Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2016.01.04BURLINGAME City of Burlingame BURLINGAIVIE CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Agenda - Final City Council Note: Public comment is permitTed on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a'reguest to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optionat, Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adiusl the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanirnous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p'm. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS 7. PUBLIG COMMENTS, NON.AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item tor a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Ciry of Budingane Pri ntecl on 1 2./3 0/201 5 Monday, January 4,2016 7:00 PM Council chambers STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Technical Studv Session on Peninsula Clean Enerqv Attachnents: Presentation Communitv Choice Enerov FAQ Meeting Agenda. Final January 4,2015 83670 Attachments: f. Adoption of a Resol ution Awardinq a Construction Contract to JJR Conslru on. lnc., 2015 Sidewalk Reoair Proqra m. Citv Proiect No. 83820.and Authorizi no thefor the I\4 a er to Attachmenls: xecute the ruction Con Staff Reoort Resolution Bid Summarv Proiect tion MaD Constru on Contract Aq reement Pintec, on 12/30/2015 City Council 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pu ed for separafe dlscussion. Any member of the pubtic wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's considerclon of the consent calendar. a. Approval of CiW Council Meetinq Minutes of December 7. 2015 Allachments: MeetinoMinutes(12rl15) b. Recommendation to Confirm Mavo/s Council Assiqnments for 2016 Attachments: StaffReDort 20'16 Council Assionments c. open Nomination Period to Fill one vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission Afiachmen'E: Staff Reoort d. Adootion of a Resolution Suoportino lhe California Drive Bicvcle Facilities lmorovements Proiect and Submittinq an Aoolication for Measure A Pedestrian and Bicvcle Prooram Fundino for the California Drive Bicvcle Facilities lmorovements Proiect Atlachrnents: Staff ReDort Resolution Pedestrian and Bicvcle Proqram Guidelines e. Adoption of a Resolution Acceptino the Airport Boulevard Force Main and Carolan Avenue Utilih,/ lmprovements Proiect bv K.J. Woods Construction. lnc., Citv Proiect No. Staff Reoort Resolution Final Prooress Pavment Proiect Location MaD 'lO. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) 1I. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councit Members repott on commiftees and activities and make announcements. {2. FUTUREAGENDAITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a,November Permit Activitv b. Commission Minutes: T rafflc, S afetv and Parkinq. Nove mber 12.2015 Page 3 Printe.! on 7230/2015Ciry of Budingane City Council : .'.: ,, ., Meeting Agenda - Final January 4' 20'16 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a, Public Hearino to Consider an Aopeal of the Beautification Commission's ApDroval of the Removal of a Redwood Tree at 2325 Pooov Drive afiachments: Staff ReDort Protected Tree Removal Permit Kieltv Arborist Reoort BKG Structural Report Citv Arborist ADoroval Letter Dated October 5. 20'15 lJrban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance Coleman Aooeal Letter Dated October 19. 2015 November 5. 2015 Staff ReDo( and Pictures November 5. 2015 Beautifcation Commission Minutes Aooeal Letter to Citv Council Dated November'16. 20'15 Lefters and Emails ftom Residents Reoardino ADoeal.odf b. Resolution Aporovino and Lewinq 2016 San Mateo Countv Tourism Business lmorovement District Assessments on Hotel Businesses within the District Attachments: Staff Reoort Resolution c. Apolication for an Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Auto Rental. Storaqe and Repair Faciliv Located at 778 Burlwav Road Atlechments: Staff ReDort Apolication for Conditional Use Permit Extension ADD|icant Letter of ExDlanation Julv 1. 2013 Citv Council Minutes Mav 28. 2013 Planninq Commission Minutes City Council Meeting Agenda - Final January 4, 2016 Pdnted on 1230/2015 14. 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 fol public review at the City Clerk's office, CW Ha , 501 Pimrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the Cityb website at www.buflingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at thls s/te. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City council Meeting - Tuesday, January 19, 2015 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG . GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS' Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made availabte for public inspection at the Water Oftice counter at City Hall at 501 Pimrose Road duing notmal business hours. BURIINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of December 7, 2015 A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGEOFALLE IANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector Sandie Amott. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Nagel, Oniz, Root MEMBERSABSENT: None 4. REPORTOUTFROMCLOSEDSESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Nagel reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Laura Fanucchi from HIP housing presented the council with copies of HIP Housing's 2016 Calendar. Each month is a different student's drawing of their house with a sentence about what home means to them. Michael Barber from Supervisor Dave Pine's office presented Mayor Nagel and Councilmember Root with resolutions thanking them for their service to the community. 8. CONSENTCALENDAR Mayor Nagel asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar, none were pulled. I Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes December 7, 2015 Agenda I ten 8a Meeting Datue: 1/04/!6 1. CALLTOORDER Agenda Item 8a Meeting Dai'e: L/04/!6 Councilmember Brownrigg adopted the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16,2015 CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meetings ofNovember 16,2015. b. ADOPTION OF THE 2016 CITY COT]NCIL CALENDAR CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the 2016 City Council Calendar. c. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL VACANCY ON THE SAN MATEO COL]NTY MOSOUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the San Mateo County Mosquito & Vector Control District Board of Trustees. HR Loomis requested Council approve Resolution Number 100-2015. DPW Murhrza requested Council approve Resolution Number 102-2015. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE RXSULTS OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER3 2015 CC Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve Resolution Number 103-2015 declaring Emily Beach and Donna Colson elected to the Burlingame City Council. 9. PUBLICHEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS There were no staff reports. Burlingame Ciry Council Unapproved Minutes December 7, 2015 2 d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF A PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKERPOSITION TO A TREE WORKER POSITION e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGES TO THE PART-TIME SALARY AND BENEFIT RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE PART-TIME SALARY AND BENEFIT PLAN HR Loomis requested Council approve Resolution Number 101-2015. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT FOR SUBSURFACE SEWER EASEMENT AT I2O9 MILLS AVENUE Agenda I ten 8a Meeting DaLe: 7/04/L6 11. COT]NCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City 12. FUTURE AGENDAITEMS There were no future agenda items. I3. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety and Parking, October 8,2015 and Library Board of Trustees, October 20,2015. L4. CEREMONIAL a. INSTALLATION AND ROTATION OF COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor Nagel began by introducing the dignitaries that were in the audience: San Mateo County Treasurer- Tax Collector Sandie Amott, Michael Barber from the Burlingame Elementary School District, Greg Land from the San Mateo Union High School District, and former Burlingame Mayors - Rosalie O'Mahony, Jerry Deal, Joe Galligan, and Cathy Baylock. As well former City Clerk Mary Ellen Kearney and former Councilmember Russ Cohen were in attendance. Mayor Nagel explained the rotation process for Councilmembers stating that in 1999, the Council had adopted a formal rotation process for establishing the Mayor for the City of Burlingame. She stated that this procedure ensures that each Councilmember will become Mayor in a routine, pre-established order. Therefore in accordance with the procedure, Councilmember Ann Keighran is the Mayor and Presiding Ofhcer of the Council for the coming 12 months. As well, under the rotation Councilmember Ricardo O(iz is established as the Vice Mayor for the coming 12 months. With that Mayor Nagel tumed the meeting over to Mayor Keighran. Mayor Keighran presented a plaque to Mayor Nagel in recognition of her service to the City of Burlingame, not only as Mayor this past year, but also for her 12 years of service on the Council. As well, Mayor Keighran thanked Councilmember Root for his service. With that Mayor Nagel and Councilmember Root were excused from the dais. Mayor Keighran called up Emily Beach to be swom in as a Councilmember. Her husband Duff with the assistance of their two children, Kate and Matthew, swore her in. Mayor Keighmn then asked Councilmember Beach to take her seat on the dais. Mayor Keighran next called up Donna Colson to be swom in as a Councilmember. San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector Sandie Amott swore in Donna Colson, who was accompanied by her husband Eric, their two children Clare and Grace and her parents. Mayor Keighran then asked Councilmember Colson to take her seat on the dais. Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes December 7, 2015 3 Agenda I tem 8a Meeting Date: 7/04/16 Mayor Keighran next explained how the seniority of the two new Councilmembers would be determined. She stated that under the formai rotation procedures created by the Council in 1999, iftwo or more new Councilmembers were elected, the Councilmembers would draw staws to determine their position relative to each other on the rotation list. Councilmember Colson drew the long straw and therefore Councilmember Colson in terms of the rotation has seniority over Councilmember Beach. Mayor Keighran asked if the new Councilmembers had any comments. Councilmember Beach thanked her fiiends, family and supporters for their assistance and promised to service the community to the best ofher abilities. Councilmember Colson thanked her friends, family and the City of Burlingame for their support and stated that she looked forward to serving the City. Mayor Keighran welcomed the two new Councilmembers and opened the floor to public comments. San Mateo County Treasurer-Tax Collector Sandie Arnott stated that she looked forward to the work that Donna Colson would do for the City and stated that she was a perfect fit for the job. Former Burlingame Mayor Cathy Baylock presented the two new Councilmembers with flowers and wished them both good luck. Former Burlingame Mayor Joe Galligan congratulated Councilmember Beach and Colson on their elections and tasked them with keeping in mind what Burlingame was and is now. Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes December 7, 2015 4 15. ADJOTJR}{MENT Mayor Keighran adjoumed the meeting at 8:43 p.m. in memory of Boyd Johnson. Respectfu lly submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 4, 2016 Honorable Mayor and City Council January 4, 20{ 6 Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk - (650) 558-7203 Recommendation to Confirm Mayor's Council Assignments for 2016 AGENDA No: 8b To: Date: From: Subject: Staff recommends the City Council review, make changes if necessary, and approve the Mayor's Council assignments for 2016. Exhibit: . 2016 Council Assignments 1 RECOMMENDATION Committee Schedule Comments Bold names are members, alternates in pa rentheses. t ABAG - City Delegate Quarterly BrownrigB (Ortiz) 2 Airport Land Use Commission Quarterly meetings held at Burlingame City Hall c/cAG subcom- mittee Ortiz (Beach) 3 Airport Round Table Meets quarterly on 1't Wednesday each month, 7 p.m. 4 Audit Committee Meets 2-3 times per year, includ ing once in December Brownri8g & Colson 5 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) Meets 3rd Thursday of every other month, starting January O'Mahony 6 Caltrain Modernization Policymaker Group Monthly 7 Central County Fire Board Fot 2016, meetings begin at 4 p.m. on: Feb. 10 at Burlingame Apr. 13 at Hillsborough Sept. 14 at Burlingame Dec. 14 at Hlllsborough Minimum 2- year terms. Brownrigg joined in Dec. 20\r, Keighran joined in Mar.2013 8 chamber of Commerce Liaison 2nd Tuesday of each month, noon-1:30 p.m. 9 2nd Thursday of each month, 6:30 P.m. Ortiz (Brownrigg) 10 City/Schools Lia ison Committee 3 times a year, usually midweek at I a.m. Keighran & Ortiz Civic Engagement Subcommittee As needed Beach & Keighran L2 Community Center Master Plan Advisory Committee As needed Beach (Brownrigg)13 Commute.org (formerly called Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance CITY OF BURLINGAME 2016 COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS - Revised Ll4116 Beach (Ortiz) Brownrigg & Keighran ortiz (Brownrigg) Keighran & Beach City/County Association of Governments (c/cAG) tl Keighran & Ortiz Every other month on Tuesday or Thursday at 8 a-m. 74 27 Keighran & ColsonAs neededDog Park Task Force Brownrigg & ColsonAs needed15Downtown Plan lm plementation Keighran & Colson2nd Wednesday of the month, 8:30 a.m. Economic Development Subcommittee Brownri8g & Bea€hAs neededEl Camino Subcommittee77 Beach (Brownrigg)3rd Thursday in January, April, June and September, 5:30 p.m. at Hall of Justice in Redwood city 18 Emergency Services Council (quarterly) Beach (ortiz)On the 3rd Wednesday of January, May and September, at 6 p.m. Fire ALS Joint Powers Authority19 Quarterly, 10 a.m.- noon, location varies 20 Gra nd Boulevard Task Force Colson (Ortiz)Quarterly on Wednesdays at 3 p.m. Housing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) Qua rterly, S:15 a.m. (location rotates among 6 cities) Peninsula Cities Consortium22 Colson (Keighran)4th Thu rsday of every month , 7 p.m. at 400 Ha rbor Boulevard, Belmont Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE)?3 Keighran & ColsonAs neededRecreation Task Force24 Colson (Keighran)MonthlySan Mateo county Affordable Housing Task Force Brownrigg (Beach)South Bay Waste Management Authority26 Members Elected or Selected to the Following, Not Appointed by Mayor Brownrigg & OrtizSelected6 times a year, generally Tuesday evenings Peninsula Health Care District Long Term Planning Committee 21 16 Ortiz (Brownrigg) Ortiz (Brownrigg) 25 Quarterly,2 pm, Thursdays All Council Members lnvited to Following Committees/Groups AI4 dlnner meetings per year, plus January reception for newly elected council members 28 Peninsula Division League of California Cities AIUsually 4th Friday of month, rotating city 29 Council of Cities AGENDA NO: 8c STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January 4, 2016 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill One Vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill Donna Colson's vacant seat on the Parks and Recreation Commission. The recommended due date is February 19, 2016. This will allow applicants two opportunities (January 21 and February 18, 2016) to attend a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. The City maintains a list of all those who have applied for Commission appointments over the past two years. All applicants on this list will be informed of the vacancies. 1 Date: January 4, 2016 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant - (650) 558-7204 RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO 8d MEETING DATE: January 4, 2016 To: Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council January 4, 2016 Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230 Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the California Drive Bicycle Facilities lmprovements Project and Submitting an Application for Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Prog ram Grant Funding for the same Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution supporting the California Drive Bicycle Facilities lmprovements Project and submitting an application for Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Grant Funding for the same. BACKGROUND California Drive is a major north-south bicycle route connecting the Burlingame Avenue Train Station, the Broadway Train Station, Downtown Burlingame Avenue, the Broadway Commercial District and a series of existing and newly planned housing projects. This bicycle route is identified in the City's bicycle master plan and the countywide regional bicycle master plan. California Drive currently has two lanes in each direction between Broadway and the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Area, and has one lane in each direction north of Broadway. Currently, the roadway facilities along California Drive are shared by both the bicyclists and the motorists through the provision of sharrows (Class 3 Bicycle Facility). The roadway is increasingly used by bicyclists traveling between the transit stations, commercial areas and the residential areas, and is in need of an improved and safer bicycle facilities infrastructure. Additionally, at the January 31, 2015 City Council goal setting session, the Council expressed an interest in exploring the feasibility of installing a dedicated bicycle lane along California Drive, particularly between Broadway and Murchison Avenue, and subsequently approved $200,000 to conduct a feasibility/planning study for the same as part of the Fiscal Year 201 5-16 Capital lmprovement Program Budget. OISCUSSION on November 10, 2015, the san Mateo county Transportation Authority (sMcTA) issued a call For projects (CFP) under the Bicycle/Pedestrian Measure A Grant Program, with an application submittal deadline of December 18, 2015. Under the Measure A Program, an agency can submit up to a maximum of three projects for grant funding. The program can provide a maximum total of $1,000,000 in grant funds, and it requires a minimum of 10% local matching funds. ln addition, 1 From: RECOMMENDATION Adoption of a Resolution Supporling the California Drive Bicycle Facilities lmprovements Project January 4, 2016 the program requires that the sponsoring agency provide a Governing Body Resolution supporting the project and the grant application along with meeting the eligibility criteria. Staff reviewed the application criteria and requirements, and believes that the California Drive Bicycle Facilities lmprovements project is the most qualified project for this grant funding. Staff therefore submitted the grant application before the deadline of December 18, 2015. Staff now recommends that the City Council approve the Governing Board Resolution, which must be submitted by January 15, 2016. lf the City is successful, the Measure A grant will provide necessary funding for planning, designing and improving bicycle facilities along California Drive. Although there is no detail engineering design developed at this time, the preliminary cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $1,200,000 for the purpose of this grant. Final costs will be determined upon completion of the detail engineering design and scope of work. Additionally, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission discussed this project at their December 1 0, 2015 meeting and unanimously supported the project. Furthermore, staff will be conducting public outreach to obtain inpul from stakeholders during the project development phase. The estimated project cost of $1,200,000 is preliminary at this time, and may be subject to change depending upon the final engineering design and selecled scope of work. The Measure A grant will provide a maximum of $1,000,000, with local City matching funds in the amount of $200,000. Staff will return to the City Council in the future if additional funding is required depending on the scope of selected work. Exhibits: . Resolution . Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Guidelines 2 FISCAL IMPACT RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA DRIVE BICYCLE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION FOR MEASURE A PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT RESOLVED by the City Council of City of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, California Drive is the north south bicycle route connecting the Burlingame Avenue Train Station, the Broadway Train Station, Downtown Burlingame Avenue, the Broadway Commercial District and a series of existing and newly approved housing projects; and WHEREAS, California Drive currently has two lanes in each direction between Broadway and the Burlingame Avenue Downtown Area, and has one lane in each direction between the Millbrae Bart Station and the Broadway Station; and WHEREAS, the roadway currently provides bicycle utilization through the provision of sharrows; and WHEREAS, the roadway is heavily used by bicyclists traveling between the transit stations, commercial areas and the residential areas, and does not have a dedicated bicycle facilities infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to sponsor the implementation of the project scope; and WHEREAS, the City seeks $1,000,000 in Measure A Grant funds for the project scope; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is proposing to address the bicycle infrastructure needs by planning, designing and constructing bicycle facilities improvements along the said roadway; and WHEREAS, the City estimates the preliminary cost of designing and constructing the improvements to be approximately $1,200,000 to implement the project scope; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure to allow the collection and distribution by the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) of a half-cent transactions and use tax in San Mateo County for 25 years, with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan presented to the voters (Original Measure A); and WHEREAS, on November 2, 2004, the voters of San Mateo County approved the continuation of the collection and distribution by the TA of the half-cent transactions and use tax for an additional 25 years to implement the 2004 Transportation Expenditure Plan beginning January 1, 2009 (New Measure A); and WHEREAS, the TA issued a Call for Projects for the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program on November 10,2015, and WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the City in support of the City's application for $1,000,000 in San Mateo County Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds for implementing the California Drive Bicycle Facilities lmprovements Project; and WHEREAS, the TA requires a governing board resolution from the City committing the City to the completion of the project, including the commitment of matching funds in the amount of $200,000 needed for implementation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that the City council of the city of Burlingame 1. Ratifies and supports the submission of an application for TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds seeking $1,000,000 for the california Drive Bicycle Facilities I mprovements Project. 2. Authorizes the city Manager to execute a funding agreement with the san Mateo County Transportation Authority to encumber any TA Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funds awarded. 3. Hereby commits $1,2OO,OOO to the completion of said project, including the commitment of $200,000 of matching funds needed for implementation, if awarded ,a the requested TA Measure A Grade Separation Program funds. Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4rH day of Januarv, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES,COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES ABSENT: City Clerk 2OI5 MEASIJRJ APEDESTRIAN AI{D BICYLE PROGRAM CALL FOR PROJECTS Ttansportation Authority INIRODUCTION The San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) is pleased to announce a Call for Projects flom the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program. The goal ofthe Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is to fund specific projects that improve bicycling and walking accessibility and safety in San Mateo County, helping to encourage more residents to participate in active transportation. Bicycling and walking are sustainable forms of transportation that help meet local mobility needs. APPLICATION MATERIALS The Call for Projects packet consists ofthese guidelines, an application form, and a template funding application. These documents and other related reference materials can be found at the following link www.smcta. com/2 0lsPedBikecFP SCIIEDIJLE November 10, 2015 Workshop November 12, 2015 December 18, 2015 4:00 PM Evaluation Period December 2015 - January 2016 Draft Recommendations/TA Board Approval o San Mateo County Transportation Authority Attn: Pete Rasmussen 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Primary application contacts for any questionVconcerns: Joel Slavit,email: slaviti@samtrans.com I phone: 650-508-6476 Pete Rasmussen,email: rasmussen tTl I phone: 650-508-6343 CALL FOR PROJECTS GT]IDELINES November 10,2015 Call for Projects Issued Project Applications I)ue February - March 2016 Applicants must submit and one electronic conv ofthe completed application along with all the required materials. All completed applications must be received at the San Mateo County Transportation Authority by Friday, December 18 at 4:00 p.m. Late or incomplete applications will not be accepted. Please submit electronic and printed applications to: o callfomroiects@samtrans.