroom over garage is a separate space;appears it could be more of a
rental unit;
• Could reverse roof ridge to reduce mass from the street elevation; and
• Proposed garage door looks too modern; should be more of a carriage style door.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the RegularAction Calendar at a time when the requested
changes have been made and there is room on the agenda. This motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Deal called fora vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendarwhen plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and C.Vistica absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m.
13. 2537 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING (PATTYAND ANDREW JORDAN,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTYOWNERS;AND GEORGE
SKINNER, ARCHITECT) (31 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission noted that they would like to see a
copy of the application and plans for the project 2533 Hayward Drive when this project comes back for
discussion.
Chair Deal opened the public comment. George Skinner,4231 Terrace Ave,Oakland;and Andrew Jordan,
property owner, represented the project. They noted: the project was redesigned to address concerns of
the neighbors and the Planning Commission;the style is craftsman, similar to next door approved project;
and most of existing roof will be kept, the existing and proposed pitch is 3:12. Commission commented:
• Is the architect confident with the way the roof pitch has been drawn?; looks like roof pitch is steeper
then what's shown; pitch looks like it is 4:12;
• Not too concerned about the design, the addition is modest;
• Would help if there was some relief between the roof and the transom windows;window area over
the garage is too crowded;
• Chimney caps are articulated a couple of different ways;
• Shed roof is shown as aligning with the gable roof over the garage, this needs to be corrected to
show a step in the roof change;
• 2" x 6" trim not drawn to look like 2" x 6"; is it drawn at an angle?
• Was plan to highlight the living room and make it the main focal point of the house?;want the front
porch to be more of a focal point; and
• If entryway is brought forward, it will be more inviting;will have no resistance from the Commission
to push the entrance out; receptive to an FAR Variance to allow the front entrance to push out;
house does not look that massive.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
14
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 29, 2007
Further Commission comment: is there a need for story poles?; have to ask for story poles because this
project is in the hillside area.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar at a time when the story
poles have been installed and certified by a licensed surveyor,the front porch has been slightly expanded,
when all Commission comments have been addressed and when the slope of the roof has been verified.
This motion was seconded by C. Osteding.
Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans
have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2(C.Cauchi and C.Vistica absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:45 p.m.
X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports for review.
XI. PLANNER REPORTS
CDD Meeker reviewed the actions of City Council regular meeting of May 21, 2007.
FYI: Update to a previously approved design review project at 2212 Hillside Drive. Commissioner
asked that this item be placed on the Regular Action Calendar for discussion, particularly with
respect to the window designs.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Deal adjoumed the meeting at 11:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard Terrones, Secretary
V:\MINUTES\unapproved 05.29.07.doc
15
POLICE DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten
Chief of Police
May, 2007
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
Enclosed you will find statistical documents from the month of April, 2007. As always, please note
that the information contained in this police department report is displayed in both numbers and
percentages. Please remember that the percentages of certain crimes might've dramatically
increased or decreased in percentage (compared to the previous month or year). When reviewing the
police department report kindly also consider the actual numbers in various crime categories in
conjunction with the percentages. Even though the percentages may have increased or decreased,
the actual number change may be slight or negligible. Please feel free to contact me at anytime if you
have any questions or concerns about the numbers or percentages.
As mentioned previously, Roam Secure is being finalized on both the Emergency and Public sides.
The Burlingame Police Department plans to use the Public side of Roam Secure to provide crime
information and public notifications to our business districts and citizens. We are working with the
Downtown Merchants to begin implementation of Roam Secure. We are moving forward on this
project and it should be up and running very shortly.
As we fast approach the summer, our community will begin experiencing a number of block parties
occurring throughout our city. I plan to assign new officers to a number of these events, since the
police department has experienced a large turnover in personnel due to retirements. I believe this is
an excellent way for our new officers to immerse themselves in our community with their presence
and by providing crime prevention information (such as Neighborhood Watch and Emergency
preparedness information) to our citizens.
The police department routinely and continuously receives information from the public regarding a
number of criminal, traffic and parking related matters. All of these matters are immediately
addressed, prioritized (based on the safety of the community), and depending on staffing levels,
handled in the most effective manner possible. When necessary, overtime is used and (or) additional
outside resources are also brought in to assist current staff with specific problems or unusual criminal
activities. Unfortunately, the police department didn't receive the OTS grant that would've provided
funding for two (2) additional traffic officers and motorcycles. Due to continuing shortages of police
personnel (caused by long term injuries, retirements, etc.), the police department won't be able to
appoint solo motorcycle officers to traffic enforcement until later in the Fall.