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND In 2004, the voters ofSan Mateo County reauthorized the Measure A Program and approved an extension ofthe half-cent sales tax for transportation improvements for another 25 years (2009-2033). A provision ofthe 2004 New Measure A Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) provides that three percent ofthe sales tax revenues be allocated for the construction offacilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. Per the TEP, it is estimated that the sales tax will generate $45 million (in 2004 dollars) over the 25- year life ofthe measure for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. 2. AVAILABLE FT]NDING A total of up to $4.9 million is available for this two-year funding cycle, which covers the period from March 2016 through March 2018. 3. ELIGIBILITY a. Eligible Projects The Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle program provides funding for the project development, right ofway acquisition and construction offacilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Right ofway acquisition is also an eligible expense provided that the proposal has a completed environmental clearance and an estimate ofvalue prepared by a right ofway professional that is conducted pursuant to industry standards (for example of industry standards, see the Caltrans Right of Way Manual, Chapter 4 "Estimating" at: htto://www.dot.ca.qov/hq/ro rowman/manual/ch4.odfl. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to: paths, trails and bridges over roads and highways. A partial list ofcandidate projects is contained in the TA TEP, as noted below. This is not an exhaustive list and additional candidate projects, provided they are located in San Mateo County, may be submitted. Partial List ofCandidate Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects Route l/Santa Rosa Avenue pedestrian overcrossing Route I pedestrian/bike trail from Montara through Half Moon Bay Route 35/Route I pedestrian/bike overcrossing Millbrae Avenuefu S l0l pedestrian/bike overcrossing Hillcrest Blvd./US l0l pedestrian/bike overcrossing to Bay Trail US l0l near Hillsdale pedestrian/bike overcrossing fi19/l5 l. Background 2. Available Funding 3. Eligibility 4. Applications 5. Evaluation 6. Other Policies/Guidelines for this Call for Projects Ralston Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Willow Road/Bayfront Expressway pedestrian/bike tunnel upgrade Willow Road/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Portola Road pedestrian/bike path paving habilitat ineli ble b. Eligible Sponso$ (Applicants) Per the TA TEP, eligible project sponsors for Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle funds are the cities in San Mateo County and the County of San Mateo. Other interested agencies may partner with an eligible sponsor; however, only eligible project sponsors may submit applications. 4. APPLICATIONS u Application Caps A maximum ofthree applications, in a total amount ofup to $1,000,000 from the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle program, may be submitted per sponsor. b. Governing Board Resolulions A sponsor agency goveming board resolution in support ofthe project application is required. Ifthe sponsor agency will notbe able to obtain a goveming board resolution prior to the application deadline, the application will be accepted on an interim basis with an endorsement letter from the sponsor agency's City or County Manager until an adopted goveming board resolution can be obtained. Ifthe application is to be considered for the programming and allocation of Measure A funds,an aooroved governins board on should be submitted lo the TA no later than January 15, 2016 (after the application due date.) c. Funding Agreements A funding agrcement template is included as part ofthe Call for Projects packet. Potential project sponsors should review the template prior to submitting applications. Any concerns or changes suggested by sponsors should be brought to the attention ofthe TA staffapplication contacts, as noted on the first page ofthese guidelines, by the December 18, 2015 application deadline if they are to be considered by the TA. d. Lelters ofSupporl Applicants are encouraged to provide letters ofsupport from stakeholders, as the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is highly competitive and historically has been oversubscribed, but this is not a requirement. 5. EVALUATION All candidate projects submitted for funding consideration will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria as listed below. |19fi5 3 a, Proiect Readiness and Need - 35% Projecl Readiness o Clear and complete proposal . Right of Way certification complete (if applicable) . Permits, agreements and/or environmental clearance obtained (if applicable) o Results from a public planning process . Demonstratesstakeholdersupport o Has a solid funding plan Project Need . Meets commuter and/or recreation purpose r Identified pedeshian and/or bicycle need o Safetyimprovement/enhanc€ment b. Elfectiveness - 35% . Provides connectivity to pedestrian and bicycle system o Closes gap in countl,wide pedestrian and bicycle network o Enhances connectivity to schools, transit stations and other activity centers . Value: Benefit relative to the amount of funding requested (supports high impact, low cost projects - "bang for the buck") r Accommodates multiple transportation modes (pedestrian and bicycle) . Serves a low income/transit dependent population in the immediate vicinity c, Policv Consistency - l0oZ Projects should be consistent with local and countywide planning policies, processes and plans, which may include, but are not limited to the following: . TA 2004 Expenditure Plan . Coungwide Transportation Plan o San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (CBPP) o CiE Bicycle or Pedestrian Plan . City General Plan, Specific Plan, and/or other local plans . Grand Boulevard Initiative Guiding Principles o MTC Regional Priority Development Area (PDA) . Americans with Disabilities Act I UgfiS + d. fus[sg- l0% . Projects will be evaluated on the ability to leverage matching funds and the certainty ofthe matching firnds e. Sustainabilitv- l0% Erwironmental o Reduces emissions and improves air quality o Innovative low environmental impact/green development Supports Trawit Oriented Development (TOD) . Improves links for pedestrian and./or bicycle access between TOD, transit and other high use activity centers . Supports livable, walkable and healthy communities Economic Development o Integral transportation component that can support existing economic activity and help spur new economic development in the immediate vicinity 6. OTHER POLICIES/GI'IDELINES FOR TIIIS CALL FOR PROJECTS a. Timely Use of Funds Project must remain active to retain allocated funding. Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle program will be expected to be fully expended within two years for pre- ionstruction activities and three years for construction activities from the TA Board allocation date. A total offive years will be allowed if both pre-construction and construction are part ofthe Measure A allocated work scope. In the event that the Scope of Work cannot be completed within the defrned period (two, three, or five years), the Sponsor may request a time extension by providing a letter to the TA justiffing the need for additional time. Ifthe TA agrees to the extension, then an amendment to the funding agreement will need to be executed. b. Matching fands There is a ten percent minimum match requirement for this funding cycle. Ifthe sponsor's proposal is part ofa larger capital infrastructure project, the match must be directly related to the pedestrian and/or bicycle components ofthe project. Enhancements integral to the pedestrian and/or bicycle components ofa larger project, such as lighting and landscaping, may be considered as eligible match with suflicient justification from the sponsor. Elements ofa larger capital project not integral to the pedestrian and bicycle components or enhancements as noted above, such as costs associated with the replacement ofa sanitary sewer line, will not be considered as eligible match. Ifthe sponsor is unclear as to the eligible matching |]t9^5 5 costs ofa larger capital infrastructure project, the sponsor should check with the primary application contacts listed on the first page ofthese guidelines. c Allocations for a Scope of Work/Il{inimum Operable Segment with total costs in excess of $1 million lhat are notfully funded with the requested Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Programfunds Large capital infrastructure projects, such as a pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing ofa highway, with total costs in excess of the $l million Measure A funding cap, may be submitted for funding consideration even though the Scope of Work or minimum operable segment is not fully funded. Ifa funding allocation is awarded for such a project, the sponsor must secure the remaining matching funds needed to complete the requested scope ofworldminimum operable segrnent within one year of the Measure A funding award. A contingency list may be created should sponsors of large capital projects, as further described in the preceding paragraph, not be able to secure the remaining matching funds needed to deliver the requested Measure A scope of work/minimum operable segment. The contingency list would consist ofthe next highest ranking project(s) that the Board recommends funding in the event that a large capital infrastructure project, as described above, is not able secure the remaining funds needed to deliver the Measure A scope ofwork. d. Eligible Costs Measure A funds shall be used only for direct eligible costs to complete the scope of work. Development ofproposals/applications for Measure A funds and the review of funding agreements required for execution to receive Measure A funds are 4q! eligible for Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program funding. The TA, or its authorized agents, reserve the right to audit the sponsor project to ensure compliance with the terms of the sponsor's funding agreement. Progress Reporting Sponsors will be required to monitor and report project status during the implementation ofthe project scope ofwork. Progress reports will be due on a quarterly basis after the execution ofa funding agreement within 30 days ofthe end ofeach quarter and a final report will be required within 90 days ofSponsor's final acceptance ofthe Scope of Work.. A sponsor must be in good standing with the submittal ofprogress reports (within 30 days ofthe end ofeach quarter) prior to receiving reimbursement for eligible scope ofwork expenses. e 6 The extent ofother leveraged external funding for the project is an important consideration in the project evaluation. TA Measure A Local Streets and Transportation funds are an eligible source of matching funds. Funding from other Measure A funding categories, however, is not considered as eligible match. In- kind contributions must be documented and auditable. It9/15 f. Under-subscription Iffunds are undersubscribed in this cycle, the TA reserves the right not to fund project applications which do not satisfu the project merit evaluation criteria. g. Cosl increases Projects which are allocated Measure A funds are not guaranteed to receive additional Measure A funds if the cost ofthe project scope increases. It will be the responsibility ofthe sponsor to take the lead in identifting and securing additional funds. Sponsors can work with the TA and other funding entities to secure additional funds, as well as apply for additional Measure A funds through subsequent funding cycles. h. Non-sapplantotion of funds Sponsors are required to certifu that Measure A funds awarded in this cycle will not replace existing funds. L Reimhursement Project costs incurred prior to the execution ofa funding agreement are not eligible for reimbursement. No funding advances will be allowed. Documentation must accompany all requests for reimbursement. j. Scope change Project sponsors seeking a change in project scope after TA Board approval ofthe Measure A allocation must obtain approval from the TA or risk losing the Measure A funds. Costs incuned that are not part ofthe Measure A-funded project scope will be ineligible for reimbursement. l1t9/L5 '1 STAFF REPORT AGENOANO: 8e MEETING OATE: January 4, 2016 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 4, 2016 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Airport Boulevard Force Main and Carolan Avenue Utility lmprovements Project by K.J. Woods Construction, lnc., City Project No. 83670 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Airport Boulevard Force Main and Carolan Avenue Utility lmprovements Project by K. J. Woods Construction, lnc., City Pro.ject No. 83670, in the amount ot $1,122,719. BACK ROUND On January 5, 2015, the City Council awarded the Airport Boulevard Force Main and Carolan Avenue Utility lmprovements Project to K. J. Woods Construction, lnc., in the amount of $1,128,000. The sewer force main system on Airport Boulevard was originally constructed in the early 1960's and provides sewer services to the businesses and hotels in the Bayfront area. The force main experienced multiple failures/collapses in the last few years resulting in emergency repairs. The project rehabilitated approximately 3,100 linear feet of existing 8-inch diameter asbestos cement sanitary sewer force main using cured-in-place pipe. The new improvements to the system will prevent future failures and disruption of sewer services to the businesses and hotels in the Bayfront area. The water and sewer main systems on Carolan Avenue were approximately 60 and 100 years old, respectively, and had reached their design life cycle. The rehabilitation of these utilities was accelerated to ensure that the underground utilities are installed prior to the beginning of the Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project. The project upgraded approximately 1,300 linear feet of 6-inch and 8-inch diameter sanitary sewer main and upgraded approximately 770 linear feet of existing 6-inch diameter water main. DISCUSSION The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final construction cost of $1,122,719 is $5,281 below the awarded contract amount. The net decrease in construction cost was due to ad,lustments in bid quantities, change 1 RECOMMENDATION Resolution Accepling the Airport Boulevatd Force Main and Carolan Avenue Utility lmprovements Project by K.J. Woods Construction, lnc. January 4, 2016 order work due to unforeseen field conditions and deduction of funds from Contractor's payments for overtime reimbursement. The following are the estimated final project expenditures Construction costs Construction Management and lnspection Administration and QA Testing $1,122,719 $ 175,320 $88,000 Total $1,386,039 There are adequate funds available in the Capital lmprovements budget to cover the estimated final costs. Exhibits: . Resolution . Final Progress Payment . Project Location Map 2 FISCAL IMPACT RESOLUTTON NO._ ctw PRoJEcT NO. 83570 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by K. J. Woods Construction, lnc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated February 3, 2015, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 83670. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor l, Meaghan Hassel-shearer, city clerk of the city of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the :[day of Januarv, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING THE AIRPORT BOULEVARD FORCE MAIN AND CAROLAN AVENUE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION, INC. 8883388888888898338888888888888e888388888888 ^i .: n d 6 !i .,i - .,i ; . 8888888888EEq88884 EEEEECEEETFCCgBEqS 88t888888 E€8EAR 9 S E 8888EEEeqqqqq CEEEEEE EPEEF 8A88AA83388tt38888 EEEEfrEEE$BEHEAgECR oe9c9qeqqqcl3E3;8fi 3{6Nr-No-@oofr E{:ooooooooooqce99qqq P9Xj; e 19 e\hz fi \-,\ fifi $ s 5 5 6 S S 5 5 $ 5 5 : 5 6 6 S S $ 6 6 t 6 fi 5 5 5 6 6 ----Bse-FgB-o-*reo*s3e-ENP.e------*-oFse:d 3?38**FH*R-EEHEpEEABREgEEFESEBCASeRqES?BRE $EE$9$tE$$$6E6EEf $$86$ gSE$gE€E$$g6IEEEE$6 g EF9EFRREuE8g338B:e'REE g53Se3F9gp'gBg9E9EEC 3 8 8 8 8 3 I I 8 I I 8 8 8 I 3 I 8 8 8 I 8 8 8 I I C C C E q q q -e q q q c -E _8 _8 q e E E E 3 E E c s c s e B E e g B E € E. E E E E C E R E E E C R g .I .q E E -B & B i,E 8 A .-in - e=$ 3 *?ac-2 E ; f5;:EE 3.i b99$r,,$i iEEgEEg€ 6E t: 6 :: aslEE 5yc6= 5 @6 Eoo>E e q!P:i t: tE iEErr 3 Es 5 EEg;.E*iE"tiIB?,IEiE *i!; ,E* tcEIEEEiiii,E EEEi leEi e iiEE,EEliEEiittHEEEEiEF E'iEu'€E'E,,iEIEEE iEEEE;iE;EEiEEEEEESESE!iIig;EEEEEEEigFiiEEE -N.y6oF6oP::E:9P:gERERRFR&FRRg53BSg3533?5C SEEEEE:aaa55 8888E8p883:9 8338888388838 ECECRCeA{CE8E xss***J*fi.*rASRRRR*R884833:A EEegRi.'389333 88tP3 sE8!q 5 AF q8888 38859 ^jjEdi .i @dt ! E^t5E 3&aE Einp$! t EoE 6 ;-Ea E eoPq 9 3ri* : : EEz e Es Prgc ; ,9; : Ei3,c ,e= E?c€[--;q =;; i'tFa< EgEC ?ig +EE:t;iIc EIiactEEE IEEi $gE3EI?!Ea E !: E !! e*!:;6;E ErEE?::EqEl*[3:EP€EFEEB€6;gEE.:Z>OF.ror<adzFoE s g -Noioono@9:S?: =: IT 5< 13dF 69 ZN E 6e i9 E'-9 i- EEe 29 od g ! 6 q-, EZeSt YSE.iai;z *;:ao=:E E;EE P Ea = X;55e< f"6.i 6U3 B0fx RScd :€38 P9 ----ne:-f"-!H -^^a-n7<u<an-r,)JraYu)u)), isf,e !s IE P o I : E 3 8 o E EE 8EoE E8 s I o E p t"l!= D\I 6:E,! I .{\ --L --l o 5d-,,6!{ Efr ct 3s E3 $ \ 6t 94 $t d I 883EEtERE .j ri .i ; n.i E888888R38 - .t .i i a_.i rfiEdEtddtisgt888g88g 8EEEqB88!C No!o.F.^r.q6.- r8q88E8Rrq i - 0- - - - a - n- 9&q9P?3.+..,t r*-!-.-i-- 66 0O66EE RRFE Es i533ir iltl gg5lgiS *II?EITT ElSlEtEEr! !ESEEEEBP !rf,3333iE; ;!f$llEsEr!!E!!!r-U: EE5}Er[!:E 6BB688bEEE id 9 l & E"E" Fi o * 6 o EE 9e I 5? t i6 =., tU EE 6F t 8g 3E E o q 9 3 EAqB .eEpe r88qglFc $E6EppBp 8888 g!ee e I !{ bEe E B? 3 p!e':5iEt u.i'i AEts2E? 8883 I ! i ! I I i I I i : I I I I t ; :, ! I I. ! ! : ! ; I I I i.; I II I I i : I I : i I I I I o o4 Alrport Blvd. and Carolan Ave. Utlllty lmprovements Prolect PROJECT LOCATION MAP - - LtM TS oF saNtTARy sEvvER |MPRoVEMENTS Nl LIMTS OF WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENIS SAN FRANCISCO BAY .o I l08L totBAYSHOREfRtEwaY a z o I ,o 4 I z = FF coE o uo 4Y 4 s44/ LIM TS OF SANIIARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AIRPORT BL\O STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: January 4, 2016 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 4, 2016 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works - (650) 558-7230 Subject:Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to JJR Construction, lnc., for the 2015 Sidewalk Repair Program, City Project No. 83820, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to JJR Construction, lnc., for the 2015 Sidewalk Repair Program in the amount of $869,082 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the contract. On October 4, 2O1O, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1858-2010 implementing the 50/50 sidewalk repair program. The 50/50 sidewalk repair program is a turnkey program providing the most efficient method to address damaged sidewalks and reduce liability to property owners and the City. The program is designed to repair defective sidewalks to reduce potential tripping hazards throughout the city. Several areas throughout the city have been identified and prioritized for repairs based on the amount and severity of damaged sidewalks. Damaged sidewalks in need of replacement have been marked in the field. Upon Council approval of award, staff will follow the noticing procedures in accordance with the ordinance to inform affected property owners about the program implementation. The property owners will be provided with an estimated cost of repairs based on bid prices. Property owners will be given the option to participate in the sidewalk repair program or to arrange for the repairs themselves. The program will involve 697 properties, with an average estimated cost of approximately $381 per property. Upon completion of work, a report of final expenditures will be prepared for Council review and approval. A public hearing will be held to consider any objections or protests from the affected property owners. Once approved by the City Council, the costs for repairs will be forwarded to the San Mateo County Assessor's Office for collection through the property tax bills. 1 RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to JJR Construction, lnc-, for the 2015 Sidewalk Repair Program, City Project No. 83820 January 4,2016 The project was advertised for bids on November 12,2015. The bids were opened on December 10, 2015, and five bids were received ranging from $869,082 to $1,510,716. The apparent low bid was submitted by Rosas Brothers Construction in the amount of $968,'100. However, a comprehensive review of bids showed that JJR Construction, lnc. had made a summation error, and actually submitted the lowest responsive bid. JJR Construction, lnc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $869,082, which is 5.5% lower than the engineer's estimate of $920,000. JJR Construction, lnc. has met the project requirements and has successfully completed similar projects for other public agencies. As a result, staff recommends that Council award the construction contract to JJR Construction, lnc. The project scope consists of replacing existing damaged sidewalks to address tripping hazards. The project also includes the replacement of old and damaged curb and gutter, and construction of new curb ramps in compliance with ADA (Americans with Disability Act). Estimated Pro iect ExDenditu res. The following are the estimated project construction expenditures: Construction Construction ContingencY (1 5%) $ 869,082 $ 130,362 $ 100,556Engineering administration and lnspection Total $1,100,000 Fundin q Ava ilabilitv: There are adequate funds available in the Capital lmprovement Program for sidewalk, curb ramps, curb and gutter to complete the project. Exhibits: o Resolution . Bid Summary . Project Location Map . Construction Contract Agreement 2 DISCUSSION FISCAL IMPACT RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO JJR CONSTRUCTION' INC. FOR THE 2015 SIDEWALK REPAIR PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT CITY PROJECT NO.83820 WHEREAS, on November 12,2015, the city issued notice inviting sealed bid proposals for the 2015 Sidewalk Repair Program, CITY PROJECT NO 83820; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2015, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, JJR Construction, lnc. submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $869,082. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of 2015 Sidewalk Repair Program for said project in the amount of $869,082, and the same hereby is accepted; and BE tT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into betvveen the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and hereby is, authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I,MEAGHANHASSEL-SHEARER,CityClerkofthecityofBur|ingame,dohereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the city council held on the 4th day of January, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS City Clerk AYES: NOES: ABSENT: a, 6 E E6 "9 BA 4 E E E ! !ic6I?A 6d EE e a EI u fr d fi ts ts fix 6 fi E 6 fi 6 d * u B tr 6 6 F E s H 4 a 5 E E B 5 I gI a E e p U a 3 I E E € a t4 E F 5 5 6 P a I E i a e E E I s E I e 2 xi 6 ts H 6 H 6 z s a EI d E E 6 g E e 6 2 f e H I a ts 2 E d E E t a a E 3 E I E 1 B a t H p 1 2 d j 5 : , 5 2 6' 66 8E "s E zI B E E ;E8J E3 E E B I ; E E B B E j a I s E E E I d E 6 ft, E 5 3 6 6 E x a E B a g E >, 6 5 z 6 E E E e e E E6 I g 6 s 2 E B b E 2 a 5 I s 6 I E 5 e 2 ,l F E 6 aI h Z E E 8 n 6 E Z 8 E E 9 s 8 E fi & H .I,1 7 a a E fi ts 2 ;I ; 3 ts E E 5 E a ? I B ? a E H 2 a E E , H ; H ? I d ftt & E I 6 I 44.r, FEBfr"x9g EHEA l ! =trOo9S _ t3tgci =<zufruulrtII'?\<-)oJoil.<te=o Lr.l >OF66 q:, o(\t i I 'i._ ,, \ ,,i-. li THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on 2015, by and between the clTY oF BURLINGAME, a Municipal corporation, hereinafter called "city", and J JR Construction, lnc , a State of incorporation, hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on Januarv 4, 2015, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to contractor, which the council found to be the lowest responsive, responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the construction of said improvements, 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract between city and contractor consists of the following documents: this Agreement; Notice lnviting Sealed Bids, attached hereto as Exhibit B; the accepted Bid Proposal, attached hereto as Exhibit C; the provisions contained in the contract book titted "2015 Sidewalk Maintenance Program, city Project No. 83820', attached as Exhibit A; the complete General Provisions and Special Provisions set forth AGREEMENT. 1 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 2015 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO. 83820 NOW, THEREFORE, lT lS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scooe of work. contractor shall perform the work described in those contract Documents CNtitICd: 2015 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, CIry PROJECT NO' 83820' in the State of California Standard Specifications for Construction of Local Streets and Roads, July 2006 edition, as promulgated by the California Deparlment of Transportation; prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law; and all bonds; which are collectively hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents, which are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth herein. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of Eight hundred sixty-nine thousand eighty-two dollars ($869,082), called the "Contract Price'. This price is determined by the lump sum and unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. ln the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractois Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Termination At any time and with or without cause, the City may suspend the work or any portion of the work for a period of not more than 90 consecutive calendar days by notice in writing to Contractor that will fix the date on which work will be resumed. Contractor will be granted an adjustment to the Contract Price or an extension of the Time for Completion, or both, directly attributable to any such suspension if Contractor makes a claim therefor was provided in the Contract Documents. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events will justiflT termination of the contract by the City for cause: (1) Contractois persistent failure to perform the work in accordance with the Contract Documents; (2) Contractor's disregard of Laws or Regulations of any public body having jurisdiction; (3) Contractor's disregard of the authority of the Engineer; or (4) Contractor's violation in any substantial way of any provision of the Contract Documents. ln the case of any one or more of these events, the City, after giving Contractor and Contractor's sureties seven calendar days written AGREEMENT - 2 notice of the intent to terminate Contractor's services, may initiate termination procedures under the provisions of the Performance Bond. Such termination will not affect any rights or remedies of City against Contractor then existing or that accrue thereafter. Any retention or payment of moneys due Contractor will not release Contractor from liability. Contractor's services will not be terminated if Contractor begins, within seven calendar days of receipt of such notice of intent to terminate, to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within no more than 30 calendar days of such notice. Upon seven calendar days written notice to Contractor, City may, without cause and without prejudice to any other right or remedy of City, terminate the Contract for City's convenience. ln such case, Contractor will be paid for (1) work satisfactorily completed prior the effective date of such termination, (2) furnishing of labor, equipment, and materials in accordance with the Contract Documents in connection with uncompleted work, (3) reasonable expenses directly attributable to termination, and (4) fair and reasonable compensation for associated overhead and profit. No payment will be made on account of loss of anticipated profits or revenue or other economic loss arising out of or resulting from such termination. 5. Pro visions Cumulative The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 6. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage Prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: City Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 9401 0 AGREEMENT - 3 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Name Company Name Address 7. lnterpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 8. Waiver or Amendmeot. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. One or more waivers of any term, condition, or other provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach ofthe same or any other provision. 9. Controlli no Law This Agreement is to be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. '1 0. Successors and Assi onees. This Agreement is to be binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto but may not be assigned by either party without first obtaining the written consent of the other party. AGREEIVENT - 4 11. Severabilitv. lf any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid, void, or unenforceable by any court of lawful jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions of the Agreement shall not be affected thereby and shatl remain in full force and effect. lN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of five pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation BV Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane, City AttorneY ATTEST: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk "CONTRACTOR" Bv Print Name: Company Name AGREE[/ENT - 5 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9a MEETING DATE: January 4, 20'16 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 4, 2016 From:Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, Park Supervisor / Gity Arborist (650) 558-7334 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Beautification Commission's App roval of the Removal of a Redwood Tree ai2325 Poppy Drive On September 3, 2015, a Protected Tree Removal Permit was submitted for the removal of a Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive (Exhibit A). The permit was denied by the City Arborist until further evidence could be provided on the health and structure of the tree, and until the damage to the nearby structure could be confirmed. On September 29,2015, the permit was resubmitted along with an independent arborist's report (Exhibit B) and a structural engineer's report (Exhibit c). After reviewing both reports, the City Arborist approved removal (Exhibit D) based on the structure of the tree, the multiple codominant leaders, included bark, damage to the garage foundation and that the tree meets the requirements for removal per Chapter 11.06.060 d(1X2)(7) of the Municipal Code: tJrban Reforestation an Tree Protection Ordinance (Exhibit E). DISCUSSION The City Arborist's decision to remove the tree was appealed by John and Shirin Coleman (Exhibit F). The appeal was heard at the Novembet 5,2015 Beautification Commission meeting. During the meeting, a staff report (Exhibit G) was presented to the Commission. The Commission voted 3-2 to deny the appeal based on the potential liability and danger of tree failure and the significant damage the tree is causing to the existing garage (Exhibit H). The decision by the Beautification Commission was made based on the information provided by the independent arborist report, the structural report, and the City Arborist evaluation that the tree has poor structure, multiple codominant leaders, and is a potential hazard to the surrounding RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and review the Beautification Commission's decision to approve the removal of the Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive. The Council can then affirm (with or without modification) or reverse the decision of the Commission, or remand for further proceedings consistent with Council's direction. BACKGROUND 1 Redwood Tree Appeal 2325 Poppy Drive January 4, 2016 properties. The Beautification Commission also listened to public comment from the property owner and interested parties prior to voting on the matter. On November 16,2015, Mr. and Mrs. Coleman appealed the Beautification Commission decision to remove the tree to the City Council (Exhibit l). Definitions 1) Leader - primary trunk of a tree. Large, usually upright stem. 2) Codominant Leader - forked branches, stems or leaders nearly the same size in diameter arising from a common junction. 3) Included Bark - bark that becomes embedded in a crotch between branches and trunks or between codominant stems, causing a weak structure. No fiscal impact Exhibits: . Protected Tree Removal Permit . Kielty Arborist Report . BKG Structural Report . City Arborist Approval Letter Dated October 5, 2015 . Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance . Coleman Appeal Letter Dated October 19, 2015 . November 5, 2015 Staff Report and Piclures . November 5, 2015 Beautification Commission Minutes . Appeal Letter to City Council Dated November 16, 201 5 . Letters and Emails from Residents Regarding Appeal 2 FISCAL IMPACT PROTECTED TREEREMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Parks and Recreation DE srarrent 850 Burliagame Avenue, Burhngantq CA 94010 ?d0/ !(6t0) ss8-7330 The uuders gned wner of the property at:f 'n @ Frro +2ne-n {ta.tn.o-f Date Address;o hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more thaa I/3 ofthe canopy or roots ofthe following protected. tree(s): Specle Circumferencc: Location on Prop€rty Work to be Performed:Removal _ Trfun More Than ll3 of the Crown Reason Work is Neccssary: Note: A photograph of the must be submitted aloug with a $75,00 check to: City of Burtingam e. Acktirionql documentation malbe -ft@srequired to stqryorl renot'al Attach any docamenlation you may havi.@xample: Rqortfrom an - ar4tq. ei/G,.Independent Arborist, pictures of danaged slrucfilres, letters of concem from neighb ors, e tc..). -. A?+q.tsT OWNER@r/zr)L PHONE Lfu)3r-K Lo 3 tree(s) End a schematic drarving ofthe locstion ofthe tree(s) on the prop ery AtrAzlUarls, 3' .1 qn ADDRESS 5 *aaa-" EMAIL B il-"oua Src./g. g, rs \^c is:c6 tvt with the provisions ofthe slguDg this ttre all CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: NO^rqlacemem(s) required. Contact the parks DivMon at(650) 55E-7330 when iemoval(s) are completeil B-(LDING PROJECT: permit inelfective unril afier pbnning Commission review. DATE COMPLETED rhisworkshoutd!;:f;;,!l;r,,iyif;lT":,r:*;::fli:,;:,;!;;ip,l,,?#:f,r;trHf"* aDDlicant achowledqes cbirditions listed belofu and O1VNER SIGNATI'RE PERMIT - OFFICE to remove the above DATE PERMIT ETFECTT\IE PERMIT EXPIRES-_-_-- , -- Kielty Arborist Services LLC P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 Form + One Attn: Mr. Tim Raduenz 3841 246 steet #A San Frarcisco, CA 94114 Site: 2325 Poppy, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Raduenz, As requested on Thursday, May 28, 2015, and again on Monday, September 21, 2015 I visited the above site to inspeot and comment on the large redwood tree. New home constuction is planned for this site and your concems as td the future health, safety and damages the tee may cause of the trees has prompted this visit. Method: The tee in question was located on a map provided by you. The tree was given an identification number. This number was inscribed on a metal foil tag aad nailed to the trees at eye level. The tree was then measured for diameter at 54 iaches above ground level @BH or diameter at breast height). A condition rating of I - 100 was assigned to each tee representing form and vitality using the following scale: I -29 Very Poor 30-49 Poor 50- 69 Fair 70-89 Good 90- 100 Excelleut The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was paced off. Lastly, a comments section is provided. Large 3 trunked retlwooil between house and garage. Roots of the tree are reporteilly damaging the garage- September 28, 2015 2325 Poppy/91282015 Q) Observations: The tee in question is a redwood (Sequoia sempervirezs) with a diameter at 2 feet of 83.8 inches. The tee was measured at 2 feet due to the multiple leaders and large root swell. The tee is Iocated in the rear ofthe property near the rear property line. The estimated heiglt of rhe redwood is 60 feet with a totat crown spread of60 feet. The vigor, ofttre Eee is frir with normal shoot growth for the species. The form of&e redwood is very poor with multiple leaders at 2 feet with poor crotch fonnations. The tree has a very large root fla:e with burlhg and other reactive growth. The tee has been topped in the past possible an arborists attempt to lessen the chances offfailure due to the included bark. The locatioo of the tree is poor with tbe tee encroaching on the garage and the rear fence. Poorly located redwood near garage. I)amage from roots is probable, The garage appears to have been damaged by the expanding root mass and an expert in consEuction has been hired to estimate damages. 2325 Poppyl9l28l20l5 I-i,:' (3) Summary: The large redwood has become too large for the small enclosure. Roots ofthe large tsee have reportedly damaged the existing garage. As the tee continues to expand damage wiil continue causing significant damage to the. structwe. Remove and replace lhe redwood-.. as the repairs cannot be carried out with the. large root mass in place. The tree is located very close to the garage atrd mot barder is not- recommended at this time. Removal and'. replacemeut ofthe tree is the only method that' will elininate all hazards urd liabilities. associated with the tee. I ' Poor crotch formations near the base of the large redwood. The small trunk will act as a frrlcrum if the Iarger trunks lever each other ap.rt The information included in this report is beteved to be true ard hased on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty . Certified Arborist WE#0476A t MEMORANDUM sTRllCTL|tAL ElJGti..:Een5 BKG Job # 15162To: From: Date: Re: Per your request, a representative ofPKG Structural Engineers, lnc. made a site visit at 2325 Poppy Drive in Burlingame on September '19'" to vlew the condition of the existing garage slab. Obsarvations: . There is a large tree located next the existing detached garage. . 'l'he garage slab itself is in bad condition and exhibits severe cracking and upheaval.. The garage perimeter foundation is showing signs of distress in the form of vertical cracks. Dlscusslon: It is highly likely that the adiacent tree is the causo of the damage to the garage slab. The garage slab's impact on the seismic performance of the garase itself is unknown without significant analysis and cost to the homeowner. Removing and re-pouring the garage slab, and leaving the tree in place, will not stop continued damage. It is highly likely that leaving the tree in place will, at some point if not immediately, render the garage foundation 'non-seryiceable'. which means the foundation will not, and cannot, function properly per the requirements of the buildlng code. Sincerely, BKG Structural Engine€rs dam F. Klein, SE 594'l Principal Ii55 grosdway, Sulte 2OS " Redlrood Chy, CA 9rto63 ' phooe: 65O.4a9.9224 . E$nlk co^tact@bkg3a.cofl w!'rrv.hk93a.cErrl City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 85O BurlingEme Avenue, Burlingame, C.A 94O1o Adam Klein Tuesday, September 22, 2O15 Garage Slab Condition at 2525 Poppy Drive City of Eurlingame Farks & R.ecreation Departrnent 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 far (650) 696-7216 bolba urli October 5, 2015 RE: REAUEST TO REMOVE ONE RED\$OOD TREE @ 2325 POPPy DRIVD - BURLINGAME CA Thereforc, I intend to issue a permit-for the removal ofthe tree. The tree is subject to the provisions ofthe Burlingame Municipal Code. lfyou agree vith the co ditions, ple6e sign the enclosed pennil and rcl ru in tlrc sev-addressel etvelope by October 21, 2015- y'.djacent prcperiry ownerc) at the address(s) listed below are also rcceiving notification ofthis decision. Appeals to tiris tiecision or any ofits conditions or findings, must be filed in writing to our ofttceby OcIobet 21,20r, as provided in Section I 1.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation andTree Prctection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal CodeChapler I 1.06).The permitwillbe issued or October 21, 2015 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, b D-'.4 ( ]l-__),r6 Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist CC: Properly O\Yner 2317 Poppy AYenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Ownel 2332 PoPPy AYerue Burlingame, CA 94010 Pl'ope y Owner 2308 Hale Dtive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2321 Poppy AYenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 233? Poppy Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Ow[er 2320 FIale DriY6 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2330 Poppy AYenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Propelty Owner 2340 Poppy Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property O\rr'ner 2340 I{ale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2331 Poppy AYenre Burlingame, CA 94010 Property O!,r'ner 2344 Poppy Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2344 Llale D[ive Burlingame, CA 94010 Peter l(elly 3650 Brodrick Stleet #202 San Francisco, CA 94123 I reviewed your request for the rcmoval ofthe above mentioned ftee on the propefty at the above address, aBd have made the following determhation: l) The structural reports indicate the Redwood trees roots are significantly damaging the garage floor and foundation. 2) The Independent Arborist report indicates the tree has been topped in the past, has poor structure, multiple leaders and removal is the only way to eliminate all hazdrds aod liabilities. 3) Replacement with /rvo 24-iuch box size landscape hee (no fruit or nut) will be required to be plarted anywher€ on the private propcrtjr as defined in Section I1.06.090. bdigb Enclosure 1Z2ln15 Chapter 11.Cr6 URBAN REFORESTAIION ANO TREE PROTECTION Main Collapse Search Print No Frames Chapter 11.06 URBAN REFORESTATION AND TREE PROTECTION 11.06.010 Purpose and intent. The city of Burlingame is endowed and forested with a variety of healthy and valuable trees which mrst be protected and presewed. Tte preservation of these trees is essential to the health, welfare aud quality of life of the citizens of the city because these tees preserve the scenic beauty of the city, maintain ecological balance, prevent erosion of top soil, couoteract air pollution and o(ygeaate the air, absorb noise, maintain climatic and microclimetic balance, help block wind, and provide shade and color. For these same reasons, the requirement of at least one tree, exclusive of city-owned tees, on every residential lot in the city should be part of the permit process for any construction or remodeling. lt is the intent of this chapter to establish conditions and regulations for the removal and replacement of existing Eees and the installation of new tees in new construction and development consistent with these puposes and the reasonable economic eqioyment of private property. (ord. 1057 $ l, (195); ord 1470 $ l, (1992); Ord. 1s98 $ l, (1998)) 11.06.020 Definitions. Terms used in this chapter shall be defined as follows: (a) "Commission'' means the Beautifrcation Commission of the city of Burlingame. (b) "Departrnenf' means the parks and recreation deparhent of the city of Burlingame. (c) "Development or redevelopment'' means any work upon any property in the city of Burlingame which requires a subdivisioq variance, use permiq building permit or other approval or which involves excavatioD, landscaping, or construction in the vicinity of a protected tree. (d) 'Directof' meaus the director of parks and recrcation of the city of Burlilgame. (e) "Landscape kee" means a generally recogrrized omamental tree and shall exclude fruit, citrus, or nut- bearing trees. (f) "Protected tree" means: (l) Ary tree with a ctcumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above nahral grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand oftrees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. (g) 'Pruning:' means the removal of more than one third of the crown or existing foliage ofthe tte or more than one third of the root q/stem. Pruning done without a permit or which does not conform to the provisions ofa permit shall be deemed a removal. (h) "Removal" means cutting to the ground, extaction, killing by spraying, girdling, or any other means. (ord- 1057 $ l, (1975); Ord 1470 $ l, (1992); Ord. 1492 $ 1, (1993); Ord 1598 $ l, (1998) \- 11.06.030 Nomination and listin got trees. htp://qcode.[6/codes/burlirEama/1t4 Buriin garne ir'i u nicipal Code Up Previous Next 'l'iue 11 TREES AND VEGETATION 121212015 Chaptcr 11.$ URBAN REFORESTATION AtlO TREE PROTECTION Nomination for protected tree status under Section 11.06.020(f1(2) may be made by any citizen. The commission shall review such nominations and present its recommendations to the city council for designatisa. A listing oftrees so desigpated including the specific locations thereof, shall be kept by the deparlment aud shall be available for distribution to interested citizens. The city council may remove a desigrrated tree from the list upon its own motion or upon requcst Requests for such action may originate in the same rnanner as nominations for protected tree status. (Ord. 1057 $ I, (1975); ord. 1470 $ 1, (1992); ord. 1598 $ l, (1998) 11.06,(}40 E cres. In tle event that an emergency condition arises whereby immediate action is necessary because of disease, or danger to life or property, a protected tree may be removed or altered by order of the director or, if the director is unavailable, a responsible member of the police, fire, parks and recreation, or public works department. In such event, a report shall be made to the commission describing the conditions and necessity of such an order. (Ord" 1057 $ 1, (1975); ord. 1470 $ 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 $ l, (1998) 11.06.050 Prohibitions and s. (a) No protected tree shall be removed &om any parcel without a permit except as provided in Section 11.06.040. (b) The following conditions shall be observed during construction or development ofproperty: (l) Protected trees are to be protected by a fence which is to be maintained at all times; (2) Protected trees that have been damaged or destroyed by constuction shall be replaced or tle city shall be reimbursed, as provided in Section 11.06.090; (3) Chemicals or other construction materials shall not be stored within the &ip line of protected tsees; (4) Drains shall be provided as required by the director whenever soil fill is placed around protected trees; and (5) Sieos, wires or similar devices shall not be attaohed to protected trees. (Ord- 1057 $ l, (1975); Ord" 1470 $ l, (1992); ord 1598 $ l, (1998)) 1L9o.9!9_llol&es e!! p_er!!l!g rtgufrc4-fol removal or worl(nificant affectin g protected trees. (a) Removal or Pruning. Owners, or their authorized representative, of protected tees on public or private property shall obtain a permit to remove or pnme a protected tree. The application shall be on a form furnished by the departmed and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the tree(s) to be removed or pruned by type(s) and the reason for removal or pruning ofeach- The application shall also include a photograph with correct botanical identification of the subject tree or tee(s). An authorized representative of the departueot shall make an inspection ofthe tree(s) and shall file a wriuen ref)ort and his or her recommendations to the director. O) Educational Conference before Work Conunences. After receipt of an application, the dkecto! may require an educational conference to inform the owner of potential altematives to the proposed removal or pruning. (c) Removal or Pruning of Protected Trees on Undeveloped or Redeveloped Property. When an appfication for development or redevelopment ofa property containing one or moie protected trees is filed in any office or department of the city, the person making such an application shall file a site plan showing the location of buildings or structures or of proposed sits dishubances, and the location of all trees. The director shall determine httpr/qcod€.us/codeshttl ir€ame,/2J4 Pram1s Chader 11.06 URBAN REFORESTATION At.tO TREE PROTECTTON if all protected trees are shown. An authorized representative of the department shall make an inspection and shall file a report of his or her frndings and recommendations to the director. Subject to the replacement provisions ofSection 11.06.090, the director shall approve the removal of protected trees within the footprint of approved construction in the R- l zone, which construction does not require a variance, conditional use permil or special permit under Title 25 of this code. The notice and appeal provisions of Sections I 1.06.070 and I 1.06,080 shall not apply to such approvals. ( ) Review' In reviewing applications, the director shall give priority to those based on hazard or danger of disease. The director mey refer any application to another deparinenq committee, board or commission of the city for a report and recommendation, and may require the applicant to provide an arborist's report In reviewing each application, the director shall determine: (l) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed struchres, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree(s) in order to construct any proposed improvements to allow economic enjoyment of the propety; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree(s) on erosion; soil retention; and diversion or increased flow of surface waters; (4) The number ofaees eisting in the neighborhood on improved property and the effect the removal would have on the established standard ofthe area and property value. Neighborhood is defined as the area within a 30Gfoot radius of the property cootaining the tee(s) in question; (5) The number of trees the particular parcel can adequately support according to good arbcrriculh:ral practices; (O The effect tree removal would bave on wind protection, noise and privacy and (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tee to remain" (Ord- 1057 $ l, (1975); Ord. 1470 $ l, (1992); Ord. 1492 Q 2, (lD3); Ord 1598 $ l, (1998); Ord. 1603 g 9, (1998) tr. os.qzo_ pe,c_iqi C! !y,q-i rector. A decision shall be rendered by the director for each application. If an application is approve( it shall include replacement conditions in accordance with Section I 1.06.090. The director shall give written notification of the decision to the applicant and all property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property contahing the tree(s) in questiog and include a copy of the city Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 1i.0Q. (Ord- 10s7 $ 1, (1975); Ord" 14?0 $ t, (1992); Or<t 1598 $ t, (1998) Any person may appeal the decision of the director to the commission by filing an appeal in writing with the director no later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth calendar day after the decision. The director shall set the matter for review by the commission at iB next regular meeting and provide notice by mail of the commission hearing to the appellant and applicant at least five (5) days prior thereto. The determination of the commission shall become final and couclusive in ten (10) days ifno appeal is f ed- Destuction, removal or other work on a protected tee shall Dot commence uutil after the ten ( l0)-day period has passed, or, if any appeal is filed, until the decision of the city council. During the period between the action of the commission and the end of the ten (10)-day appeal period, any person may appeal such action to the city council. Such appeal shall be in writing and shatl be filed with the city clerk. During the same period the city council, on its own motion, may suspend the order of the commission for the pupose of reviewing the action of the commission. A permit shall be valid for six (6) montls after the date it is issued. Under exceptional circurnstances, the director may issue one six (Q-month extension. (ord. 1470 g 1, (1992); ord. isra E t, httsr/qcode.us/codes/borlirEameJ 314 11.06.080 1Z2ZN15 Chapter 11.C16 URBA I REFORESTATION N'lD TREE PROTECTION 11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation, (a) Whenever the development or redevelopment of a single family home, ,hrpleL aparlnent house or condominium results in any increase in lot coverage or habitable space (as defined by Chapter 25 of this code), the property shall be required to meet the following requirements: (1) One landscape tree for every One thousand (1,000) square feet of lot soverage or babitable space for single family homes or duplexes; (2) One laldscape tee for every two thousaud (2,000) square feet of Iot coverage for aparirent houses or condominiums. Lot coverage aud habitable space shall include both existing and new comEuction The director shall determine the number of existing Eees which are of an acceptable size, species and location to be counted toward this requirement. Any additional trees which are required shall meet the standards for replacement trees set forth in subsection (b) below. O) Permits for removal of protected tee(s) shall include replanting conditions with the following guidelines: (1) Replacement shall be three (3) fifteen (l5)-gallon size, one twenty-four (24)-inch box size, or one fiirty-six (36)-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tee removed as determined below. @ Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two (2) 2,|-inch box size, or two (2) 36- inch box size landscape trees for each tree so removed as determined below. (3) Replacement of a tree be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection ordinance. (4) Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the diector and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed. (5) Ifreplacement tees, as designated in subsection (b)(l) or (2) above, as applicable, cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the city. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fimd to be drawn upon for public tree planting. (Ord. 1470 $ l, (1992); Ori1 1492 $ 3, (1993); Ord. 1598 $ 1, (1ee8)) In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing or pruning a tree in violation of this ordinance is liable to treble damages as set forth in Section 733 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of Califomia, Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the tee as determined by the International Society of Arboricultue Standards. (Ord 1470 $ 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 $ 1, (1998)) View the mobile version. htpr/qcode.us/cod6rb$lirEamel (1ee8) 11.06.100 PenalW. October 19, 2015 Mr. Bob Disco Parks SupeMsor/City Arborist City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Depafirnent 850 Burlingame Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 ohn J. C John and Shirin Coleman 2308 Hale Drive Burlingame, CA g4OlO Shirin Coleman Dear Mr. Disco, !v-e- respectlully appeal the decision to issuo a permit to remove the magnffic€nt redwood tree at2325 Poppy Drlve. This tree's base must be at least 15 feet in circr_rmfeience and almosi 100feet high. I understand this heallhy tree, comprised of four redwood trees that have grown fromone base, will live for a verylong time to come. ls it not a heritage tree, one that ou;city ofTrees ultimately wants to safeguard? As homeowners at 2308 Hale Drlve lor over 20 years, this redwood tree has been a pan ot ourdaily lives. This is the tree that brings nature lnto view from my oflice window. lt is thL ree oui children have woken up to each moming, looldng out their bedroom windows. This redwood tree welcomes families of red-tailed hawks, white-tailed kites, and smaller birds of many kinds. From our kitchen window we regularly obserye these raptors playing in and around the tiee andperching themselves on its uppermost branches. This is he trLe that fills our sky and girres great greenery to lhe neighborhood. lt is the tallest tree in the vicinity. Thank you for taking our appeal seriously and giving every possible consideration to preserving this redwood lree. Sincerely, GZr-q.d4' Qil +bq-)ato STAFF REPORT To:Beautilication Commission Submitted by Date: November 5, 2015 Approved by From: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist Subject Appeal to the Removal of Redwood Trees at 2325 Poppy Drive On September 3, 2015, a permit was submitted for the removal of one Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive. The permit was denied until further evidence could be provided on the health and structure of the tree, and that the damage to the nearby structure could be confirmed. On September 29, 2015, the permit was resubmitted with a revised arborist report and a structural engineers report. The structural report indicated that the foundation is in poor condition and has severe cracks and upheaval. lt also stated that the foundation was showing signs of distress and vertical cracks (Exhibit A). The arborist report indicated the Redwood tree has fair vigoq normal shoot growth and overall is in fair to good health. The report also stated the Redwood tree has very poor form with multiple leaders and poor crotch formation (Exhibit B). The City Arborist has determined that the tree is in good health but has multiple leaders that will eventually lead to included bark failure. The tree has a large root flare that is encroaching on the nearby struclure causing damage and future expense to the homeowner, and has approved removal. (Exhibit C) DISCUSSION Based on Chapter 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection ordinance removal must be granted for the following reasons. 1 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission deny the appeal based on significant damage the tree is causing to the existing garage, it has poor structure with multiple leaders, and it meets the requirements for removal per Chapter 11.06 of Municipal Code and require replacement of the tree with two 24' box size Scarlett Oaks (Quercus coccinea) in the same area in the backyard. BACKGROUND 2325 Poppy appeal (7): "the economic consegueaces and obligations of rquidng a ttee to remain." lf the tree were to remain, the cost for repairs to the damaged skucture and the chance of limb failure and damage to sunounding properties may be a burden on the property owner in the ftJture. The City Arborist has determined the size of the tree and the individual leaders will be a concern as the tree continues to grow and the chance for included bark increases. The proximity of the surrounding structures is also a concern should a failure occur, Additionally, the cost of repair to the garage may be a financial burden should the tree remain. Therefore, removal and replacement with two 24' box size Scarleft Oaks (Quercus coccinea) in the same area in the back is recommended. EXHIBITS A. BKG Structural Report B. Keitty Arborist Report C. City Arborist approval letter D. Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance E. Pic{ures F. Appealconespondence. 2 November 5, 2015 t 1.06.050 d (1): "the condition ol the 'e€ wilh resp€c, to disease,. darrger of fa ing; proximity to existing or proposed sructures, yards, drlveways and other tees; and in'€rtercnce with public utility seMices." The redwood is growing 34 feet from the garage structure and will continue to cause damage. Root cutting may cause the tree to decline and/or become structurally unstable and increase the risk for failure, and is not recommended by the City Arborist. The codominant leaders have a high risk of failure due to included bark and pose a h.7ard to the sunounding properties. (21:. "the rrecessity to remove the ',ee ln order to construct any prcposed improvement to allow economlc enloyment of the propefty." The garage will need to be repaired: permifting the tree to remain will eventually cause the future damage to the same structure. - fr I I EXHIBIT E ,,i i: i l I I t : "d...{'- .- .- -.S-_..- ( .t '.: 'i. j I l r) .l 1: : q, (. t''{ I t]. i !..:r. i I .( , --: i*,/, \*-,,F .t i t. +il I E t )''t --: : :=- Iir_- I I ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Staff: Chair Kirchner, Commissioners Hinckle, Hunq McQuaide and Dittman None Parks & Rec Director Glomstad, City fuborist/Park Supervisor Disco and Recording Secretary Borba MII{UTES Minutes ofthe October l, 2015 meeting were amended and approved. CORR.ESPOI\IDENCE BBC Landscape Award presentation photo was in the Daily Joumal on Octob er 26, 2015 . Peter Kelly, residefi ^t 2325 Poppy Drive, submitted a garage repair proposa'l- A copy ofthe 2016 Business Landscape Award Nomination form was distributed to the Commissioners, Letter from Rudy Horak regarding gray water was distributed. PI]BLIC COMMENT None }IEW 1. Appeal ofthe Removal at 2325 Poppy Drive Arborist Disco read the staff report and noted that the Redwood tree has poor structure, codominant leaders ard included bark, which increases the chance of failure and led to his approving removal of the tree. He also stated that each one ofthe tnrnks on the Redwood is dependent on each other. Ifone ofthe trunks is removed, the others trunks are exposed to the elements, which could increase the possibility of failure. Commissioner Hinckle asked if the tree would be a danger to children playing in the backyard. Arborist Disco said the leaders are so large that a failure of any of ttre leaders could be a hazard to people and the surrounding homes. Commissioner McQuaide stated that Arborist Disco said the tr€e is in fair to good health. Arborist Disco stated it is in good health and will continue to grow at a rate increasing tle included bark, the trunks to expand and separate. Commissioner Dittman stated walking around town you see a lot of the Redwoods with codominant trunks, would this be setting precedence? Arborist Disco stated that each tree is looked at individually, including the size, number ofcodominant trunks, structure, health and possible remedies to pmtect it. Public Comment: John Nordin, a fiequent visitor to 2308 Hale Drive. Johr: read a letter from the Coleman,s. The letter stated that the tree has been a part ofour daily lives, the tree brought nature into view and it's the tree our children grew up with and home many bird species. It is the tallest tree in the vicinity. Brian Tu, a resident on Poppy Drive west of the Kelly's. He stated that his family moved to Burlingame 5 years ago because ofthe community and the natural beautlr. He has also had plumbing issues and found out the Redwood tre8 roots were blocking their sewer line. John Kohli, a resident on Hale Drive and a neighbor to the Coleman's stated the Redwood tree sits to the west and provides shade and a view of natural beauty. Linda Ryan, a resident on Drake Avenue stated she is really concemed that removal will set a precedent and deskoy the neighborhood. She expressed that she wanted to let the Kelly's know the reighbors don't want to see the tree come down because it's a part of the community. BI]RLINGAME BEAUTtr'ICATION COMTtrSSION November 5. 2015 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chairperson Kirchner. Ed Goldman, a resident on Hale Drive stated the tree is prominent from her backyard. It's the biggest bee in the area and he has seen a hawk at the top ofthe tree and a crow flying around it. Stella Daire, a resident on Hale Drive stated rvhen she walks out her door the Redwood is the first thing she sees. She sees beautiful birds in the tree all the time and doesn't want to see it taken down. Appellant: Amanda Coleman, a resident on Hale Drive represented her family and neighbors who couldn't be at the meeting. She stated that she understands that new residents want to make improvements to older strsctures but Burlingame is called the City of Trees. She mentioned that in the Easton addition it is flatter and there are fewer big trees; a hee that is in fair to good condition should not have to be removed. Respondent: Peter Kelly, owner ofthe property at 2325 Poppy Drive. He stated that he is not a person who wants to take down trees. When he bought the house he was unaware ofthe issues related to the hee. He stated that the root system of the tree is destroying the foundation of the garage and has made it potentially unsafe. The estimate he r€ceiv€d to repair the garage is $27,000.00. He stated that a structural eogineer looked at the ar€a as well as an independent arborist to help assess tle maEer. The structural engineer report said that the foundation may not be serviceable in the future unless something is done. The independent Arborist's report stated concem for failure to the tee. Mr. Kelly expressed that the tee is beautiful and he understands why people like it and want to keep it. He said tbey thought about how they could save the tree but fiom safety and financial standpoint, they could not come up with one. From the consultant's reports, he sees that the Redwood tree will continue to get bigger, continue to damage the property and have a higher rate of limb failure. He stated that this is a huge financial and safety burden moving forward. Public Comment: Commissioner McQuaide asked if the Kelly's were told about protected trees in Burlingame and if they noticed the damage when they looked at ths property. Peter Kelly stated that he didn't realize how significant the damage was and the issues to the tree's sEusture. Commissioner Hinckle asked if the Kelly's were informed by the realtor about protected hees in Burlingame- He said he was aware of protected trees in Burlingame. Commissioner McQuaide asked if he knew that the garage had issues because ofthe tree. Peter said that this is the first home they have purchased and he knew it needed work but did not kalow the extent ofthe expense to repair or that it would be something that would continue and the risk of limb failure as the tree grew. Commissioner Hunt asked about moving the garage and the Kelly's said they can't afford to move the garage. Commissioner Dit&nan asked ifthere was an estimate to remove the tree. Peter said the estimate was $8,000.00 to remove the tree. Peter stated that regardless of what happens with the garage, Arborist Disco and the independent arborist have stated that tirere is a hazard of limb failure. He said it would be catasfiophic to his property or his neighbor's property if the Redwood fails and it is a safety and liability hazard and he is very concemed- Commissioner Discussion: Commissioner Kirchler asked some questions that were brought up during Public Comment. l. What is the current likelihood of thc tree failing tomorrow and is thers any way to predicp it? Arborist Disco stated that it is not possible to predict. Sometimes there are waming signs where the leaders start to pult apart and you can see and hear it happening or it canjust completely fail. 2. Are Red Tail Hawks a reason to keep the tree? Arborist Disco said he didn't know if there rvere Red Tail Hawks in the tree or ifthey needed to be protected. 3. Is it possible to prune the roots? Arborist Disco stated he would not recommend root pruning that close to the garage. He said the tree is only three feet away from the garage and the roots will be big. Cutting the roois will cause the tree to be unstable and lead to decay which can then move up the trunk into the leaders. He noted that root bariers are a preventative measure for a certain amount of time and evenfually the roots will grow over or under them. 4. Is theri conshuction? Arborist Disco stated when he went to look at the tree in September, the house was vacant. He was unaware if the removal was tied to a remodel but his decision was made regardless of any future construction. He stated removal was approved due to the skucture of the tree and its proximity to the residences surrounding it- Commissioner Hunt asked if it is possible to cable the tree to secure it. Arborist Disco replied that cabling is riot used by the City because it indicates a problem with the bee and no cable is going to hold a hee ofthat size to keep it from falling. Commissioner Dittma, stated that when the tree is gone, we will not see anything like it again. Commissioner McQuaide commented we are the city of trees and we love our trees. Trees uproot ga-rages and sidewalks. She asked do we want to live witlt the consequences of tress or bave a sterile environmenl She stated it is hard to live in a city where we are always finding reasons to take fiees oul Commissioner Hinckle stated it's not just living with the consequences or having a sterile environment. She said she thinks that there are the right trees for the right place and the wrong trees planted in the wrong places, Commissioner McQuaide replied that the Redwood was here before we were and it is difficult becsuse the hee is healthy. Commissioner Kirchner stated that when the Redwood tree was planted E0 years ago, they had no idea what the tree was going to be today and at some point these trees become bad neighbors. Commissioner Hinckle stated it's the wrong tree in the wrong location but it is a beautiful bee and not the right place. Commissioner Hunt stated that for safety reasons it needs to be removed. Commissioner Dittman stated that she can't imagine not seeing that tree. She said that she understands that it's destroying property and about the codominant trunks and it will destoy a lot more propeny but it is a magnificent tree. She expressed she didn't want to set pr€cedence where they City can lose morc trees that have codominant trunks. Commissioner Kirchner stated that the trees need to be reviewed on a case by case basis. He said that not every tree with codominant leaders needs to be removed. Commissioner Ditunan asked what is specia[ about this tree with codominant trunks and included bark that it has to be removed compared to all the rest. Arborist Disco st ted that this te€ had four codominant trunks which increase the shanc€ of failure. He stated that each trees is reviewed on an individual basis and he follows tle guidelines that are set in the City ordinance. Commissioner Hunt stated that if the tree did fall and the Commission denied removal, tle City would be at fauft. Motion: Commissioner Hinckle moved to deny the appeal based on the potential liability ald danger oftree failure and the significant damage the tree is causing to the existing garage with replacement of two 24'box size Scarlet Oaks (Querrus coccinea) to be planted in the same general area in the backyard. Commissioner Kirchner seconded the motion. Motion passed 3-2 OLD BUSINESSr.@ The Commissioners were given a draft ofthe 2016 Business Landscape Award Nomination form. Commissioner Hinckle will be chair and Commissioner Kirchner co-chair next year. 2. Residential Landscage Award for Drought Tolerant Landscapes Commissioner Kirchner handed out revised guidelines ofhis original proposal. He asked the commissioners to review and provide feedback at the next meeting. REPORTSl Parks Supervisor/City Arborist l. A Eucalyptus tre€ on Howard and El Camino Real will be removed next week. 2. A large Liquidambar at Carmelita and Paloma will be timmed for safety 3. October/November street tree planting will stad on November 16h with 100 plus trees being planted. 2. Perks & Recreation Director l. City staffhas been working with Caltrans Maintenance Architectural History Branch staffand have identified 30 sites lvhere hees can be replaced. Caltrans will be delivering 20-24" box size Elm's to be planted on El Camino Real and watercd by the City Tree Crew, 2. Davey Tree tqgged and mapped the El Camino Real trces. Arborist Disco is rcconciling Calaans list and Davey Tree list. He will be marking trees that he is most concemed about for testing. 3. Staffmet with Broadway BID to discuss the blight that has hit some of the Aristocrat Pear Trces. The proposed plan is to replace with Red Spirer trees that are disease resista[t. As trees decline and need replacement there is a plan in place. In February Arborist Disco will bring the plans for review to the Commission and community input. 3. CommissionerKirchner Commissioner Kirchner commented on the ongoing projects for the Commission, Complete Strees, Floribunda/El Camino Real trees, Broadway trees, Trousdale and Art in the City. He also asked ifthere is a fine ifa moving van hits a hee.4. CommissionerEinckle Commissioner Hinckle stated she has been contacted by a Burlingame resident about tees on her property and trces next to her prop€rty on plot of land that is being developed. The concem is that there are conditions for a building permit that are very specific regrading protecting the tees during conshuction. How is this being enforced? 5. CommissionerMcQuaide Commissioner McQuaide commented that there are dead tees on Rivera and Skyline. She is noticing the decline in private trees from lack ofwater. 6. Commissioner Eunt Commissioner Hunt stated the Landscape Award Ceremony at the Council meeting was a great time. 7. Commissioner Dittuan Commissioner Dittsnan asked if she will be notified of her replacement and last meeting. The nsxt Beautification Commission meeting is December 3,2015. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:58pm. Respectfu Ily submitted, gine !]axlro Gina Borba Recording Secretary My family and I respectfully request that the Beautification Commission,s decision by vote of 3 to 2 to remove the Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive be appealed. We would ask that the matter be directed to the City Council for their complete and thorough investigation of the health of the tree and its true liability as a potential safety hazard in an effort to save this protected tree in our City of Trees. Monday, November 16, 2015 Dear Mr. Disco and the City of Burlingame, Sincerely, John Coleman 2308 Hale Drive RECE,IVED Nov l6 2015 BU Mr. Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist 850 Burlingame Ave Burlingamg CA 94010 20 October 2015 Dear Mr. Disco, I am writin8 to appeal the plan to issue a permit for the removal of the Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Ave. I found out about this plan from a neiBhbor, who had received your letter dated 5 Ortober, 2015. Because of the size of the tree, many mofe residents who did not receive your notice will be impacted hy its removal. First of all, I request the City of Burlingame to widen their sphere of potentially impacted houses and send out additional nolices beyond the 12 that were originally sent out. The Bttached picture is from my front porch at 2305 Hale looking north-west and you ran see tiat the Redwood tree is a significant part of our landscape. The tree is magnificent, and many more families will be impacted, Thd citv must allow more individuals to weigh in. Second, there are ways to protect a structure from further damage. You can cut through the roots near the structure without cdusing an unsafe condition with the tree. ls the city absolutely curtain all other avenues have been pursued to prevent further damate to the tarage floor. lf the tree is removed the garage will probably be damaged and hence replaEed. lf the gara8e is replaced, then the foundation can be done on pedestalt as the city made my neiBhbor do when they rebuilt their ga6ge near my Redwood tree- A new gange can be built now on pedestals with the ttee remaininE. And lastly, though ! have not been up close to the tree, its structure and health look absolutely wonderful. I observe the tree daily and have not noticed any fallen bnnches. Have there been any reported issues of a hazard from adjacent neighbors. lf there is a potential for the tree to fall over, then absolutely, it must be removed. Redwood trees are majestic and to be presen ed as much as possible. This has always been Burlin8ame's position and I suppon this approach. Should Redwood trees have been planted in a neighborhood where we live on top of each other, probably not. But they were, and we need to be extra conseMative before a tree ofthissize and beauty is removed. I request that the city consider the items I mention above before approving and issuing a permit to remove the Redwood Tree at 2325 Poppy. 