1111 Trousdale Drive - Post Office Box 551 - Burlingame, California 94011-0551 - (650) 777-4100 - Fax (650) 697-8130
Moving citations are down slightly from last year due to personnel shortages,but parking citation
totals continue to show slight increases over last year. I've included the most recent selective traffic
enforcement areas(related to addressing traffic related complaints in our community)that are
routinely being monitored by our patrol officers.This information includes the types of violations that
are being monitored.The police department is constantly monitoring the statistical information at all
selective enforcement sites for future reference.
The police department has asked the public to help fund the purchase of a second K-9. Due to
budget constraints over several years,the police department has reduced our K-9 unit from a high of
4 to only 1.We believe the Burlingame community will help us reach our goal of$10,000 for this
project that we believe will protect both our community and our dedicated police officers.
Look for the new Centennial Celebration uniform shoulder patches and badges being worn by
members of the police department.Our department's Centennial Celebration Committee has chosen
to replicate(with some slight changes),the first and only other police patch worn over 50 years ago
and the first badge worn by George Jones(the first police chief)in 1908.The police department
joins all of Burlingame in a number of ways as we celebrate our Centennial.
As always, I continue to be so proud of the dedication and sacrifices made by all of the employees of
the police department.They work tirelessly day and night(and place themselves in harm's way)to
protect and serve the citizens in our great community.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
C �' a�&Van Etten
Burlingame Police Department
MEMORANDUM
To: All Patrol Personnel
From: Sgt. Williams
Date: 05/11/2007
Subject: Selective Enforcement
As time permits, please advise your teams to attempt selective enforcement in the listed
areas:
Location Violation Description Time of offense Date Reported
R/R Crossings/ 22451 VC Veh/Ped viol./ All hours Continuous
R/R Tracks 602.8 PC Trespassing
Broadway Av 21950 VC yield to ped All hours Continuous
Grove Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 5/09/07
Cypress Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 4/12/07
Calif Drive 22350 VC Speeding All hours 3/21/07
(Oak grove to Carmelita)
Bernal Ave. 22350 VC Speeding Morning 3/23/07
(1300 blk)
Hillside Dr. 22350/21950 Speed/Ped viol. All hours 3/23/07
Occidental/ 22450 VC Stop sign All hours 3/16/07
Howard Ave (warnings only)
Howard Ave. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 3/2/07
Hinckley Rd. 22350 VC Speeding Morning/evening 3/6/07
Easton Dr. 22450 VC Stop sign All hours 3/8/07
Adeline Dr. 22350/450 Speed/Stop sign commute hrs 2/7/07
Bayswater(all) 22350 VC Speeding commute hrs 2/1/07
Blgm Ave/Primrose 21954 VC jaywalking All hours 1/26/07
Trousdale/ECR 21453 VC Red light viol. commute hrs 1/19/07
05-15-07 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1
FOR: APRIL, 2007
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0
Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0
Rape By Force 0 1 1 3 -2 -66.67
Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Firearm 1 0 2 2 0 0.00
Robbery Knife 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 1 1 0 0.00
Robbery Strong-Arm 0 6 3 10 -7 -70.00
Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0
Assault - Knife 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 2 7 7 0 0.00
Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 1 1 3 5 -2 -40.00
Assault - Other (Simple) 13 17 68 63 5 7.94
Burglary - Forcible Entry 2 5 10 21 -11 -52.38
Burglary - Unlawful Entry 5 7 25 35 -10 -28.57
Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00
Larceny Shoplifting 3 5 11 18 -7 -38.89
Larceny From Motor Vehicle 24 17 68 102 -34 -33.33
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 15 11 54 41 13 31.71
Larceny Bicycles 2 0 6 1 5 500.00
Larceny From Building 8 11 26 36 -10 -27.78
Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 1 2 9 6 3 50.00
Larceny All Other 11 5 28 26 2 7.69
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 4 9 25 29 -4 -13.79
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 1 0 4 -4 -100.00
Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00
------- ------ ------ ------
91 103 348 418
91 103 348 418
05-15-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1
CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2007
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change
All Other Offenses 29 34 107 152 -45 -29.61
Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0
Animal Nuisance 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Arson 0 2 2 8 -6 -75.00
Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Threat 0 0 0 0 0
Bribery 0 0 0 0 0
Check Offenses 0 7 4 9 -5 -55.56
Child Neglect/prot custody 13 5 30 26 4 15.38
Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0
Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0
Credit Card Offenses 0 0 1 1 0 0.00
Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0
Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Death Investigation 3 5 11 11 0 0.00
Disorderly Conduct 0 3 0 8 -B -100.00
Driver's License Violations 1 1 1 3 -2 -66.67
Driving Under the Influence 8 7 32 24 e 33.33
Drug Abuse Violations 3 3 13 10 3 30.00
Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Drunkeness 3 1 27 20 7 35.00
Embezzlement 0 1 2 2 0 0.00
Escape 0 0 0 0 0
Extortion 0 0 1 0 1
False Police Reports 0 0 1 0 1
False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00
Fish and Game Violations 1 0 1 0 1
Forgery and Counterfeiting 4 2 12 13 -1 -7.69
Found Property 1 9 14 19 -5 -26.32
Fraud 2 4 12 12 0 0.00
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0
Harrassing Phone Calls 5 3 19 9 10 111.11
05-15-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2
CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2007
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change
Hit and Run Accidents 2 0 12 11 1 9.09
Impersonation 2 0 6 0 6
Incest 0 0 0 0 0
Indecent Exposure 1 1 4 2 2 100.00
Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0
Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0
Lewd Conduct 0 1 1 1 0 0.00
Liquor Laws 0 2 1 2 -1 -50.00
Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0
Marijuana Violations 1 0 11 4 7 175.00
Mental Health Cases 6 3 27 32 -5 -15.63
Missing Person 9 4 23 19 4 21.05
Missing Property 11 4 31 27 4 14.81
Municipal Code Violations 6 6 37 33 4 12.12
Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 0 0
Offenses Against Children 1 0 3 3 0 0.00
Other Assaults 13 17 68 63 5 7.94
Other Juvenile Offenses 1 0 1 0 1
Other Police Service 5 2 13 19 -6 -31.58
Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0
Parole Violations 0 0 2 1 1 100.00
Perjury 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0
Probation Violations 0 1 1 3 -2 -66.67
Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 2 1 4 -3 -75.00
Prowling 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00
Resisting Arrest 0 0 1 1 0 0.00
Restraining Orders 0 0 1 0 1
Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 2 0 2
Sex Offenses 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00
Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0
Stalking 0 0 0 0 0
05-15-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3
CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2007
Prev
Last Act Act YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change 8 Change
Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 2 0 3 2 1 50.00
Suspended License 2 4 13 15 -2 -13.33
Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0
Terrorist Threats 0 0 1 4 -3 -75.00
Towed Vehicle 18 26 114 107 7 6.54
Trespassing 1 0 3 7 -4 -57.14
Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 1 0 1 0 1
US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Vandalism 34 28 69 76 -7 -9.21
Vehicle Code Violations 3 2 8 3 5 166.67
Violation of Court Order 0 1 2 4 -2 -50.00
Warrants - Felony 0 0 5 3 2 66.67
Warrants - Misd 3 5 17 21 -4 -19.05
Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 1 6 3 3 100.00
Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0
------- ------ ------ ------
196 199 779 806
196 199 779 806
05-15-07 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1
CITY REPORT
FOR: APRIL, 2007
Prev
Last Act Act
Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . .
Parking Citations 3902 3 , 640 15 , 299 11 , 669
Moving Citations 111 213 733 949
------- ------ ------ --- - - -
4013 3 , 853 16 , 032 12 , 618
------- ------ ------ ------
------- ------ ------ ------
4013 3 , 853 16, 032 12 , 618
13 U xij 11N U1-UV1h
Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 05/16/2007 at 07 : 59 : 02 AM
Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 04/01/2007 to 04/30/2007
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
Valid % All Voids All
Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALVISO 355 862 23.02 7 12.96 99.19
DOTSON 509 1030 27.50 10 18.52 99.04
FEITELBERG 508 812 21.68 11 20.37 98.66
GARRETT 501 424 11.32 10 18.52 97.70
MORAN 201 71 1.90 0 0.00 100.00
ROSCOE 503 49 1.31 1 1.85 98.00
SMITH 654 497 13.27 15 27.78 97.07
Total 3745 54
Page 1 of 1
Co 1 1 1 Ca St Comcast Cable
12647 Alcosta Boulevard
Suite 200
San Ramon,CA 94583
May 17, 2007 Office:925.973.7000
wm.comcast.com
Mr. Jesus Nava
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Jesus Nava:
As you may have heard, as a result of a New York State Supreme Court ruling last week,
Comcast is now offering customers the NFL Network on a digital sports tier. This decision
means that our customers who are NFL fans will be able to watch the NFL Network on our
Digital Sports Package, while customers who do not wish to watch these NFL games will not
incur additional costs. This change will not affect the full schedule of NFL games carried on
CBS, FOX, NBC and ESPN. We believe that this is the best and fairest result for all of our
customers.