2305 Hale Drive Re: Request to Remove Redwood Tree at 2325 Poppy orive, Eurlingame, CA JayJanton Vlew from Z:r05 Hale Drlve *r- Michael and Stella Daire 2309 Hale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 650-340-0482 October 19, 2015 Mr. Bob Dlsco Parks Supervisor/City Arborlst City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Disco, We respectfully appeal the decision to issue a permit to remove the magnificent redwood Aee at 2325 Poppy Drive. This tree is the tallest tree in our neighborhood and is the most magniFlcent tree we see each moming as we walk out our front door (direcuy opposite our house). The tree is also home to many beautiful birds we see flying in and around it throughout lhe seasons. We do not lnderstand why such a magnfficent and healthy looking tree must be tom down and we respectfully ask you to reconsider this decision. Sincerely, Stella Daire lu*"sO; fuad:o.,** Michael Daire Subject:FW: 2325 Poppy Redwood Tree From: Judith Henley [mailtoiudith.henla/@clua.netl Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:28 PM To: PARKS-Disco, Bob Cc: Gayle Miller-lanton; terrynaoel(aomail.com; gborba@burlioame.org Subject 2325 Poppy Redwood Tree Dear Mr. Disco, I am wrlting to you to request that you do NOT issue a permit for the removal of the redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive. I fully support the appeal sent to you previously and so nicely articulated in JayJanton's letter (dated October 20, 2015). lf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to send me a note. Best regards, Judith Henley Grogan 1450 columbus Ave Burlingame 1 PARI6/REC-Borba, Gina PAR!6,/REC-Eorba, Gina To: LC: Sent: Subject: From:PARKS-Disco, Bob Wednesday, October 0Z 2015 9:SO AM 'ScotlTsunehara@ kp.o rg' cmt100@gmail.com Re Tree.atr3z5:Poppy, Drive. Thank you, I will add this to their application. Bob Disco Park Supervisor/City fuborist City of Burlingame 650.558.7334 Misco@burlingame.org Fromi Scot.Tsunehara@ko.om [mailb:ScotLTsunehara@kp.orol SenC Wednsday, October 07, 2015 9:43 AM To: PARI(5-Disco. Bob Cc: 6nt100@omail.com Subject Tree at 2325 Poppy Drive October 7, 2015 Dear Bob, We are witing this emai regarding our neighbors, Peter and Theresa lclly at 2325 Poppy Drive. We o n the home on Hale Drive behind their property. They seek a permit to remove a large redwood fee in the rear of lheir home. Our undersEnding is that the tree is inflicting significant damage lo lheir properly. We do not object to a permit being granted to allow them to remove this tree. Sincerety, Scott Tsunehara and Courtney Tong 2340 Hale Drive Budingame, CA 94010 t{OllCE TO RECIPIENT: Ifyou a.e not lh€ lntended tecr_pi5t of lhis *mail, you ate plohlbited from shaing, copying, or olfteirise using o,disclo5ing As contenls. lf you have Ecefued ihis efiail in ercr, please nolify lhe sender tnmedhtely by.ept e-mall and pemanenlly delele lhis eflal and a.y aliachmenls t{ithotrt Eading. fol\,.ading or saving 0lem. Thank you. 1 Brian & Jocelyn Tu 2331 Poppy Drive Budingame, CA 94010 October 5, 2015 Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist City or gurlingame To Bob Disco: we are aware that our neighbors, Peter and Theresa Kelly at 2325 poppy Drive, are in the process ofseeking a permit to remove a large redwood tree in the rear of their home due to the significant damage thetree is inflicting on their property. we own the home immediarely west of the Kellys. As neighbors we can seethe tree has clearly outgrown the property. The tree roots have also encroached on our property damaging our sewer line- we are very supportive oftheit desire to remove this tree and have no ob.iec on to a permit being granted for this purpose. Please note as you consider their permit application we fully support granting a permit to the rellys for removal of the large redwood tree at the rear of their property at 2325 poppy Drive. Sincerely, Brian & Jocelyn Tu To:Honorable Mayor and Gity Council Date: January 4, 2016 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director - (650) 588'7222 AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: January 4, 2016 Subject: RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the San Mateo County Tourism Business lmprovement District (TBID) assessments; close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City; determine whether a majority protest has been made; and, if a majority protest has not been made, adopt a Resolution approving and levying assessments for 2016. B ACKGROUND The San Mateo County Tourism Business lmprovement District (TBID) was formed in 2001 to revitalize the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau (SMCCVB). Prior to that time, the Bureau's marketing and sales efforts had been funded with a share of transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues from those cities that chose to participate. By 1999, this inconsistent funding stream had resulted in layoffs and a reduction in activities at the Bureau, leading hoteliers to express their dissatisfaction in the inadequate marketing of the area and their properties. The Board hired Anne LeClair as the Bureau's new CEO in May 2000, with specific direction to form a TBID to provide adequate and consistent funding for the Bureau's activities. At that time, Burlingame was forwarding over $425,000 of ToT dollars annually to the Bureau. Because Burlingame had the most hotel rooms and had the greatest interest in seeing the TBID formed' the Ciiy agreed to act as "Lead Agency" for the TBID. Following multiple meetings with hotels and city councils in the county, the Bureau proposed the TBID, and the city of Burlingame held all of the required hearings in 2000, with the TBID going into effect in 2001. Board slots were allocated based upon the number of hotel rooms in the various cities, with Burlingame allotted four, the most of any city. Since the San Mateo County TBlD',s formation, the Burlingame City Council has held the annual reauthorization hearing for the TBID, and the City has overseen the various cities' tourism fee assessment payments. The City has received an administrative fee of $4,000 from the Bureau annually to cover the cost of the TBID public hearing and billing. Resolution Approving and Levying 20'16 San Mateo County Tourism Business lmprovement District Assessments on Hotel Businesses within 1 STAFF REPORT the District 2076 Assessments for the SMC fourism Business lmprcvement Disttict January 4,2016 At the November 2nd meeting, the City Council adopted a Resolution stating its intention to levy the annual assessments and to Schedule a hearing for January 4,2016. Notices of the public hearing and the proposed assessments were provided to the cities and members of the District by the District staff. The assessments requested by the District are consistent with the original authority for assessments enacted in 2001 at the time of District formation, and the method of computing the assessments has not changed from last year. Total assessments for the TBID in 2016 approximate $2. 1 9 million. The City Council should take the following actions: o Conduct a public hearing on the proposed District assessments for 2016 . Determine whether a majority protest has been made . lf a majority protest has not been made, adopt the Resolution approving and levying assessments for the San Mateo County Tourism Business lmprovement District for the year 2016 FISCAL IMPACT Assessment revenues provide funding for operations and activities of the San Mateo County Tourism Business lmprovement District. The City receives an annual administrative fee of $4,000 from the Bureau. There is no other direct fiscal impact to the City. Exhibit: . Resolution Approving Assessments for 2016 and Exhibits 2 The TBID now has 15 cities, along with unincorporated San [\/ateo County, participating. The District uses annual assessments of its member hotel businesses to fund its successful and wide-ranging promotional activities. On November 2, 2015, the City Council approved the Bureau's 2015 annual report, filed by the District Advisory Board with the City Clerk. The report states the District's activities and accomplishments during the past year. Among olher achievements, the Board reported that 38,611 room nights had been generated from the Bureau's activities in 2015, not including individual corporate or leisure traveler nights generated through promotlon of the area as a whole. The potential economic impact of meeting leads generated for San Mateo County and Palo Alto properties had a potential economic impact of over g50 million. The District Board is recommending that the Council adopt and levy the 2016 assessments on the hotel businesses within the District to support similar activities in the coming year. DISCUSSION RESOLUTION OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND LE\ryING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVING DISTRICT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITMS FOR THE \'EAR 2016 WHEREAS, pursuant to Califomia Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq, the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District ("District" herein) has been established for the purpose of promoting tourism in the District; and wIIf,REAS, the District Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to establish calendar year 2016 assessments for the District; and WHEREAS, on November 2,2015, the City Council approved the District report and adopted a resolution of intention declaring its intent to impose assessments for the calendar year 2016 and setting and noticing a public hearing about the proposed assessments for January 4, 2016; and WIIEREAS, notices were provided to the hotel businesses within the District as required by law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly held on January 4, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. before the city council ofthe city of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions ofthe Streets and Highways Code, the City Council determined at the conclusion ofthe public hearing that a majority protest had not been made as to the proposed assessments or as to any proposed program or activity for the District; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessments and method of computing the assessments appear reasonable and consistent with the ordinance establishing the District, as amended, and the underlying State lawi and NOW, THERf,FORf,, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: RESOLUTIONNO.- 1. Upon close ofthe public hearing, written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received which constituted a majority protest as defined in Govemment Code sections 36500 and following; accordingly, the Council finds that there was no majority protest to the assessments. 2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the calendar year 2016 on hotel businesses within the District as described in city of Burlingame ordinance Nos. 1648, 1678, and 1774, as further amended, for the purpose offunding services, programs, and activities ofthe District. 3. The types of services, programs, and activities to be funded by the lely of assessments on businesses in the District for the calendar year 2016 are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. 4. The basis for assessments for the calendar year 2016 on all hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", the Assessment Formula Chart, incorporated herein by reference. 5. The assessments for the calendar year 2016 on hotel businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "C", incorporated herein by reference. 6. Nerv businesses shall not be exempt fiom assessment. Ann Keighran, Mayor l, Meaghan Hassel.Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiry that the foregoing -Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the city Council on the 4 t h day of January, 201 6, and rvas adopted thereafter by the follolving vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 2 2016 Assessment Resolution EXHIBIT A SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT SAN MATEO COUNTY/SILICON VALLEY CONVENTION & \TISITORS BUREAU PLANNED ACTI}'ITIES FOR 20T6 For the calendar year 2016, the Bureau plans to continue all of its normal activities, including but not limited to: * Promoting area activities available pre and post-Super Bowl; * Exhibiting in trade shows; + Conducting multiple group FAM (familiarization) tours for meeting planners; * Conducting individual FAM and site tours for planners; * Conducting FAM tours for intemational travel agents from overseas; * conducting a group FAM tour for members ofthe food and travel media from around the U.S.; * Conducting individual FAM tours for travel media; + Advertising in meeting planner publications; * Advertising in leisure publications; * Promoting the area to intemational and domestic media via regular releases ofeditorial; t Creating updated visitor guides, electronic maps and specialty brochures; * Working to recruit and work with area sporting events; + Using multiple social media channels top push out stories on the area; + Conducting an ambassador training program for hospitality employees; * Actively recruiting filming through our film commissioner' o z z zo s E e ,a g s s E ! 9 5 ti E e d g E 6 E 9 s E eq E o E ,. t s E { E ! I .o s 9; g 6 a E s P g E E E 9 E Ed i5 s E 9 I o z z zo a E s E a a t' a ! E i5 s Ea a l^ l9 t" ! 6 s E P E s E E E Iq E E 6 E I a I o ;-TU E;EEE : r,b q;PtE E;3.; EEri6^:EqEE E gEE A s!P: .9g! -:e' :z6E EEI F dF o Fz =iri< {r-ZE ;'r z2 466gF(, i-<z o o F E z I: .9 nx .E 33 --E !c 5a 6a2Z + d (o o ood6' E th oo = oq No or od q N si, (o oq o)coo FJ o\ @ od o .ci @ o)t-oN o dF' I (, @ o @ o.: N o tho{, i Eo E o oq t-(o oq o @ N o c.io) c{- N o c\ioN q f.-o)N oo GJ tro Eo q) J lzz oooNo_ r'.- oN c{- oe (f)- F.t- oq @N odo) oq o) c.i o (o LO c!- o o@ o o oq F-o t-o) oq @- F. oc.l oo) (o o!qt- GiF- oN(.i d oq (o- t- F,- tl,, Eo o, J z o6l I.- f.-- oq l.-oN. oc! LOto LO- oa @ s- oq (o o)_ N q @ @-(o o ccit-o(.t q N @ oq ra, oNdo)o_ q) oq (o lo- o1 @oo) Lrt o) E oElt o @ o)o ol o Nf.-f--No o)@t-N @ @ o tr t oF o Eooe (') Lr) @o)@(t o o'l @ o F.@r.-o E oF o Eoo a) . E') o) Go oooo) ood(o ooo@ oqo oo ooo oqoo) oIo(o oooo ci @ oqo @ oo (! oF Eood r (, bo o (,o otoolo++rl' I I oo --i oo oq u) ooo@ ooo) o do) oq ooo @ oo -io) r! oF Eoot o oN n)coN ,E c(5) tD ao =I q) q) F -9-o =o I olJ-a (E N _q o- 0)c =o o 6 oI q) Ea =co co !) (! =otLo o) J U) (! -o E r1J cC cq)_o N o =I o =a 06 cc E(! I to LLoco =I E loa o LLo o I.JJ cE 6- cs oou E o.)t o LLo c a) coL o) l5 =o'tr o o LLo o a o IUcc oco-o(! E o o. o E Gz ca c):o o d) o'- o) E cs c'6 o- (!) o :(I c (l) o = o)tI] 6 o c -ea o 'tr o) E _o o)!cq) u.J cc oo! 2I cc C o)ro o co =- o fa 06 cs EI co c-co I(! =oI o oI oEo L oJ ,9 a c E q) c(,)p o)t o'= (E =o TD o caa cc (5 o oa I E drlcl =l:ldlI o(, ll, E Go o Eo =x uJ (o o(!toll. 6 tUzoN JJg oF IJJ =tootuoo Fo e.Fo c) Fzul =UJ ot o- =oo UJ -o =o Eot oF Fzfoo o UJF = o Fl! u.o o CC;o oq No) 6t oo(o(? oiNN(O oo c.j N oq N @ oq N(! LO t-N oqo c.i oo ..i(0 o_ LO @ @ o @ @ cr)q)@ oo o@ Eo o o- a, E6z 6 o =!oo o LLo oo(! C(Ea (o o N oto Ix IJJ ro oNtoIL G IJJzoNJJcoFz UJ Eoo UJoo Fo d.Fo 6 Fz UJ =ul ot o- =oo uJzof dt =@ dfoF Fzfoo ol!F Ez o Fl! to e.-( E (, .> = q F. q c\tc\, o\ @ o trio)ry oq |..N- on o,r? t\ @ oq t-N oq o lr)" @ o\NF-N oqoF. oo c! ro_ oq N oaoF. <o- oq oIoq t- oq f.-rrr- oq N o U? N oo (o q N oq F. C\I c E -> o E oq ocl o) oq (o oq (o N oooN o oq o.) 1t-f.- C\i- o, E a, J zz oq a oqo os F- Crl ojo (o oc! ra)- oq @t-N. N o odN(r- oqo oq oa c\lI oi F- oaN F..N. oqo N. oq N N. ooq @- N oq o- @ oqoo)F. oqo c\J @^ oaN (o- oq (o o)(.)- o) oq o) o)- oqooo- oq $_ oq .{.- oq oN- o9 F.N oq N oq t- s_ @ R; oq) J =zz oq o(o- oI o,or- oc! o)F-.o- oq No) Lar- N oqo N. (o o oa Nct- o)o, o oq @- N Eoo E. F.N (ooN (o @ F O)c.l oN N o oo @ f.-NN F.r.-F.N t-o(\o)N c\I Eo d,(! oF o) N o oo F. O) o (! oF (, E 6o ao o G oq oq oq oc oqo @ oq oqo oo oqo @ oq oq oqo @ oq qoo) oq oqo oqo o.) oqo oc oc oqo oq oq oq t oF Eoot co E (, (, rD N oqo oq oq oq oq oq oqo (tr oF Eoot E N Y o- o o EGz cs Eo o (E a 6 o s(! C(! .9 o E o LLa ;2o rDm ([ .9 o E 6 oI o o o o 2L q) d) o lJ-a o a c E tso EoO o {! oo CE cs o)o o!La a o Eul o (,) a '6 (L lo LL Cs E I cs q) ! (Eo co =I a 66 5 oI o o IIJcc oI Eoo- E lJ-a EI o LLa =o LL 6 o- c'6 (L c) o occ 6 oI ;c a oJ ! o.J o) 6 o- o) .=orI (E IL (!) =a cc (! la aa-o) E: (noo E(!t c u C -co) G' F -cEoz o LLa o -oI o) (! F o- = E z o LLo -9 o LLa c F ol!a fo 06 cIq) E LL o LL U) q) a 06 cE l5 (!) o fa 66 C ;oo : LL (n o) o-cF o ,9 eg l! Go ! oa -o = oo\q o t- o oq o) oc oqo oo t, I c ;-c (! d tr : o- c o) o3 a)(D o -ocE (,)p (.)t ( (o o c!!q C\I c;N oc! N oq (o q? oj \(o @ 6i oq o N @Lr- oo oi @ d ooo $N oq (.)o) oq N @ @ oq (o o d @ \@ t- oo cd o do o c.i{, E ooo .> o = oq NN sf_ F. oc N oq @ s @N(o- F-N o ra)t-@ oq @ o,{oq @ lr) N o €i @ od o o o oo oqoIo o) oq @F. @- oq N(o o t-(o oa(0N(o o 6io) d oq N ool @ oo cd@ @- (f) o o o(.1 N.. oc o)- oq N N o N @ o E o J lzz f I I q) E oo Eo E oo) @d @ ooi t- oi@ oodf.-@rt cr) o (oN o oF q) N Nf.-F.o o)N @ @ f.-(o N N @oth Eoox.:t (o t- oo oo 6 oF Eoo(. oo oo oooo) oo oc o oo oo I ood(o oq oo LO oo oo oqo @ o (! oF EooE ooooooooqo O) oo ooooo hc.a to(,) a) (! .^ oo ci 6 oF Eoot co m m mg]co c0 (n (n co dl(D tD (D co co (Dcomco(D o, N (! o(I) (n 06o(.) mc(E'- o ,9 '(J o(I cc oo o c)EG o(I .E oo g) .5 E o)m io(L () '= o- c o) o Eoa cs coEq).c o f @ c) f(., o) LIJ -=IIc o q) c,(D ooco o(-) oq)o o Eo cocE o G o o) d) o. Eq, co 0) =F 06 0., oo(, cc =,e o (5 I .9 o (, =ocC oc (E o) o o (.) ,acc E o g zo o C E =o c(! c) o o oI Co c(!o o (, F cs o! ooo s Eo Eoo Cc (E CO coo (sI q) J (o (D coo (!I Cc 4) ot = cc (, o -c. B !) a Coz co oO N tr oEF (E t!o c0 o5 Eo co o -oI -aE-o(E N q) oI (,) foI E o o)(D CE _c o o E(!o oo o co o o) otL oNg TL 0) 3oo o o- oo E Gz E I o Eo tIt o E oq) o o o o) N o o- o o) E Gz c oo !(, G oq. I .E l 6 oF .9 o loo ! o o oN E c o,) E o co E o = o Eo o J =zz. o Eo tIt t!(D c o ==(t,- o oF o(..1 r.- or- o cs 0)2(! q) d) (! ,c o) E o (L o o Et!z i5 o ll- o@(., ci o (o N o|..) oiNN o odo (, Eoo(,oo J lzz (of.-N ra) oooqoqo@ co E]co(nco (Eoa o6 6 oI oc(!o o o :JoI o c o)(n (Ea o Eo Ixlu @ oN uol! 6t!zoNJJsoFz uI =oo UJoo FodF an o t-2ul E IJJ od(L =o @ IJJza =o E al) dfoF Fz oo ot!F =z o Fl! x.o (o o.f Fl! to o|.. c"j o ..i F. (o on @@ aodN@ @ q N oq o)C! oN @ o 6ioN oq No o oi e F. t-- t--_ o Eooq,, o @ N o dF. o toF. E o E o co co E oo .> o = oq No ooc!qo@FO o) 6iN ot- (o oq NF- oo Lri o1o o@ ("i @ o cd o a(ot-o- o oq (o o- o.! F- oq (o o)l o, oq o, t-- q N. N oq o) o, oq o) o) oq @f'@d c! LO_ oa oo- oq F-@ Lar_ oq @f.-o_ o E oq)o J lzz qq FF.t- oq N@ f.-- oo s- N on O) oq 61 f.- oa! (r)- o o @ (o- o c.{ oN- c{ o oq F- @ q, E o J fzz oc! N. ooacN(Oso,@N_ oq N(.o- o@ @ 6 oF @ N(.,N No)o)N |..o)oNN Eo t Nr.- N NN N o) oo c.i |.-a o oF F.N F.N (o LO@(o N o o No Eo x. oo oooo) 6 oF Eoot oq oo o oo oo ci oq o oq ro o, E oo bo o t!o oooooe tr) ood @ oc 6 oF Eoot oq oo oq o ra) o oo oo oq oqco 6 0,oo . a) Go oq oo oo Io N ! E =oo q) =o 06 Cs Eo Eo o- o) e Gz (.) Eo 'E(,n cC o) !f co c) f U) 06 cc (E(L coto-c cc -=(I c (.) o) q) co q) =a p @ =a Eo .E) G!o Eot o) oI o)co g cs cc Et cs o co CEo ! o =oI o =a oa cc o:l co cE o) o o) ,9 (E -o o) la q) o IL oc =oF o d) Go c) N o o- o(, Et!2 6 o ,- t!O cE oo o cq) () t q) !6I cs -Eoa a c5to Eoo cs o))6o o o c o)! (!(, Cs 0) z Eoo o) oI ltu '6 oL cE 'o orL E-oo oo =ooo =o(I,t N cD o ,q cl! LL C(Eo E oa o@ ,r, o .i(o o@ @N o r\J -(t c\l oloaic F- l@Nlo' o\q (o f.-o- o)N@ oqo oooo cE o,= o -o cE o 0)o !oo3ro o)t o Eo =x IJJ ro oot d.ol! oulzoN JJ U)Fz IJJ =oo UJtho Fo EFoa F uJ E UI od o- =oo lrJz 6lo Eo d.foF Fzfoo o IJJF Ez o g. ool NF oo)d oo NN. oq @F. o)- c\i(o q) E (,oo c.i(o ooo@ oc! t-- ool @- o cdN F on I.r oc! o) N oq @ols^ ooolq c\l =oooq o{(o o.,NO'NS- !) E o .> o = o o.iN o ..i o odt- o q) o d o N oo 6i(o of.- (o oo ..i o,(0@ o E () J fzz oq (o o- oqoN @- oq @N. @ ocodN(o- oq q) ol oo '1 o Eooo J lzz (, Eo o J lzz oq o) q) oq o)N o o_ ooqq $(oF. N- N oso@ @ o oq l.- @ o oq @c!N o @@(o- oq (o f.-- f.- N6 f.. F.(o Eood N(o @ o)N o E otIt EooE O)N @ o @ (.roN r.-N F.N (o o)NNN@ro@c{f.-N o oqo @ ooo @ oqoqoqoo) oooo) oo E oF Eood o Eooolt z.oo)o t!o o do) oooo oo oo oo () oo t oF Eoot o E oo loE'o .Eo c(,, E oo ho(,' (,, l!o o ro o oo oo ooo Eo tho o o5' a) r!o oo ooqq oc! N. (E oF o oN (, oN o o o oo o o o o (J o €) oN o oN o cd r.- o Eo ooll E coE ooN oqo o- I r - I (, Eo lhooo .> o = ooo(o q) o)!o.J op 3I o Cl.o o- o E(!z o E o U) !o!c(J tJJ o:a od cc t' cf,oo cc ofE od) (! ,tr o E (.) l U) 06 csI(D E(o LL -9 oocoa 6 o :E o o- J o oE(I E I E .E! (oo cs Eoc (Et a o)fE od) o'-q, E E ocoa cEto Eoo E(,oo o- o o EItz co E -qo o.c.F o) ^qo- o! o.)-o(, to q) o csl.cloo cC q) o-3oo cs op o)Io o -9oo- (E No o)c =Io o -9o(L c :c l5o o t- F. oo o) o N o,) fo 06 I.JJ cc Iop oI o oF co E6 co 6 oI (o o o oq @F- u-,N oo too tr o (, o o- o E(!z tr !q) dt o o E U) !q) ! q) I.JJ E otIt 6 o =o o) o 6m .Eoc co E6(D o- !! IU -q6 o :o co o 0)a lot! = 9 G o-I oto Ix IU (o o(\ toII anulzoN JJSoFz1! =u)o uJoo Fo e.FLo Fz UJ =tu oto- =oo uJz anfo =o dfoF Fzloo oulF =z tt FII to o c\i(o ooaq(o L) (, E ooo J l z I oq N(o o N oqoo+ oo LO o aoT {! I c ; -9 ooc C,a tooo o- o o E((,z 6 o oco oo ! I I Ii- o ciF. oa @(o oq (o oq F- o c.iN o E oooo = o df.- o @o)F. o @ri o1 oq N .! F. oa. o)o) ood @ o df.- oq F-- (, E q) .> Eo = ooqq r.r)Ns@ oq (o- N on F-- o t- @ o @(o ro- oI N(o o o,(.r- o Ett,aooo J fzz q N tr)- N oq @ro ot oq @ 'l)_o) oq o) O) oq d o oq @o, c(, E o o J fzz oooocis(, o)- @ o @dN @ ocNf.' @- oc!t-oo) cof.-N oq N O) f.-_ @ ocN s- F. oq N o@o @ '-: oa @(o oq o) i-_ o oq (0 (o- oq oo) @@ o@do) oooN(.)_ oc! o)t-ro- o@ c.i o- N oq t-F- 6 oqo @ o Eood o N t-F-f--@ 6 oF o E ot+ N f--o)N N o6I F-N 6 o t-- @ N t--o)N l..r(.,OJN N @ f.-@ II (, E o o .o o (!o ooo(o(., oqoq) o oF Eood co Eoo(, o boEIo oo oq oqoo, oq t5 oF Eoo oo oqoo) oo ci @ oo.; oooq qoo) oo o oo oq oq oo ci(o c.) oo ci(0 ooo(o 0, oN otroN c0G]co (I]moooooo oo) o, O) G oF Eoot o o O (_)o O(-)o o cs o o =o '6 o o- ooo o- o E Gz ,Eoz LLa tro =I oo F -9-olo o o-coN o-cF o o- o E Gz c ;a6 0)(D o.9 o E (Ep 6- (I) u.l cc 6 oI E G o,) c0 o '6 o(! o -9oL 6 o (!o o o (L Co o.Ea cc o o ! oc(! a C ; E oF ! ocoo E co :o o _9oIL ! -9(D o F o o(!&c o.) =0)EF 6 o-ifoo C o,)! (E cE q)o, a s o -9(5(I c co! (!o co =I o o'6 o- co == -o o -o 1foo3o Eo- ,qc o =oO 6 oI c o) o)Y6 oI c(! E oL6 oI o _eo(r q)z o.cF 6 oI tr o)o o(, =o .=o coE,g I.JJ o)EF o,) o oNq)o c0 o o)a (,c(! .9, o G' .9 =t!(L o Eo =x llJ ro o(\a tol! 6 IJJ oN JJsoFztu Eoo UJo at, Fo EFo c) Fztrl E llJ ot o- =ooutzaf dt =LdfoF Fz3oo oulF =z o Fl! to (o o @ o@ @N- ololoq la lc!F- l(r lN-l=l- ,'l*l* i @o@ (o N oN l- ooooooso oooqo@ c0oo =Eoz LLaco =I -o o ao !oo =t 6- o lo-c E.9J =IL c o) q, om r o ry O) @ ro_ (., (o N o oF I BURLI AGENDA ITEM NO: gc NIEETING OATE: January 4, 2016 To:Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 4, 20{ 6 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director - (650) 558-7255 STAFF REPORT Application for an Extension of a Conditional Use Permit for an Auto Rental, Storage and Repair Facility Located at 778 Burlway Road Subject: RECOMMENDATION BACKGROUND The subject property located at 778 Burlway Road has been occupied by a non-conforming car rental use since 1985. The occupancy originally consisted of the following uses: administrative office for Alamo Rent-A-Car; car storage for up to 400 cars; maintenance of the rental fleet from San Francisco lnternational Airport (SFO) and vehicles rented from this site; new car delivery and pick-up site from transport trailers; and rental car facility. ln 2003, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to add employees, car storage and re-activate on-site rental operations (which had lapsed). The Conditional Use Permit Amendment allowed the National Car Rental facility formerly located at 40 Edwards Court to consolidate with the Alamo Rent-A-Car facility located at the 778 Burlway Road site, as the two companies had merged and wanted to consolidate operations. The approval allowed the Burlway Road operation to increase the vehicle limit from 4OO to 600, allowed an increase in the number of employees on-site from 15 to a maximum of 40, and required the operator to re-activate the car rental counter. Subsequently, the Planning Commission approved two, two-year Conditional Use Permit extensions (on January 10, 2005 and February 12,2007) and one, five-year extension (on April 27,2OOg) to continue the operation of the existing car rental, storage and repair facility. 1 The City Council should conduct a public hearing, consider all oral and written testimony received during the hearing and, following closure of the hearing and deliberations, take one of the following actions: . Grant the applicant's request for an extension of a conditional Use Permit (either as requested or as modified by Council direclion); or . Deny the application for extension of a Conditional Use Permit. Resolutions memorializing the City Council's action will be presented for adoption by the Council at the next regular meeting. 778 Burlway Road - Conditional Use Permit Extension Jaouary 4,2016 Anticipating the lapse of the existing extension, the applicant initiated discussions during the spring of 2015 with City staff and the Economic Development Subcommittee of the Council about how its use might be continued. Based on direction from staff about the appropriate procedural mechanism to pursue, on November 30, 2015 the applicant submitted an application to extend the Conditional Use Permit for seven additional years. The applicant states that the reason for the requested extension is to allow time for SFO to complete an expanded and consolidated car rental facility. Once the facility at SFO is completed, the applicant anticipates being able to eliminate or greatly reduce the need for off-site vehicle storage such as the 778 Burlway Road facility. The applicant is concerned it would not be able to locate a suitable replacement facility in the interim should the Conditional Use Permit not be extended. The facility at SFO is anticipated to be completed by 2022. The applicant has submitted a letter of explanation (attached). This application is presented directly to the City Council as it is the body that had last taken action on the application in 2013 as an appeal. The Bayfront Specific Plan was first adopted in 1981, with subsequent amendments in 2004, 2006, and 2012. The plan has seven broad goals: Land uses in the Bayfront Area should reflect the special locational value of the area including its adjacency to San Francisco Bay, a regional freeway (US 101) and to San Francisco lnternational Airport. Protect and enhance the unique qualities of Burlingame's shoreline environment. Promote recreational opportunities along the San Francisco Bay shoreline environment. Development should yield a high revenueto-cost ratio to the City. Development throughout the planning area should be consistent with the capacity of the adjacent local road system and other public infrastructure. Development should be visually attractive, pleasing both to those who work in and visit the area, and also to those who use the area for recreation. Based on the unique environmental characteristics of each subarea, create a unified identity for the Bayfront Area through design. 2 ln November 2012, lhe applicant submitted an application for a ten-year extension of the Conditional Use Permit for its auto rental, storage and repair facility at 778 Burlway Road. Following consideration of all oral and written testimony and closure of the public hearing, the Planning Commission denied the applicant's request without prejudice. The Commission determined, in part, that a ten-year extension of the Conditional Use Permit could serve to deter efforts to sell the property and to develop it with uses consistent with the policy direction of the Bayfront Specific Plan.Ihe applicant appealed the decision to the City Council, which granted a two-year extension of the permit. ln its deliberations, the Council specified that the extension was to facilitate an orderly disposition of the operations, with an additional condition that the applicant demonstrate evidence of having proactively marketed the property so it could be developed with conforming uses (July 1, 2013 City Council meeting minutes attached). DISCUSSION b. d. f. s. 778 Burlway Road - Conditional Use Permit Extension January 4,2016 fhe Bayfront Specific Plan area is divided into a series of subareas, each with its own character and specific planning objectives. The subject property at 778 Burlway Road is located in the "shoreline Area" (SL), which is intended to have land uses that take advantage of the bay shoreline and focus on visitor-oriented development. Designated land uses for this area are hotels, offices, and destination restaurants. The most recent major development within the Shoreline Area was the Bay Landing Hotel at 1550 Bayshore Highway, completed in 2004. Before that, the most recent development in the Bayfront was the Hampton lnn at 1755 Bayshore Highway, located within the lnner Bayshore (lB) subarea and completed in 2003. ln 2012, the Burlingame Point proiect was approved on a site at the southern end of the Bayfront Specific Plan Area. However, despite there being a number of vacant and underutilized sites in the area, it has been more than a decade since there have been any approvals or significant new construction in the more immediate vicinity of the Burlway Road property. Arguably, the ongoing presence of nonconforming uses such as the Enterprise facility may be considered a deterrent to other properties in the Bayfront being developed with new conforming uses such as hotels, offices, and destination restaurants. The presence of a rental car operation with a sizable surface parking lot might be considered incompatible with these uses, and possibly detrimental to the overall impression of the Bayfront as a desirable sefting for new development. 3 To offset the potential negative impact of the ongoing rental car operation, the applicant has offered a $2.1 million non-refundable payment for the City to invest in improvements that could enhance the appearance and desirability of the Bayfront. The improvements would be focused on those called for in lhe Bayfront Specific Pia, such as streetscape improvements, park and recreation facilities, improvement of the Bay Trail, or other infrastructure improvements that would benefit the area as a whole. The $2.1 million figure was arrived at by estimating tax revenues the City may have otherwise have received if a hotel was planned, permitted and constructed over the same seven-year time period as the permit extension. General Plan and Zonina Ordinance Update: Should the City Council choose to consider the extension of the Conditional Use Permit, another factor to consider is the ongoing update of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Although the General Plan Update is at a relatively early stage, members of the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) as well as community members at the first community workshop have indicated a desire to consider the Bayfront as a "change area" to be further evaluated. Changes might include new land uses, infrastructure improvements, or other policies and regulations that may influence development in the future. ln past requests to extend the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant has cited difficulty in marketing the property given zoning constraints. lf there were to be changes to the land use and zoning through the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Updates, the property could become more viable for redevelopment. Completion of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update is expected in approximately tvvo years, which is well within the time frame of the requested use permit extension- 778 Burlway Road - Conditional Use Permit Extension January 4,2016 FISCAL IMPACT During the term of the Conditional Use Permit for the auto rental facility at 778 Burlway Road, the City has received an annual payment of $36,500. Once the Conditional Use Permit lapses, this revenue stream (to the General Fund) will be lost. The offer for an offset payment of $2.1 million is a separate proposal from the applicant intended to mitigate the continued operation of the facility over the duration of the permit extension. Should the City Council consider the offer, the term would be that the funds be used specifically for improvements within the Bayfront Specific Plan area. Should the Council determine that it is in the best interests of the City to move forward with the proposed extension and offset payment structure, the Council should direct the City Manager to negotiate and enter into an agreement to effectuate Council's direction. Exhibits. . Application for Conditional Use Permit Extension . Applicant Letter of Explanation . July 1 , 2013 City Council Minutes 4 cflutfiY DEvELSIeaT oe|lIEIr . 501 PRXiOSE ROAD . BUrulrCAIq CA 9a0{0 p: 850.556-7':80 . t 150.696.3790 . uww-bur ngl.lm.oE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING GOMMISSION E VarianceD Sp€cial Permil Parcel #:Zoning/Othe.- PROJECT ADDRESS: 778 EurlwerBOg! Budlngsm€ CA 9.lO!0 Typc of lppllcruon: O Design RevbwX Cordiuonal Use Permit o D APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER city/staterzip:San Ramon. CA 94583 Phone:92$4&t-5 110 E-mail Wlliam.R.Withi com Name:Vanouerd Real Estate H oldinos. LLC Address: 778 Burfiaav Rd City/Statezip : Burlinoame CA 10 Phone: 92 &-5 110 E*nail: Witliam.R.Wrthi hi.com ARCHITECT'DESIGNER Name: l{/A \zAddress' ciry/state/zip: Authorkltlolt lo Rrpmduc. Frolsct Plrnr: I hattby gr.nt th. Clty of Budlngama tho rutiotlty to ?rproducc upon liquelt.n(Uo, post pLns Bubmltod wtth thls aPpllcrli,on on tt. Ctrty't w.b.lt. .t p.rt ot thc PLnnlng rpprDyrl proc.lr lnd w.lvo eny chlm3 tgslnat ths Clty .dalng out of or olatod to ruch rcllon._(lnid.b o, ArchltecUDrrlgnor, V^^.,tt ftllF Rent A CEr C.lmna of San Francisczr naw rar deliverv and slorr.re best of my knowl ief Aprllcantl signih.rc: I am aware of the proposed a ommtsslon alty of p€riury that the informat'on given herein is true and coneci to the 03te: here uthorize the abovo applicsnt to submit his apptication to th6 planning tult: nil..rrhirr-r. VPrope,tyo*r,'r Name: Vanouard Real Estate Holdinqs. LLC Address: 2633 Camino Ramon Suite 400 Phone: Efiail: Budingame BusinBss License #:_ PROJECT DESCRIPTION' AFFIoAVTTTSIGNATURE: I here[y Scanned by Vuescan - get a free trial al www.hamrick.com This Space for CDD Staff Use Only o Project Description: DSR deposiUhandling fee paid by: Ke CUP DHE DSR E SFD SP Scarned by Vnescan - 8et a free trial al www.hamrick com Conditional Use Permit Declining Height Envelope Design Review Existing New Single Family Dwelling Special Permit N Cqlr.ttlrtat, Dn.a4'lr.d D.Ct . l0l Prtrrqr Ro.d. Bl.llntE, G fafio . Paaart5a.r2g, . F:at0.ita.ffi . I44L!Ud!!rgD!,e!0ftwAPPLICATION PLANNING COMMISSION APruCANON SU PPLEM E}ITAL FORM 1. Proposed use of the 8ite: Mair{ain cursnl oeralbn of 2. Days and hours of operalion:6:00am - 1 0:30om.7davsaweek 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be patked at site (by typo) 4. Cun€nt and proietled maximum number ol employees (includirtg otvner) at th'ls locetion: Cun€nt and proj€c{ed maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to tho site: 6. What is the maximum number ol poople e,Aecled on sit€ any ons lime (include o,vnor, employees and visitors/customers):60 Deople 7. Wh6re dofwill the olynor and employees park?CunBnt ar€a 8, Vvhere do^r'/ill the customersfuisitors p ark? Cunent desionated aIEa 9. Pr€sent or most recent use o[ site Naw ror rlalhraru storaoe 10. List olher lenants on property, their number of employeas, hours of operation (attacfi a list if more room is needed)None Afror 5:0{l pm After 5:0O pnt Eeforr 6:00 pm Belore 5:fi1 prn After 5:d! pm B€toro S:fi) pm Hourg of Opention l010351035Weekdayr Full-timo 35 510105105Part-tme 551515wookond! Full{mo 5 c5555Part time 5 8eforc 5:00 pm Afrar . 5:00 pm Beforr 5:00 pm Aftar 5:00pn Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Houra of Operation 515515Weekdayel55 5 5555Weoksnd! Scanned by Vu€Scan - g€t a free lrialat $/ww.harnrick.com 15 5 Cityo(Burting6me.CgmmuntyDevGiopmontDeparheit.50lPrimr6oRoad.P(650)55&250.F(650)69e3790'u1rr,b{rdiioameo.o 2. How will lhe proposed use be ,ocated and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The cunent use of this property has been under a Conditional Use Permit for a non-conforming use since 2003. The cunent use although a non-conforming use has not had an adverse effect on the neighborhood or community. Vanguard has contributed to local city revenues and employment to many over this period of time. More importantly, however, as mentioned above, to counter the adverse impact lrom delays in sdopting a use that conforms with the Balront Specific Plan, Vanguard will enter into an Agreement with the City, as a condition to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. That Agreement will require Vanguard to pay a upfront, non-refundable fee of $2.'l million (in lieu of the $36,500 annual fee cunently paid) which can be used by the City to undertake improvements called for under the Bayfront Specific Plan. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.O2O1. Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistiance with these questions. 1 . Explain why the proposed use al the proposed location will not be detrimentel of injurious to propefty or improvements in the vlcinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. There till be no change in the cunent operation as the same business function and slructure that have existed during thi course of the past Conditional Use Permit-storage of vehicles to be able to service customers at the San Francisco lntemational Airport-will remain intact. Vanguard will continue to comply with all of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. Currently the existing facility operates security guard service 2417 which will remain. This has and will help maintain a strong public health and safety impact. The benefit of this agreement will immediately impact the geneiai welfare of the City, as Vanguard will enter into an Agreement with the City that will call for $2.1 ,iltion to be paid in February 2016 lhat can be used for improvements and development along the Bayfront that has been proposed in the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan. Scanred by Vues€sn - 8et a frec llial at rvvw hamrick com CITYOF:BURLINGAi,E CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLI CATION Scanned by Vuescan - 8et a fr€e trial al www.hamrick Eom City ot Burtingam.. Cqnmurity D6r,6too.n€rt ogtra.tn€$t. soi f,tinrEc RBd . P (050) 55&7250'F (450) 6963790 ' w,bJII09E!!!,9(l 3.Howwilltheprop*edpto!*tbecompdbtewithlhea*thellcs,mass,bulkand chancter of 'the exrcAig aid pbndal uses on a dlolntng prcPerties in the general vicinltY? wtth the extens'on of this agreement, there will b€ no struclufal or operational change of this facility. There will be no impact on the look and feel of the neighboring areas as the same buildlng and operation will remain that has been in operatbn. what will change will be the positive impacl of improvements to Bayfront, funded by the $2.,| million fee, consistent with the Burlingame Bayfont specific Plan. ln addition, luring the process of this agreement, it will allow for a new detreloper to design, submil plans and approvals for a new development so that upon Vanguard's doparture of this facilrty they will be ready to begin immediate construclion' OtyolEurti.l€Bme.CorflmurttyO€nrslop.nernO,eparbrle.It.50lPd.n,€oRoad.P(850)55&7250.F(650)69&3190.ti\*sr.buditEarne.orq 1 . Explain why the propos€d use at fh e proposed locatian will not be detrimental or injurious to propefi or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenlence. How will th6 proposed structure or use within the sEudure afioct neighboring ptoperties or sltuctures on thoss properues? lf neighboring prop6rli6s will not be affected, state why. Think aboul kaffic. noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlighushade, vie',r,s from neighboring properties, ease of maintGnanca. Why will the slructure or use within the s[ucture not aflect the public's health, safety or general welfare? Public health indrdes such things as sanitration (garbacp), air quality, discharges into sew€r and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and thing which have tho potential to effoct public health (i.e., und€rground storage tanks, slorag€ ot cfiem'rcals, situations which encourage the spread ol rodants, insecls or communicable diseases). Public safev. How will the structure or use within the slructure affect police or fire protectbn? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure creato a nuisance or need for policB services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loit€ring, traflic) or rire services (i.e-, slorage or use of llammable or hazardous materials, or potentiallydang6rous aclivities like'ir€lding, \,loodwork, engine removal). Goneral welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. ls the propos€l consistenl with the cit/s policy and goals for conservation and developmenl? ls there a social benefit? Convenbnce. Ho $ould the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as accoss to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? ls the proposal accessible to particular segmsnts of the public suci as the eldedy or handiGpped? 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? How does the proposed structwe or use comparo aesthetically with existing neighborhood? lf it does nol affecl aesthetics, slate why. It changes to the slructure are proposed, was ths addition designed to match oxisting architecture, pattern of development on adjacent prop€rlies in the neighborhood? lf a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airporl parking lot, compare your proposal to olher uses in the aroa and explain whyit fits. How does lhe proposed structure compaae lo neighboring structures in tems oI mass or bulk? lf ther€ is no change to lhe structure. say so. lf a new structure is proposed. compare its size, appearanco, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. How will lhe structure or use within the structure change the character ol the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone €stablishsd by size, density of development and g€neral pattern ol land use. Will there b€ more famc or less parking available resulting from lhis use? If you don't feel the characler of the neighborhood will change, state why. How will the proposed projecl be compatible with existing and polential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your projeci with existing uses. State why you fsel your project is consistenl with other uses in the vicinity. and/or slate why lDur project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinily. Scflnned by Vuescan ' 8et a fre€ trial at www harrnck corrr Ask the Planning Department for the gEneral plan d€signation and zoning district for the proposed p.oiect sile. Also, ask for an explanalion of each. Once you have this informalion, you can compare )rour proposal with lhe stated designat€d use and zoning, then explain why this proposal would fit accordingly. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesfhetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining propefties in the general vicinity? mowell(moring Douglas W. Sullivan (41s) 365-7370 d5ullivan@crowell.com BY EMAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager Community Development DePt. 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 November 30, 201 5 RE: Request for Extension of Conditional Use Permit 778 Burlway Road Dear Mr. Gardiner: our law firm represents vanguard Real Estate Holdings, LLC, the owner ofthe property located at 778 Burlway Road, Burlingame, california ("the Property"). By this letter and &e enclosed application forms, Vanguard Real Estate Holdings, LLC requests an extension ofthe Conditional Use Permil governing the current operations at the Property. As described below, our client recognizes that the current use does not conform with the uses called for in the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Ptan. To ameliorate any detriment associated with delays in developing the Propertt with a conforming use, Vanguard Real Estate Holdings, LLC has agreed to .nt"i into a formal rvritten Agreement with the City that will allow for immediate improvements along the Bayfront consistent with the Plan. In accordance with a conditional Use Permit that expires in February 2016, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co. of San Francisco, LLC ("Enterprise") currently uses the Propelty for new car delivery and storage of rental cars so as to support the rental car operations ofthe Enterprise, Alamo and National brands at the san Francisco Intemational Airport ("Airport'). (ln August 2007, Enterprise's parent company acquired Vanguard and its affiliates, which owned the Alamo and National rentai car businesses.) For simplicity's sake, Vanguard Real Estate Holdings, LLC, Enterprise and their pasl and current affiliates are refened to hereafter as "Vanguard," unless otherwise noted. By its Application, Vanguard requests a 7-year extension ofthe existing Conditional Use Permit, which would allow the Property to continue its non-conforming use from February 2016 to February 2023. The reason for the requested extension is that the Airport is plarning a new Crowett & Moring LLp t wwrv.crowetl.€om . Washington, OC . New York . san Frdncisao . Los Angetes r Orange County . Anchor.qe . London . 8.us5ets 275 Battery Stree! 23d Roor, San Fr.ncisco, CA 94111 . p 415 985-2800 . , 415 986'2827 Kevin Gardiner November 30, 2015 Page 2 Bayfront SPecific Plan. A' Background 1. Current OPerations VanguardhasoperatedalentalcarbusinessatthePropertysincelg85,includingundera series of co-nditional Uie permits approved by the Burlingame Planning commission and the Burlingame City Council over the years Specifically: . On February 18,2003, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval oia conditional Usspem.rit, which contained various restrictions on car storage and on-rite r"ntal operations, and-which increased the annual payment for the plrmit to $36,500 per year plus 1% ofthe gross rental receipts originating from the site. o Sinoe 2003, the Conditional Use Permit has been extended with a two 2-year extcnsions, a 5-year extension and a 2-year extension (on or about Ja"ITy].0' 2005; February I Z,ZOOI; llp;l27,2OOg; andJuty I ' 2013' rcspectively) ' The most recent extenrion otitt" Conaitional Use Permit is set to expire in February 2016. c.owett& ttoring LLP r wr{w.crowelt.com . washington, Dc . New York ' san trilcisco ' Los Angeles ' orange cou|lty ' A'chorage ' Londofl ' Brussets and greatly expanded consolidated car rentat facility, which is to be completed in 2022. _The new facili"ty shouldeliminate (or greatly reduce) any need for vanguard to have additional Airport ,.overilo*" storage on the Property or elsewhere beginning in 2023. With the 7-year extension ofthe Conditional Use Permit, Vanguard will not have to rush to build a large parking garage elsewhere in the meantime that would ultimately become unnecessary' In recognition ofthe development goals in the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan' Vanguard has igreed, as a condition to the continuation of its non-conforming use under the _ Coniitional UsJ permit extension, to enter into an Agreement with the City of Burlingame. -That A;;;;;;r, which is being draftei by the city, wil alow rhe city ro implemenr certain public b""nent, ariing the Conditional Use Fermit extension period. That Agrecment will require v_gr*a," riake an upfront, non_refundable $2.1 million payment in exchange fo.r the 7-year exteision of the Conditional Use Permit. The $2' I million can then be used immediately by the city to unde*ake improvements (including necessary infrastructure) as called for in the Bayfront Specific Plan. Thus, the extension of the Conditional Use Permit' conditioncd upon the "i."Jo, of ,fr. Agreement, benefits both Vanguard and the City' furthers the goals of the Bayflont Specific Plan and is in the public interest' Below, we briefly discuss (A) the background to this request' and (B) the request itself' ulong *ith tt . p.oposed Specific ilan ImplemJntation Agreemcnt with the City to further the Kevin Gardiner November 30, 2015 Page 3 ftowe[ & l,loring LLp r wlvw'crowelt.com . Washington, DC . NewYork. San FEncisco . LosAngetes . Orange County . Anchorage . london ' 8rutsets Before and more so after Enterprise acquired Vanguard (and the National and Alamo brands) in 2007, the Property has been essential to the operations ofthe Enterprise, Alamo and National brands, because the current car rental facility at the Airport does not have the capacity to suppon the volume of these rental car businesses. The space at the Airport's car rental facility is limiled. Vanguard has essentially been using the 778 Burlway Road Propcrty as "overfiow" for storing vehicles that are necessary to satisfy the rental car demand at the Airport, but that cannot be accommodated at the cu[ent Airport rental car facility. Over the past two years since the last extension of the Conditional Use Permit, Vanguard has worked to locate other nearby sites which could bc used for the storage ofvehicles, in lieu of the current Property at issue. In faot, Vanguard has entered into two leases--one located at the Cow Palace p.op..ty and the other located on Edwards Court in Burlingame-to supplement the Airport car rental storage space and replace the Property. In addition, because the land space at theleased facilities is not as expansive as the Property, Vanguard has dcveloped architectural plans ior the construction of a parking garage on the Edwards Cou( property (the construction of which is estimated to cost as much as $25 million). However, Vanguard is naturally concemed that the alremate locations, as well as the parking facility to be consfucted, will ultimately be unnecessary, given the Airport's plan to build a new, enlarged car rental facility at the Airport that can accommodate all ofthe rental car operations. 2. The Planned New San Francisco International Airport Car Facility On January 15, 2015, the San Francisco Intemational Airport announced a plan, with a conceptual Design, for a new Consolidated Rental car Facility ("conRAC") to be builtjust to the north of the current Airport car rental facility. (See Ex. 1, January 2015 Conceptual Design.) The proposed ConRAC wiil have two structures: (1) a Rental Car Center, generally consisting of car siorage spaces for the pick-up and retum ofvehicles, and a customer service area with a lobby, countirs and offices; and (2) a "QTA" ("quick turn-around" structure), generally for fueling, cleaning, light maintenance and additional storage ofthe vehictes. (The current QTA coulditso be used as an adjunct to the new facility, greatly expanding the servicing and storage areas.) In February,2015, Vanguard promptly notified representatives of the city of Bullingame of these changed iir"r.rt*".r. Vanguard also began discussions with the city representatives ofa potential extension ofthe conditional use Permit, coupled with its proposed project conditions that will further the goals ofthe Bayfront Specific Plan Since releasing the conceptual Design, the Airport has moved forward. Thus, in october 2015, the Airpor-t releised a.o.e d"tuil"d design ofthe conRAC, and has developed a financing plan. (See Ei.,2, October.2015 Presentation.) In October 2015, the Airport also announced a schedule calling for a Memorandum ofUnderstanding to be executed with the rental car Kevin Gardiner November 30,2015 Page 4 companies in the first half of20l5 and with the construction of the ConRAC and related infrastructure to be completed by 2022. The proposed, new ConRAC will have 50% more total space than the cunent Airport rental car facility (3.1 million sq. ft., compared to 2.1 million sq. ft.). In addition, the rental car companies could continue to use the cunent QTA, which has servicing facilities and storage space for vehicles. The following chart illustrates the expansion: Fuel Nozzles/Vacuums Carwash Bays Vehicle Storage Current (201 5) Rental Car Center 2,861 spaces 26,200 sq. ft. QTA r20 t4 1,714 spaces 4,400 spaces 80,000 sq. ft. 200 25 5,080 spaces (including use of ord QrA) B. The Requested Extension ofthe Conditional Use Permit and the Specific Plan ImPlementation Agreement In recognition ofthe goals ofthe Bayfront Specific Plan, Vanguard has agreed to enter into an Agreerienr with the City, as a condition ofthe extension ofthe Conditional Use Permit. In lieu ofthe $36,500 annual l'ee that Vanguard now pays for the conditional Use Permit, pursuant to the Agrecmcnt, Vanguard will pay a one-time, non-refundable fee of$2.1 million for ih.7-y.u.. extension of the Conditional Use Permit. That fee will be earmarked for improvements (including inftastructure) thal the City desires to undertake pusuant to the Bayfront Speciirc plan, The fee will be due on February 22, 2016, the first day ofthe extended Conaitional Use Permit. And, of course, Vanguard would continue to comply with all of the conditions in the permit over the extended period' The $2.1 million fee was arrived at by liberally estimating what tax revenues the city might theoretically receive if a hotel were to be planned, designed, permitted and constructed- ovJr thc course offhe next 4 years, with occupancy taxes thereafter being collected in years 5-7' For purposes ofthis theoretical calculation, Vanguard assumed a 150-room hotcl with a 93% o"".,pur"y rate on all days in years 5-7 and used the City's average historical occupancy tax C.owelt & lloring LLp . www.crowetl.