Effective June 20, 2007, the NFL Network will move from channel 180 on the Digital Plus level of
service to channel 417 in the Digital Sports Package. In order to receive the NFL Network,
customers will need to subscribe to the Digital Sports Package. The Digital Sports Package
includes channels such as the Fox Soccer Channel, Speed Channel, TV Games, Tennis
Channel, Fox College Sports Atlantic, Fox College Sports Central, Fox College Sports Pacific,
NBA TV, NFL Network, College Sports TV (CSTV), and Gol TV. All customers, as previously
noted, will be able to continue to enjoy the full schedule of NFL games carried on CBS, FOX,
NBC and ESPN.
On Tuesday, May 15, 2007, we began providing notification to customers via Digital box
messages and will be providing additional notification to our subscribers via a Legal Notice
scheduled to run in the local newspaper beginning Monday, May 21, 2007. Attached please find
a copy of the Legal Ad provided to the local newspaper regarding the matter. In addition, we will
be providing a bill message to our subscribers regarding the relocation.
Please note th?t the NFA_ Network has appealed the trial court's decision if there is any change
in the status of this case, we will immediately notify you and our customers.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director
Lee-Ann Peling at (415) 715-0549.
Sincerely,
Mitzi Givens-Russell
Government Affairs
Franchise Compliance Manager- Bay Market
Comcast Cable
Enclosures: (1)
Corporate DCT Message displayed May 15,2007:
"Please be advised if you currently have NFL Network, it is being moved to Digital Sports
Package.Go to www.comcast.com/sportspack for more information."
Local DCT Message displayed May 16,2007:
"Effective June 20,NFL Network channel 180 will move from the Digital Plus level of service to
our Digital Sports Tier ch.417. In order to continue to receive this channel please call us at 1-
800-COMCAST."
Legal Notice language scheduled to run in the local newspaper May 21,2007:
"Effective June 20, NFL Network channel 180 will move from the Digital Plus level of service to
our Digital Sports Tier ch.417. In order to continue to receive this channel please call us at 1-
800-COMCAST."
Bill message scheduled to run on customers'billing statements:
"Effective June 20th,ch.180,the NFL Network will be moved from Digital Plus to Digital Sports
Package channel 417. In order to receive the NFL Network or its ON DEMAND content after
June 20th,you will have to subscribe to the Digital Sports Package. The Digital Sports Package
costs$4.95 per month"
r
M E M ® R A N D U M
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: June 1, 2007
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
RE : Written Communications Between Councilmembers
ISSUE PRESENTED
The Council has asked whether an individual Councilmember or a less-than-a-quorum of
Councilmembers may communicate information or views to the rest of the Council outside a public
meeting or before a public meeting.
DISCUSSION
Examples
During the year, issues arise where a Councilmember who is serving on another local agency board,
such as the Central County Fire Department or the Council of Cities, may want to inform the Council
in writing of a pending issue and ask the Council's views on the issue. Rather than briefly raising
it at a Council meeting, couuncilmembers may want to provide the information in written form as
part of a Council packet.
At other times, the Mayor may appoint a subcommittee to study an issue and report back to the
Council. Once again, the report might be given in verbal form only at a Council meeting, but it may
be more useful to provide the report in writing before the meeting so that the Council has time to
consider it. For example, in the past, Council policy required the interview subcommittee to report
the subcommittee's recommendations on commission applicants in writing before the meeting. At
other times, a subcommittee may provide the other Councilmembers with copies of the minutes of
discussions that the subcommittee has been having.
There may be other occasions where a Councilmember wants to bring a legislative or policy proposal
to the Council, even going so far as to obtain examples or draft a proposal. Once again, inclusion
of that information in the packet for the discussion at a public meeting prepares the Council for the
discussion.
_4!&
Mayor and Council
Re: Written Communications Between Councilmernbers
June 1, 2007
Page 2
Naturally, these communications may reveal the opinion of the Councilmember(s) submitting the
materials.' However, does distribution of the communication violate the Brown Act?
What is a Meeting?
The Brown Act is intended to ensure that cities' "actions be taken openly and that their deliberations
be conducted openly." This policy is implemented by first defining what a "meeting" is: "...any
congregation of a majority of the members of a legislative body at the same time and place to hear,
discuss,or deliberate upon any item"that is within the Council's jurisdiction. The Brown Act makes
clear in Section 54952.2 that simply receiving (or"hearing")information, even in written form, is
not a "meeting" under the Act. The Act itself allows other members of the Council to attend
meetings where there is a majority of the Council present (even a meeting of a Council
subcommittee),so long as a majority of the Council do not participate or discuss among themselves
subjects within the Council's jurisdiction at the meeting.