(om. Washlngton, DC . l{ewYork , San tranrisco. LosAnqetes . OlangeCounty. Anchorage. London ' Bruss'Is New (2022) Parking/Return Spaces Customer Service Area Kevin Galdiner November 30, 201 5 Page 5 collections (about $5,000 of annual taxes per room). of course, the likelihood of actually receiving $j.1 mitlion in tax revenues from such a development is highly speculative, given that no devei-opment is underway (let alone a hotel development), and given that othel developments would yieid less in tax revenues. More importantly, under the Agreement, Vanguard would be puyingit " fee upfront, such that it is the equivalent ofreceiving more than $3 million in years 5- i.'Stu:t"a another wa11 the upfront payment is much more valuable than waiting for potential taxes to be collected in future years from a theoretical development' TheAgreementwitlallowtheCitytornoveforwardimmediatelywithnecessary- improve.mentJunder the Bayfront Specific Plan, using the $2.1 million. In this manner, the City unt V,,go,,a intend to jointly addrlss the effec1 of the detays in changing the use of the . properryi Moreover, Vanguard intends to seek and contract with a developer who will be in a poritior to close on a purc-hase ofthe Property in February 2023, while working on entitlements in the meantime. This would enable development of the Property to comllence upon Vanguard's move to the San Francisco Intemational Airport' VanguardsincerelyhopesthattheCitywillagreethatthisproposalisinthepublic intcrest, R;presentatives of Vanguard will bi at the hearings addressing the requested extension and looks forward 1o working with the City. Thank you for your consideration of these matters' ly, Douglas W. Sullivan Attachments (Exs. I and 2) cc: William Withinglon, Vice PresidenUGeneral Manager' Enterprise (via email) Neil Sekfui, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (via email) Kathleen Kane, Burlingame City Attorney (via email) sFAcTrvE l29055.0009056/903885271.1 \- cro$ett & iloring LLp . wwu.crowelLaom . wa5hlngton,o(. ew Yorl . sanfBnckco. Loi Ang€les . 0rarge corrnty . Arahorage. London ' Erussels ADOPTIO:{ OF A RESOLUTI ON AI]THORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AONE-YEARSER VICE ORDERFORINFO R]VIATION TECHN OL OGY SERVIC ES FROM TIIE CITY OF REDWOOD CITY FinDir Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution No. 64-2013 authorizing the City Manager to execute a one-year service order for Lrformation Technology Services from the City ofRedwood City. h.PTAF TOLLING AGREE]VIENT E SION CA Kane requested Council authorize the City Manager to execute a fouth addendum to the tolling agreement between the City and the County of San Mateo regarding the existing Foperty tax administration fee (PTAF) dispute between the parties. a. APPEALOFTEE PLANNING CO MMISSION'S DENIAL (without Pre udice) OF 9 VAN GUARI)REAI, ESTATE HOLDINGS.APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMITFORAN AUTO RENTAL.STORAGE AND REPAIR F,ACII,ITY LOCATED AT 778 BI]RLWA ROAD CDD Meeker reviewed the staffreport and advised that Vanguard Real Estate Holdings is asking for a 10 year extension of the conditional use permit for its auto rental, storage and repair facility at 778 Burlway i.oad. He saitl that since 2003 the Planning Commission and the City Council have grantetl soveral two-year extensions and one five-year extension ofthe conditional use pemrit. He fi:rther advised that following consideration of the oral and written testimouy, the Planning Commission deniod the 10 year extension at their May28, 2013 meeting, deteimining that extension could serve to deter efforts to sell the ProPertY. Councilmembers Deal and Baylock clarified the history of the permitting on the site md the payment structure under the existing Conditional Use Perrnit. During the public hearing, appetlant Mark Hudak spoke about the history ofthe project antl stated that the owner"is seeking to market G property for sa1e. In response to questions from Cotncilmembel Baylocl he clarified that the property owrer had been paying a flat fee under the CUP of $36,500 per year, and that the site is bei:rg usedfor storage and preparation ofrental cars. In response to questions from Mayor Keiglran, Mr. Hudak and Peter Van Vokenburg, a company representative, stated that the use is curently not permitted on the site but that the CUP predates the s6ning change that made the use impermissible and that the owner has been aggressive in seekirg a buyer. In a colloquy with Vice Mayor Brownrigg, Mr. Volkenbulg stated that marketiag of the property has been ruoa"r"a Uy"tl" ,oning on tire site. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated his ooncem that t,he ownor be incentivized to market tle propertfaggressively. Councilmember Deal noteat his agreement with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. He stated rhat a ten-yearext€nsion is too long for the site. In response to a question ftom councilmember Deal, Mr, Volkenburg stated that he felt if the exte,nsion could not be negotiated then they would end up in court. 3 July 1, 2013 PUBLIC TIEARINGS Burlin gamc City Council Approved lvliDutes Following closure of the public hearing, Councilnember Nagel stated that she sensed disappointment in the lack of progress on this sale. She moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Planniag Commission's denial of the application for an extension ofthe Conditional Use Permit. The motion was not seconded. Comcilmember Deal stated that 2014 is just around the corner and to ask suddenly for them to stop the use is abrupt. He stated that he could look at a two-year permit but he did not want to see it come back in two years with yet another argument for extension. Mayor Keighra:r stated that she agreed with Councilmember Nagei but because ttrere were some good points made by Mr. Hutlak she wanted to agree with a two-year extension. She stated this was extended in 2003, 2005, and then 2007 for five years. She stated that was plenty of time to figule out what to do. Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was certain that ten years did not make sense. He agreed with the two- year extension. Councilmember Baylock also agteed lvith Councilmember Deal. Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked to add a condition requiring no later than halfiray tbrough extension period the applicant should meet with economic subcommittee to renew what steps have been taken to look for a disposition of the property. The motion as amended was rnade by Councilmember Deal; seconded by Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved by a voice vote, 4-1 rvith Councilmember Nagel replying no. Motion by Councilmember Deal to adopt the CEQA resolution in the packet; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. Motion x'as approved by a voice vote, 4-1 with Councilmember Nagel replyilg no. b. APPEALHEARINGONBEAUT CATI COMMISSTON'S APPROVAL OF THE RE,}IOVAI OF FOIJR PROTECTED TREES AT 2220 S DRI\'E fiIOO\'ER E LEN{ENTARY SCHOOL) P&RD Glomstad reviewed the staff report and requested Council corsider the appeal and conduct a public hearing. ln response to a questiotr from Mayor Keigkan, Ms. Glomstad cladfied that arborist Osterling, who had submitted a letter in support of the appeal, had not met with City staff. Councilnember Nagel stated the Beautification Commission was very specific about the hees that would be replacing the trees. She asked the City Arborist if he concurred with the Commission's recommendations. City Arborist Disco stated he did not. He stated it is not normal for them to be that specific about the type of tree. He stated that the staff report suggested replacing the four oak hees with four more trees, but the Commission decided to do eight. Councilmember Nagel asked about the sudden oak death problem in that area. Mr. Disco stated he stuck with the oaks because of the surrounding trees. He noted most sudden oak deaths are in oaks near creeks, which these are not. Mayor Keighran stated that it was mentioned the trees would be replaced in the general vicinity of where the oaks are now, She asked how far backs the trees need to be so they aren't damaged with construction. Mr. Disco noted there is an area that should have enough room for trees to grorv. He noted the school district has a planting plan. Burlingame City Council Approved Mr'nutes July 1, 2013 4 C|TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMM,SSTOi/ - Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 . Another home in the averaging area has a setback that skews the average setback.. Are placing the home at a location that matches the pattern of the adjacent propefties. Chair Sargent called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at7:18 p.m. 778 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED SL-APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION TO ALLOW OPERATION OF A CAR RENTAL, STORAGE AND REPAIR FACILITY (MARK HUDAK, APPLICANT; VANGUARD R/E HOLDINGS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN The applicant proposes substantial improvements to the site; particularly changes to promote green- vehicle'initiatives. Will include alternaiive fuel stations, charging stations and a potential car-share station. The ten year timeframe is needed to allow the property owner to amortize the capital improvements over a reasonable Period of time. ihl milestones proposed by the applicant are contained in the April 22, 2013 letter attached to the staff report. in" pi6p",tv remains for sale. tt is ideatly situated_for development, but the right buyer needs to "orJ to*rio to oevelop the property. Not certain if that is a function of the recessionary times, or other factors. in tne event thatthe permit is extended, but a buyercomes foMard, the property owner iS committed to selling the property. Feels thit there is a new energy in the area. Feels confident that a buyer may be found; this would trump the current owners' Plans. At the city council's recent goal setting session, it is clear that the city council supports the implementation of green initiatives in the City. Commission comments: . Has there been any thought given to allowing perhaps trlo hotels on the property or another arrangement? (Hud;k - dntn-ue to use the fuli site. The property is well suited for a. hotel and an un"i 5ry r"u, bit wouldn't think to subdivide the property; it is configured in a mannerthat is suitable for either a single or more hotels.) HURIN Reference staff report dated May 28, 20 13, with attachments- Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. No ex parte communications were reported and all commissioners had visited the subject property. Questions of staff: Was the 2003 approval by the City Council in response to an appeal of the Planning Commission's action? (Hurin - will research.) Chair Sargent opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak and Will Withington (Vanguard) represented the applicant' . Noted that the 2003 action by the Planning Commission was taken forward to the City Council by then Council Member Galligin in order to impose a fee upon the use payable to the City on an1 annual basis. 2. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISS/O^/ - Approved Minutes ls the site divided into different parcels? (Withington - one address is the offlce, the other is the storage and maintenance facility - it is only one parcel.) The milestones don't seem very aggressive. (Hudak-the milestones are driven bydemandforthe alternative fuel vehicles.) Doesn't believe that it is in the City's best interest to tie up the property for another ten years, especially given that the Burlingame Point project was approved by the City and may create demand for development of this property. Almost feels that the request could bedenied and appealedtothe CityCouncilto seewherethe Council's position will land. Believes that the ten yearextension would not motivate the property owner to actively market the property. (Hudak - not tying up the property Extending the conditional use permit doesn't preclude anyone from coming foruard to buy the property. A buyer could submit an offer that would permit the sale to a higher and better use. Need to have the beneflts ofthe use forthe nextfive to ten years untilthe property is sold and developed.) Could anyone in the community use the charging stations? (Hudak - yes.) Could a lesser time frame be approved? (Meeker/Kane - the length of the extension is discretionary, a lesser time frame or denial could be considered - the full range of discretion is availabte. Hudak - a lesser time frame would not allow the improvements to be made to support the conversion for alternative fuel vehicles - the cost of the improvements could not be amortized. There would be no benefit to the City if the improvements are not installed. Withington - want to install Enterprise green vehicle and car-share technology, and storage and maintenance for electric vehicles. Had an offer on the table five years ago, but it fell through. The short duration of the conditional use permit doesn't allow investment in the property. Have not committed to the area yet since the permit must be extended every five years. The company wishes to expand in this space; there is no other presence in the San Francisco area. Would be surprised if movement didn't occur on the property in the next year or so if the permit is extended as requested.) What is the alternative fuel? What is the public benefit? (Withington - charging stations could be placed in other areas of Burlingame and could work with City to replace City vehicles with electric vehicles. Don't currently have a facility to maintain and store vehicles.) Could do a car share program without the significant infrastructure improvement. (Withington - need to have a center of operations.) Struggling with the ten yearextension - doesn't feelthat the City is getting anything of valuewith the exteniion request. The City Council has indicated that it doesn't want facilities like this to remain in the area for many years. Requested clarification regarding the history that explains that the conditional use permit has been relinquished - is this true? (Meeker - no, the applicant did not relinquish the permit as planned. This site has continued to have a valid conditional use permit.) The use has been in place for more than thirty years; the use is no longer permitted. The viability of the site aS a car rental facility has run its course; there is more going on out there than the City would like to see. The City would like to see sites such as this converted from this type of use to uses consistent with the Bayfront Plan. Are encouraglng other uses of the property. Extending for ten years allows a continuation of a non-permitted use for another ten years. It seems like a two year extension could be sufficient to permit improvements to the property; particularly if the investment doesn't add to the value of the property. (Hudak - the improvements will not be a barrier to the selling price for the property - the property would be sold whether the improvements are made or not. No investments will be made in the property with shorter extensions. The sale price of the property and the investment in the property are completely unrelated in terms of their economics.) lnvestment in the property doesn't provide the property ownerwith the incentive to sell the property. (Hudak - there is no disincentive to sell. Can't amortize the cost of improvements with a shorter time frame. Withington - no one has looked at the property in five years. The improvements will not affect the appeal of the property for sale purposes- This is the most expensive property in the State 5 May 28,2013 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes May 28, 2013 of California to operate. lf the property is sold, then the property is paid off in total. Allows a longer time for the operator to pay back the parent company for improvements.) Believes that the approval of the Burlingame Point project has changed the landscape in terms of demand for development in the area. ls there a way to condition that if an offer of a certain amount is received, it must be sold? (Meeker/Kane - cannot impose conditions that require the sale of the property.) lf the public benefit is car sharing, it would be more appropriate on a smaller property in an area where the use is permitted. Feels that the use of the property is not appropriate for this location given the size of lhe property. ihe site could support perhaps two hotels and a restaurant; can't see the motivation to pursue sale of the property ii the permit is extended. (Hudak - when a reasonable offer is made for the purchaie df tn'e property, then it will be sold. Five years have lapsed without a viewing or an offer. A property of this size on the Bayfront is a huge undertaking. Millions of dollars are required for the land and development costs. Giving the applicant the ability to do something reasonable on the property will not prevent the sale of the property.) btaiitiei tnat ita ten year extension is granted, then there is no reason for notextending for two year increments. (Hudak- if a two year extension is granted, then there will be no investment made in the property. Sounds like the City is making it diflicult to allow the applicant to operate to encourage sale at a lesser value.) The investment would be made by the applicant if it is a good investment. lf really motivated, the improvements could be made in , year. (Hudak - yes, if there was enough demand for the use.) The we car program has not been implemented in the past five years of discussions. (Hudak - have had ongoin! discussions with the City over these years, but haven't achieved a model thatwill work. The a-pplicint is in a position to implement programs that are desired by the City Council.) Feels thatthe applicantwill not likely be as active in selling the property if the permit is extended for ten years. iiexlenaed fortive years and the improvements can be installed in one year, why not proceed in that manner. (Hudak --the demand is not in place for the car sharing program. won't embalk on the f rojr"* iithe ten year extension is not granted. The city council encourages green initiatives such "" [not" present;d. A buyer is not going to be concerned about the action of the Planning Commission regarding the extension request.) Public comments None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed Additional Commission comments: . Agrees that it is a non-permitted use for the area; but the use is there - is concerned about forcing the applicant to sell the property.. The use has been there for 30 years; nothing is wrong with the status-quo' . Aren't there benefits to allowing the use to continue?. Doesn't see the benefits as preiented. Extension of the permit would appear to deter efforts to sell the property. lf a car share program were created and the property were sold, what would happen to the city's car "n"r" pi"gdtiMeeker - clarified that the City doesn't have a car share program in conjunction *itn L! "ipii""nt - discussions have been ongoing, but consensus has not been reached. Though in" CitV iJ .rpp"rtive of green initiatives; it h6s not gone on record as supporting this extension ;;;;.1. i. rait, tne city Louncil has encouraged the use of properties such as this site for higher . b May 28,2013 and better use. There is not commitment on the part of the City to support the applicant's programs. Feels that the Commission has done a good job of articulating its concerns ) Are there other areas where the use could occur? (Meeker - yes, the Rollins Road area permits the use.) The Bayfront Plan doesn't envision long term car sharing use ofthe property Feels that a ten year extension would allow the use to dig in deeper. The incentive to allow development consistent with the Bayfront Plan would not exist. Commissioner Gaul moved to deny the application without preiudice The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Dlscusslon of motion: None 3 Chair Sargent calted for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed 6'0-1-0 (Commisiioner Terrones absent). Appeat procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVI EW STUDY EMS 1310 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R.1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CROCKETT LANE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTA T: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated May 28, 201 3, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. No e* part; communications were reported and all Commissioners had visited the subject property. Questions of staff: . None. Chair Sargent opened lhe public comment period. James Chu represented the applicant. Commission comments: . The garage door is specified as a steel door; wouldn't a wood door look better? Would prefer a wood'doo;. (Unidentified - would not be able to tell that the door is steel; proposed for maintenance purposes-). ihe lot is prime for a prominent porch given the width of the lot - was one considered? (Chu - has a large patio, have a large rear yard area and have expanded paving at the front entry') . Th; rear patio is grea[on the east side, but will be more appreciated in the afternoon on the front elevation. ln the afternoon the rear yard will be shaded.. lt is more neighborly to have a larger porch . Appreciates a new layout given the larger lot area. Likes that the owner will be more likely to park on the driveway than in the street given the presence of the mud room on the side. 7 C|TY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMM,SSTOil - Approved Minutes qG 5frazqlJ.l1_ z< uJ u{ o.U l) II f] -Ia o I PV,oo co -o (o o.9oOE.C(I,UP 9-=E;corr O '.l-i3 crt o 3 3't(J -r- rJ oE>eo0il-\OEgt.rEIEo:(JU.-oO,i.C;(JP o>.8 {., :.-2 aUOJ!-t-(lJtsE/-l-roL(Jo-9 l \ I ltl (o L)o tn Eo \ /_ I r /- \ -\ \r- \ ,-.7/ I 1G d2^ - lll2zz< uJ lrl o.Uool-o C IJ.J (I.,.g=oo 5'=.ixC\J =E EoU o CL) e 6_. Lr= gl !tssb---o-oiicrx3o r- jU E qro O3 cE€ ," u6 rO EE a€: Eo.! Eofoo c.CvlrD.-=3E'E -=I ;-oL P=ljo= L)O = Cr/l>: ogtY y 2hduJ .= q E.:P #_E E!sfr = o=tA t/a J.rCrol!'v -c. 36yqCL AE vlE.9 (oH 9 E;Loo-E E'E(JFs =IIJ. I- ) 6{0I.- P ra'o- -Eg!r, vtJ:(l.,.a..(JCY c'6LOO o-dE-'O EEt-oo /r r (' -rt,rx gp o '=EO. E-E6 Tt+ .EE E =€o-oC 9co ;:(-PoJE U=A.=o.O j Eo-bo o =og.: Eg e 5 9io u ==!, .:rr.r ro =EU -E UE ':. t:a l-<)):{ (4. \, -Lo 3 +,I aooo 3oI4 (Jo o EC rI, o uo(I, o vt bo o o o .: tn E(ot- boo o- oo o o U C 0) (J iE o oo o C o) o ou Jov) oo .=Ec J tJlo-o o o- Co {= =oo- .=(I, Eo(Jf-ood o-o- Jtn Lo =o CL Lotroo (J VI v',xo Co )(J oco C o o.C =o(J o -trI G, tnt-o E )v) Co(J tht-o o .t(J l- (J (u (u o o ot-Ptrou .=tr =E Eo(J G'(Jo I I I UIco (o UI o0c oo ((, (J aaaaa oz -o oEC:l o (I, o- IoP(U G, ,r'oP(o .gU.C PL)o o l-'oo- G,o .C(J co ob -9e-o o-(I,Xfi.9 a (\rutUu la-o 0{r,l-rFotroE o.c+, ol- +t(Es3 vl .o.=(J EC (U .b)cfo(J o(u (o C(ottl t-o v Eoo o0 t-o (ot(o.F co+too- \ .Eg f E Eo(J tnth (l., C rnf-o EC(o .9 =fo- Eol-tts .Y(J (o -oT'ootts c) .tthoo- \ tio-fol- bo (J(!(Jo E(E E(Jo Eor- toooftn \ tn.= oco! .u EocoIJo (U(Jo E C(ll l-o EfvtCoU I(oo o0 L.o {=(J o (o .Eo (u ]irnoL o0 h0 \ Cfo(J (o EoCo.n'oc(o C l-(o .g vl! =tn(uL o .tthoo- c(ooo io C(! g (Eos (I, go E Col-'= Co co {=(o oc .E o c,l-:,! Jo (o tht-o.r)t))o Cfo(J 610 (D= ,x .9 a I (\r lh,g -JoL' ooJ',' (E =E(utng .I tgu!l s 3 ilt o J C Co(J tnbEt-E8ul-L)o-9ryAF: P.F3Ea H 'EEo- +' -grH:0.,*cPHo--gEesI_:Pr.0E3 Hi?\Jb .oE bJo :' O HEgr 53 UH, o Eo ttf() oo E -ctEo (op ovl CoL) (uE o o- oPOtn()ocf(uCC{= gl O.=L)(o LULoU9(g,.=o--:- oi>(J !<u).n o .C horuC(J'=q<u >c) CEfco(U()oo9sb(Uc>Eco(I,.nH .= uoa.;Ctno(obo o- rn -Ol- s#oo-o- '6 +rECL,tp E 86 taCoEbc<uoAl-.Ytbo E 9xo o-!r! bo(I, aaa ool-5rb,r!olr E tul- u0oLa. Ia-,lt TE.a la 'l: la,IED ItI? IE l{Irlo.l uI 9ls 6l ! HIP E _sg$: i! i-c o) Fcr€: 6-o s =F 6G(., T oocdo uJ@o?-g (.,.uE ti oFH6 SUT ilEHF EgTE; Ei Px5 l *sEB aE Q}g Eo oE5 9 ot oo,oo- qr- F o!!g 9.roo gssFi eo! E ii= oo88 -(Drt EREF--C{(ooN9AEir-? : E3 Iq a 3 E€o olEt OF = EEEs bE6 8" i6:tEE JdS.EqE o<^'.(J E g E3!? Eslur-rEt e!-98;3 ! fB6ur io-53!f:l;FEi ! 96b- - op E;EE = 3,'€ iiE.F FFooFFi::: uro .E UE 3 P*9,rtza lrJ u,( oo o c,o E oF ! .o o E (, z o ! ; EB z E > E6h eEE €3 E oo 6aE: 3r 6 Ee3 I#< 3e o Eh> <(! 9a Ei FC EE9: i ;: a ii*n -: = 9.'