"Historically,meetings have not commonly occurred through written instruments;however,the court
found that circulation of a proposal among board members for their review and signature was found
to be a meeting in violation of the[Brown]Act when a majority of the members of a legislative body
signed the document. [citation omitted]. However,the emergence of e-mail as a simple and effective
means of communication has raised this issue in fresh context." California Attorney General, The
Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies (2003), at p. 15. The Attorney General's
Office recognized that e-mail exchanges are discussions under the Act,so that there could not be any
exchange or discussion via e-mail among a majority of the Council.
Caselaw has further defined these issues by drawing a line between 1) a written memorandum that
provides information (a one-way communication), is not a meeting, and is not engaging in a
discussion,and 2)a memorandum that actively solicits and obtains a response or discussion outside
an open and public meeting. There is also a difference between the advocacy of a position that will
be coming to an open meeting and the active solicitation of a response and concurrence before the
meeting.
An important qualification to the general rule that informal deliberation is within the scope
of the Brown Act is "that some sort of collective decisionmaking process be at stake. Thus
the action of one public official is not a'meeting'within the terms of the act.... [B]ecause the
'Staff has encouraged Councilmembers to avoid reaching conclusions on a matter before
the Council has had a chance to hold a public meeting on the issue. This is most important when
the Council is acting in a quasi-judicial role so that no one's due process right to be fairly heard
and considered is violated. Staff recognizes that in other matters, such as legislation, individual
Councilmembers views are often well-known or established.
1
Mayor and Council
Re: Written Communications Between Councilmembers
June 1, 2007
Page 3
act uniformly speaks in terms of collective action,and because the term'meeting,'as a matter
of ordinary usage, conveys the presence of more than one person, it follows that under
section 54953, the term 'meeting' means that 'two or more persons are required in order to
conduct a"meeting"within the meaning of the Act.' [Citation.]" (Roberts,supra, 5 Cal.4th
at pp. 375-376,20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496,italics added.) Accordingly,in Roberts,
the Supreme Court held that the distribution to each member of the city council of a legal
memorandum written by the council's attorney did not constitute a serial "meeting," in the
absence of evidence that the council members deliberated collectively with respect to the
memorandum or its general subject matter. (Id. atpp.376-377,20 Ca1.Rptr.2d 330,853 P.2d
496.) As the court concluded,the Brown Act"was intended to apply to collective action of
local governing boards and not to the passive receipt by individuals of their mail."
Wolfe vs. Fremont(2006) 144 Cal.AppAth 533, 543.
The cases struggle to define the boundary between a one-way communication and beginning to reach
a concurrence or having a discussion. Therefore, it is important in communications between
Councilmembers—and between staff and Councilmembers-that we be as rigorous as possible in
making that definition.'
Suggested Guidelines
In part,that can be done through ground rules that the Council agrees on and that should probably
be a part of the discussions that the protocol subcommittee has in the coming month or so. The
Council can adopt stronger rules than the Brown Act provides if it so wishes.
E-mails are particularly problematic, because it is often so easy to hit the "Reply All"button.
It is also important that communications from a citizen to a quorum or more of Councilmembers
be provided to the City Clerk.
Until the protocol subcommittee can make a recommendation to you on Council procedures, I
recommend the following interim ground rules:
1. Use communications to other Councilmembers sparingly. Ask whether it can wait to be
distributed or discussed at the next Council meeting.
'In some agencies, the legislative body uses the agency staff as a conduit for opinions.
That not only defeats the important goal of transparency that the Brown Act seeks to ensure, but
creates the possibility of a serial meeting through a hub-and-spoke arrangement(staff at center
polling each board member or communicating member's opinion).
Mayor and Council
Re: Written Communications Between Councilmembers
June 1,2007
Page 4
2. Immediately provide a copy of the communication to the City Clerk.
3. Do not send or distribute information directly among Councilmembers via e-mail. Instead,
send the'information to the City Clerk for distribution. This will inhibit immediate
responses, and staff can have a standard statement on the distribution to not respond.
4. Count to ten(or more)before hitting the"Reply to All"button on e-mails. When responding
to a citizen, be sure that your response is not going to other Councilmembers. This will
avoid an inadvertent discussion occurring among a majority of the Council as each
Councilmember acknowledges the citizen's concerns.
As the protocol subcommittee develops and presents its recommendations for Council procedures,
the issue of document preparation and distribution will be an important element. It is hoped that this
memorandum provides an additional point of reference to those discussions.