! E EE c 6E Ft!F FE ur!tu:b6FPdo6E or=roF3L 3z 5 ?5I EE* = t,f- <> >Coc! .E EESE 5t9.o8 i gsg r: ^9ri € E rEi r E IEE €I e-* oi ?d4 = 3 iEE ! (9 Gt ooNN ONoo dii(!a!oc! -e@ Eoo oa 5s38o€ ;r Eg iE !! o0Log lr|g tEo -(J tra-l- (E E I --a-o h0Lotrtrl o -CL Eluut Fz.trI =UJt- a (,&utz UJ Fz, rU =UJF ct (, E, UJz UJ o (,c lrJ E l-3eotPO9eoEt' o- (ocL2 UEUEEEpEx Ei \-,ol(J ErJ19 t*l ^}.=-t .:- J -J-L'U5E a focoPo)C.O-^-L i5Eo'tr c.L)=rot-=() iJ-LE(uCC ocrv(u =;*EtgE:E 8I ,oEE-8E r^ 9'=gE:"g -o o Xurr,rfi'=oUL)=o(,L)UCCL a ! '{ tnof- =+,oot! E IUl- brDoLo- fr, .Io,ruo L tE lrl J H-o\JO tn l! ffi .,no-coo a- EEEE Ef, .fgL'cOtUrF 111tOOJ (J F{C CO: (UNarct(o=€ E 5R tno F(ofo 8er- (Eo--L'oo toc foE.;coo.t O,+ vtOoc, .,J ?otsrts vt vt-9(JtJCo=z(I, o (U (! o-o an .>EE Cr-(oo i=P-otn CCroO>E SEo'to.1 -OO =;fE v)o otn o-fru OUECLquttc-.9OL) ct-Oo .u) o.+ otrEg $rncI).9o.9IL>q-no EEoo Io O .r-(9b aaa qU ffittrz..:r [L!azz< uJ u{ o-u llr a *-.... .,. v- - \, 'l u0Log lr|g lUo--aLI lE =0tr,-troo. I Pc =o(J oot,o =g (U]n trt-r uttJ{J <=rL' 5ffaz =2z< uJ u{ o-u ll) lnP I- JtnoE, -o =Pv1 (u(J C - -(Jg -oc(o.naoo )._tJt 19 !-(uo6()-.^(o >(J = o-or14 0-o E =E= o '^ of L) gt!E b a, gE o E 5 ou = 6 'F o-rn-, -oET,COv \I/F E X (u'-C (o = h,/i; i E #g vt E E ; T6 g t tu E oc too=Uoc-F! (u C +-r G,.o ru 5 gH i,g e{ e eP'='t;r!JP !'l d P- br- =h E -= EE E J (Uoo-'o C(o vt =o-c P (U 3(I, boo E E(o boo o- o -c .+- 14Oo e-a(/)E gqoE6s o a a o o o :E' =Pvt I luI.I C-c(,g BJrJ(J E'I .ET'cfo o of!, T'!, G oc G E olt E,z co UI.9 E EoU E'I oc UJ .cc o!t lE(J i, fo UI tooo E, o f ! .c6 o{J ,o(, o!oo-+r{oal uld(, o- i,IJ fo UI {ssssssss.sE-€Hm.trl\t@\O\OUOli9 Bxxxs{€stiiE Loio evo'E.vE#f; E E EESEE { .iE?EE iu E f,#J=f sr?.;t rrtr:ri:!oJzzfF aax =o 3oo- .gtr € ro \,$r{oN .T =Lo =oo. u,dt,o. €rlod UIo(, 3otioE gt Lotru, t F{oN aax.I =o(JL =o0o G, Ia-l-P(Jortrl +,g ol-l- =(J aItg { f.9 ,CL -ru C-O,,EFtoCLa,ol -o- g Eoo LJ po>- 9Srde bur& Po UIoPro!- ulPutv.oI- (J9oF rrl =rtrb-E?9 o C} fo 'i, CIt ?'-edotrlJ clrJytJE CS !-Eo(utr (ufo + ol.=ol-SJ o- ro Its:EF(ud (JC(o<uFtc oo (U.2> (! '= E(u ._e aLC koE' \J (, (n a) .1J1 oo-x tlJ Eoq 8.9 ELI UJ€ t9a,TE\, (lJ (oE o\J tnoa-+,.I Loa-La. EOtra-Ect! --a. r.ro =o .I *,(Et,a-|+.arI+,coE - ui .e\Bc AJ(J t4 o Eo \E OJ!5 (.t )<qj \Er AJc a)BqJ(4 Ga{Bo(-) B G I B AJu = = .J.lco {=(J JEo .hco_>Fo-(Jo(l)f 9olAErFu98q8*gH (o6 oil-Ct^9Cr-.9bln rts thE'=(uFvt(u)(93 -o(9*-:o(!9(ui L)(uLE(UY(JE EE8.t-o' -5ft')Orr{ -o ;R]n oP o. J bo .c (E(J an c(u co(J bot-oc(u o -o(E =ocoL ;Rorn E =E := N o (u trorJttl ornoN -o ;Rotn o o- =uoc (o() tn Co Co(J o0Loco o -o(o =(ucol-stn(n E) E C.E o .C (I) ah(o CD F{ os (E CoIlh aaa lao .I L(ugoL'tt -CL CL =]h o .I+,(Jo CL]ao5& tnco'6 ..h Eo (, I(9 C(uu '- .99.h -c.= =PCoPco(J bo oco o -o(o =(uc(I)t- }Roo (l11 ol !-l(ol EIol G'I u1l oFy]yrrr(,t --?olo:,8 I o '6oh; ;, 5 nr.ti>S . E S a qq E E-RE E IAf SE3 E0.,E\Jl{Ai{J;s F'r-p:9-Y o og L \.F o 0Jl olol r.rl CIo '::lot;..iggt >- co E (u .o(De.(Udb c r^rl i_L.9n 8 r EtO Y L.-,\ \-,/ ., CllfrF.:olr\ s \, ';ll-Iul (9!l EEI o, tro \elo-.:FU]lrl - .t'IL o ro urlolcl >l lEluillft -,q3 \t tJsr:- Eo E (,tl sEl.t >l rEl6l oo -Oo|(o r- =+9(9 &Gsso tr.trtt tG, rt .oo .; c .9 .9 Eo t9 Io\, 86El HEEr{zt,l'o t! o ofot- crr o SElt;@, .E ututo U.! urlt,tEl >l tDllrtlO+,.|3 ll,l (Jlr> -tr Eo E sElro >lfiIr^l UItr .9 t 7.: Lt!trt .2lL,q (roolY E2.o6 l!Pu ^L,=F 8-Eotr:\J -a- 3 o Eo UtfUuJ- H.Eu!t iEE.+ElJ l,Ll,!t!<o- e (ucr 9?^E ut l! !Srr: -+'1 ,;:=Pp E F$€-$5e g:9El: E g 'H u I suEE &3*EE ,- L .fi L -<L r 5 s,e E E H,e;L,9.9 r., x;.9,o9u .Slts:!Et:b g3-:bEd.oa LU!la9 .E tro Etro.= tr LlJ G.too,trtroo(,6 lrt o L IEtr (U u| (.4 o L aoco r, r{ o 6gou UI Uttr .9 o o =UItrotJ ov *sfor-3+oL9 t--o, J-El-,ssoooorl r{ *g(]l- =+9\9t--oJIu. l, rC, \Od. d.ut rnan lY! F{ L(uo alvttP - =tao G, oa-L(u trot,thrho L- (U E ErJ.tl tno o0c(o -c(J o (U f ooo EC(o c .9 (U arl'oo o (J '6 oo-tn [rJU(J o = =II A o-o-f an o =oo- o o f (J J tn .=Eo (J A C (o o(Jc =o .Nvl E (E ooo o- G' o o A .E(I, oUC =o (o =o I o-o A tn (oo o0 Co co(J oo Ico.o (u(J oo E o o -o -co h0 (U o .g -o(u (I, A E bo )o o(J !-o- oo oCo o G'vlo o .C =co =(J o -cPboco A tnoo .txo EC (E tno (U co (o oCo oo .= (U o(J Cf o (U UJd (, CL A co.IP TE UrOa- *Ja- E ''!Ec(u t 1r,oa-a)g .I tEPLoL'c3 \tag llta- G, E:fou-o -Efir:.9* vtv\ l- +t(JFcgl 6rl- ar P ts,'J =r-(uO- -C FEPE P.= -fi.9!o -EgsHon ot'rrl t\-, Vlc oE E Ag E.-c=E L'rtl()g**-qq-)i.g oLL'\.-rU;aG'r to==u__Lirt (U (ugr;.9 tr-(u==eEbd:-uc.=oo R =z.= 6 6 Ec(U\ooA -oXro= = ^; iE A:.Eo 0l* AI--LJ =9=U;E E =t o.J>.\---.-o =t tnro tr or'C'= I LEEolruds6E*8s; oaeH 3LU:n L:8EE g EEEBoooooc+).-A7c7.YEI.-gpE-c o-c oN (u(n ooE oE EEEHO= O c3 83 E th tl(I, -o o .2 .= oo- Eo() o (U (o Co .t -o(o E (U ooo o- lrJ(JU tn .Cg -c .9p.C l{ o L (E EoIrtl aaaa taco .I tl = -Ico(J T'coo utotr .IEtr .Il!>,o - 1G 5fraz -uJ1zz< uJ u.l o-U Pa-l-o -C+, = ool-oE3' --iib \/(I,o U ((, J ll,l C a- Coo- TErn-^OPE s f t(obU,E=8.9dR=h-{:UotnE I'+ E -ctf:- :E,3 E =0ifi e-EE E bd=o ep[= E €i.frE :$E #: P =;s Ei= € :EH=i =8€ * .g::; "*EE EETiig E;F Ei"E q il X T F E aE # a gEE gEEIE+ EE H+ H E E E = E; E =FgsEs*5H$Ev aaaaaaa taJPco Eo -ut o - qb 5ffvtz - aJ.)2zz< uJ r+ o.U oof-o C LU C(I,o U (o Jtn C Coo- N o 1n(u ? o- \o o 0J-oo o i o E I I I I t o 0 E! G6. IUc ro ao 4J I a o F,r yXE EEEg =tJoo >et'Es trc EO EE i$gtfugg o NJ E 0) .Jq a !JIoq[u uEco'= .}c .soa {io gEEIIEgt aaaa , (n ono C F{ ot,oso- 7 N o rrt 'E-tro. - I o)t- =OJ tr't= C .9 rc E o oo 0) LtJ (! OJ U ro '- OJ u.- gfugBgi* ataaaaa -c(,,c5tr 'olt-r IalNl trlt{l B aJ oa-o a. \ oU o aJ sat oEa- -o Ea-F tro IIJP ru ELot! UJ(J cL. {ro =o.I l-o>o e-fiLoo ll-PE3EF IJ.J Co .-\:UU9I.UE-c:o cr-oJf:c.odb ^ r .lJ9+,th+)O-f 5 q'-'Ec'9(I,uLj 8EgOJICr-Jl^)o-oE (oEUq,UAE';9E:\,.rcc.Yoo a'FO-:=fc=ooo.9 =Yt.EE 8* E trE (J -r Eg; e E 3Eq sg r;H*E I E E ES E C(o o- .9+)((,+) Co Eoo -E c, l{-o utPCo E qJ LLI o u)l-oc Ll-' C(ooo (I, f,(, .g Coo- t-o!o Uo I -c9(o 5R tll-o (Jot- E o T'!-(oo co IJ.JU CL r.OrloN ()t- (U th (Jc Jo(J P_U ro r-{oc! Olc{ t-(o f!- _o(uIt (uo .= E Eo() l-o(,'t E tn F{oN r/)c{ L(o =t-lroLL oo+,.g E Eo(J l-o.2 ! (o Floc! @r! t-(o =c(I, llf'> t, .9 CL P IL3oLt9 ,no t!o 1b5fftnz - lL)2zz< uJ u{ o-u lr|rJa. Lorar ut CLoth,vt +,xo = I i. Eo(Jitr(l-ococ G' 0, (J IE )th .=coo Aro .= Eo(Jio(L(u UJc(ooo(o .)tl .=coa ; 3 = g ilr T I It b. E T : II I I I Itta a ni I ,l (o 'P oL) trofrr+,(E EL-orf-tr -aol-o Lol! tr= COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY FAQ The City of Burlingame is a member of the San Mateo County Advisory Committee that is exploring bringing a Community Choice Energy (CCE) program to the county. CCE programs allow local governments to pool the electricity demand of their communities to purchase power with high renewable content. The CCE program in San Mateo County is known as Peninsula Clean Energy. See the frequently asked questions below to learn more. How does a CCE work? CCEs provide consumer choice for purchasing electricity and allow communities to increase the amount of electricity procured or generated from renewable sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. CCEs can also develop local renewable energy projects and facilitate energy innovations that createjobs and invest in the local economy. By accelerating the use of renewable energy, CCEs make a significant impact in reducing greenhouse gases and improving environmental quality. CCEs also introduce competition to the energy market, which helps drive down costs, stimulate new energy investments and technologies, and diversify power choices. lmportantly, CCEs operating in other locales have demonstrated lower rates and cost savings for electricity customers. CCE electrical rates have generally been 3-10% lower than PG&E'S rates. Are there other CCEs in California? Yes, there are three CCE programs running in California: Marin Clean Energy in Marin County; Sonoma Clean Power in Sonoma County; and Lancaster Choice Energy in the City of Lancaster. All three CCEs are offering their customers 20-50% more renewable energy than that offered by the existing utility, and the prices are currently lower than the utility's rates. There are several local governments currently investigating the potential of CCE including San Mateo County, Alameda County, and Santa Clara County. How is a CCE formed and run? To form a CCE program, local governments must pass an ordinance to join a CCE program, and the CCE agency must draft an lmplementation Plan that is certified by the California Public Utilities Commission. ln San Mateo County, the CCE agency would by a joint powers agency (JPA) that serves on behalf of the County and the other San Mateo County jurisdictions that participate in the CCE. The JPA structure, assets, and liabilities are separate from the County or a city's general funds. Any surplus funds generated by the CCE would be reinvested back into A CCE buys and/or develops power on behalf of electricity users in its jurisdiction. The power purchased generally has a higher renewable energy content than the power provided by the existing utility. A CCE may also develop projects to generate new renewable energy from sources such as solar, wind, and geothermal. ln a CCE program, electricity continues to be distributed and delivered by the existing utility, which is Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) in San Mateo County. ln addition, PG&E would continue to maintain lines and bill customers. What are the benefits of a CCE? the community as new energy projects or programs and will not flow into the general funds of the JPA member jurisdictions. All CCEs are completely ratepayer funded, and CCEs are not subsidized by tax dollars. CCE start-up funding is provided by a municipal government, local agency, or other source. San Mateo County is funding the County's CCE study. Once operating, PG&E would redirect the ratepayer revenues for electrical generation to the CCE program. How do customers join a CCE once it is formed? When a county or city decides to create or join a CCE, all customers within that jurisdiction are automatically enrolled in the CCE, and the CCE becomes the default electrical supply provider. State Assembly Bill 117, passed in 2002, allows CCE's to form in California and mandates that customers be automatically enrolled in the local CCE with the option to opt out. This means that all electricity customers in jurisdictions that join Peninsula Clean Energy would be automatically enrolled in the program and would have to opt out if they want PG&E to remain as their electricity provider. PG&E will continue to manage the grid deliver electricity whether a customer stays in or opts out of Peninsula Clean Energy. The state law requires that customers receive several notifications to opt out before and affer the CCE program launches. What is PG&E's role if a CCE is formed in San Mateo County? lf a CCE forms in San Mateo County, the CCE would be responsible for buying and/or developing all the electricity required to meet the demands of its customers. Cuslomers can choose to oplout of the CCE and continue to have PG&E buy their electricity. All customers, whether they are a part of the CCE or not, continue to pay PG&E for transmission and distribution services. Customers that do not oplout will receive a single bill from PG&E with a line-item charge for energy generation by the CCE. PG&E retains ownership and management of the grid infrastructure and handles all grid-related issues such as power outages and emergencies. What is the timeline for the CCE in San Mateo County? San Mateo County kicked off the project in May 2015 with the formation of an Advisory Committee and assignment of the consultant project team. The consultant project team completed the Technical Study in September 2015. The Technical Study examines and determines the amount of electricity required to make a CCE cost competitive with PG&E. The deadline for jurisdictions to decide whether to join Peninsula Clean Energy and its JPA is the end of February 2016. The County could launch Peninsula Clean Energy by Summer 2016. Additional Resources: . Peninsula Clean Enerov (PCE) homeoaoe . PCE Technical Studv . PCE Advisorv Committee information and materials CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan From: S€nt: To: Subjea: TO: Members of Burlingame City Council RE: Appeal of the Decision by Beautification Commission for removal of Redwood Tree at a 2325 Poppy Drive My name is Nancy DeMartini. My husband Gary and I have lived at2321 Poppy Drive (immediately next door lo 2325 Poppy Drive), for over 30 years. lt is my understanding that a controversy has arisen regarding the removal of the redwood tree on the property a12325 Poppy Drive. Over the years, the tree has grown far too large for its current location and has caused severe damage to the garage structure and basement of the home as well. The former owner had people out every year I have lived here to maintain the tree and manage the root problem. I recall one year she had the arborists out who did an extensive procedure to try and manage the tree's growth pattern. She was told at that point that nothlng further could be done to try to arrest the root pattern without damaging the integrity of the tree. She was told if the root were cut back any more, the tree would topple. This meant the roots would continue to grow and cause further damage to the property. Being a resident of Burlingame for these many years, I too value the emphasis our community places our environment. However, this tree poses a real and serious threat to not only the residents al.2325 Poppy, but the immediate neighbors as well. I therefore have no objection to having the tree removed. Respectfully submitted, Nancy and Gary DeMartini 2321 Poppy Drive Burlingame (650)347-0910 1 nancy de martini < hawaiinance@aol.com > Monday, January 04, 2015 12:08 PM GRP-Council SCHEDULED APPEAL HEARING, Monday, January 4th, 7 pm. CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaqhan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: COUNOL-Beach, Emily Sunday, January 03, 2015 5:12 PM GRP-Council MGR- Goldman, Lisa; CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan FW: Poppy Tree Greetings again, Forwarding you all an email message I received from the next door neighbor (up the hill) from the Kelly's. Thanks, Emily From: Brian Tu Ibriantu@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 12:45 PM To: COUNCIL-Beach, Emily Subject: Poppy Tree Emily, I appreciate you stopping by regarding Peter Kelly's tree on Poppy Dr. I am in favor of removing the tree due to safety concerns and the fact that the roots are damaging my sewer line, although this is secondary. I participated in the Beautification Commission meeting on November 5th and heard both sides of the argument. I understand why people do not want the tree cut down. My family moved to Burlingame because of the natural beauty, amazing school districts, and of course, the community. I do want to see trees in our neighborhood unnecessarily cut down. However, after reading the reports from both the city arborist and the independent arborist the Kelly's hired which both stated that they recommend that the tree be removed due to concerns about its stability, l'm in favor of removing the tree. As you probably saw, my house is very close to the tree (approximately 50 feet) and if/when it falls, there's a high likelihood of it falling on my house. I have a young family (two girls 1 and 5) and I do not want to compromise their safety. The thing that I do want to bring to light is the fact that everyone who has been against the removal of the tree doesn't live on Poppy or close enough to be in any danger ofthe tree falling on their house. Some have made it personal calling me paranoid and saying that "everyone" dislikes the Kelly's for what they are doing. I imagine their opinions and tone would change if they were in my shoes. Thanks again for stopping by and your consideration. 1 Bria n CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: COUNCIL-Beach, Emily Sunday, January 03, 2015 5:11 PM GRP-Council MGR- Goldman, Lisa; CLK-Hassel-Shearel Meaghan FW: Tree visit at 2325 Poppy? Happy New Year All, Ricardo's email from the Baker Family reminded me to forward you this email exchange I had with Peter Kelly. Thanks, Emily From: Peter Kelly Ipeterdkelly@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 23,2015 12:11 AM To: COUNCIL-Beach, Emily Subject: Re: Tree visit at 2325 Poppy? Hi Emily Thanks so much for taking the time to come out and see the tree and extensive structural damage to our garage for yourself. Cracks are present in basement slab but we have not investigated this as to whether it is due to the tree. There is no uplifting in the basement slab like there is in the garage and initially the thought didn't occur to us that this could all be tree related as the tree is a bit further away from the house but I suppose it is possible. lt was expensive to bring in the structural engineer to look at garage and we were really focused on the damage there. Thank you again for the time and effort you are dedicating to gatherlng all the information available to make a well informed decision. Happy holidays, Peter On Mon, Dec21,2OL5 at 7:49 AM COUNCIL-Beach, Emily <ebeach @burlingame.org<mailto:ebeach@ burlingame.org>> wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks again for meeting me yesterday. Forgot to askonequestion: isthere a ny evidence of the tree roots causin8 damage to your house/basement (not just the garage?) Thanks for letting me know. Take care and happy holidays! Emily 1 We certain are concerned about the damage and the prospect of repeated expensive repairs but we are also concerned about the arborists findings that there is a risk of one or more of the trunks failing. From: Peter Kelly Ipeterdkelly@gmail.com<mailto:peterdkelly@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, December 18,2015 L1:57 PM To: COUNCIL-Beach, Emily Subject: Re: Tree visit at 2325 Poppy? Hi Emily Peter onThu, Dec t7,2OL5 al 10:09 PM Peter Kelly <peterdkelly@gmail.com<mailto:peterdkelly@gmail.com><mailto'peterdkelly@gmail.com<mailto:peterdkelly@gmail.co m>>> wrote: Hi Emily Sunday at 3:30 may work. I will confirm with you by tomorrow evening. Thanks Peter On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 6:30 AM, COUNCIL-Beach, Emily <ebeach @burlingame.orgcmailto:ebeach@burlingame.org><mailto:ebeach@burlingame.org<mailto:ebeach @burlinga me.org>>> wrote: Hi Peter, Thanks for your reply. Sorry that my Friday is completely booked day & eve with commitments, but this Sunday 72/2O works - either at 11:30 a.m. or after 3:30 p.m. I'm headed out of town on Tuesday, so alternatively we could reschedule for the weekend of U2. Warm regards, Emily From: Peter Kelly Ipeterdkelly@gmail.com<mailto:peterdkelly@gmail.com><mailto:peterdkelly@gmail.com<mailto:peterdkelly@gmail.co m>>l Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2075 7:23 PM To: COUNCIL-Beach, Emily Subject: Re: Tree visit at 2325 Poppy? Hello Emily Thank you so much for reaching out to us. We absolutely would like to have you come to our home at 2325 Poppy Drive to see the issues the large redwood tree in our yard is creating for us and our immediate neighbors first hand. I think seeing the tree, the damage it has caused, and the structure of the tree which has concerned two separate arborists, will help you make an informed and considered decision. We had planned to invite you and your fellow council members to visit our home for this purpose but had been waiting to learn the date of the council meeting. We have been told at this point that it would be either January 4th or January 19th. Can you confirm the date ofthe City Council meeting at which the appeal to our permit will be heard? We have a 2 3:30 on Sunday will be fine. See you then. I will email our City Clerk this morning and ask her to get in touch with you regarding the confirmed date of the appeal. number of neighbors who may also either like to write a letter of support for us prior to the meeting or plan to come to the meeting to voice their support for the decision to issue a tree removal permit. I can meet with you this Friday afternoon or possibly Sunday afternoon at our home. lf neither ofthese times works for you please let me know your schedule and I can try to be available at a time that is convenient. I appreciate your warm welcome to the city and community! Peter (310)383-9890<tel:%28370%29383-9890><tel:%28310%29383-9890> cell On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:12 PM, COUNCIL-Beach, Emily <ebeach@burlingame.org<mailto:ebeach@burlingame.org><mailto:ebeach@burlingame.org<mailto:ebeach@burllnga me.org>><mailto:ebeach@burlingame.org<mailto:ebeach@burlingame.org><mailto:ebeach @burlinga me.orgcmailto:eb each@burlingame.org>>>> wrote: Hello Mr. and Mrs. Kelly, My name is Emily Beach - I'm a newly elected Councilmember for the City of Burlingame. lunderstand Council will hear an appeal regarding the removal ofyourtree at 2325 Poppy Drive early next month. ln an effort to fully understand all the factors, may I have your permission to view the tree in your back yard? lf we can coordinate our schedules, I would also be happy to meet and listen to your perspective first-hand. Although I will not decide anything or offer my opinion on this matter until the public meeting, I welcome the opportunity to hear all points of view on this issue. I understand this is your first home in Burlingame? Congratulatlons on choosinB the best city on the Peninsula, and a beautiful street. I sincerely welcome you our community! Warm regards, Emily Councilmember City of Burlingame 415-377-8725<tel:415-377-8125><tel:475-377-8L25<tel:475-377-8L25>><tel:415-377-8125<tel:415-377-8125><tel:415- 377 -8L25<teli4].5-377-8125>>> (cell) 3 CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Ellie Byrd <erfbyrd@gmail.com > Saturday, January 02,201611:23 AM GRP-Council CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan Tree removal request on Poppy Drive Dear City Council members, We had sent this email (below) to you, but I'm not sure it made it to each of you. We wanted to make sure it was in the offrcial record as we leamed that some Burlingame residents were appealing the Beautification Commission decision to allow for the tree's removal. Jeff and Ellie Blrd 2505 Poppy Drive Dear Commissioners, First - thank you for taking on this volunteer role for our city ofTrees, I appreciate the time and energy you spend to address neighbor concems, individual homeowner needs and the goals for our town as a community. i live at 2505 Poppy Drive, a few homes up the hill ftom the homeowrer requesting permission to cut down the redwood tree in their backyard. In general, I would be a supporter of saving trees when possible and reasonable, however in this situation, I would strongly urge you to consider the following: 1 - I hope that each ofyou stops by the property to actually see for vourself the tree, its location and the problems it is causing in its advanced age (and the drought) to the homeowners and immediate neighbors, despite its largesse and uniqueness. Its proximity to the home and garage because of it's advanced size was likely, and unfortunately, not a concem ofwhomever planted the tree. 2- Please make sure you have the data about the structural damaee this tree is now causing to the structural integrity of the home itself. I believe this tree is a safety and liability issue not just for this home, but adjoining properties as well, now and in the coming years. 3 - Please consider that this homeowner is following the process, unlike other homeowners and conEactors who simply remove trees without permission and just "deal" with the fines or consequences. As I understand from talking to my neighbors and the homeowner of this property, this is not a request from an uncaring, irresponsible neighbor. 4 - Those protesting the request to remove the tree are NOT immediate neighbors as I understand. It is disappointing to me that the campaign to "save the tree" doesn't mention anything about the reasons why the homeowner wants to remove the tree. 5 - While there should always be thorough investigation before determination of whether to take down an unusual tree such as this one, please remember that there could be requirements of the homeowner as to proper and sufficient rep lacement tree(s) to be olanted Thank you for considering all the issues about this tree. I Ellie Bvrd 2 CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Terry Nagel <terrynagel@gmail.com > Sunday, January 03, 2016 9:38 AM GRP-Council Peter Kelly; Brian Tu; Ellie Byrd; PARKS-Disco, Bob Redwood tree appeal Mayor Keighran and Council Members I live two doors away from the house at 2325 Poppy Drive, which the new homeowners will soon begin renovating. I concur with Bob Disco that the very large redwood tree in the rear yard should go. It is far too big for the lot and has damaged the garage foundation. More damage is inevitable. Both Bob and an independent arborist believe one or more of the tree's multiple trunks may fail, posing a hazard to all those who live in the vicinity. Protecting our urban forest is important, but there are occasions when the rights of people outweigh our need to protect trees. Removing this tree will allow the new homeowners to plant two new oak trees and enjoy the full use of their yard. I encourage you to take a look at the property to see the scope of the problem Best regards, Terry Nagel 1 CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: COUNCIL-Ortiz, Ricardo Sunday, January 03,2016 2:U PM Jack Baker GRP-Council; CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan; MGR- Goldman, Lisa Re: Poppy Redwood Jack, Thanks for your message. l'm copying the rest of the Council so they have your input. As you can imagine, we have received numerous communications both in favor and against and surely we'll have many speakers. I think it's important to add your opinion. As always, thanks for taking the time to write. Best to the family. Regards, Ricardo Sent from my iPad > On Jan 3, 2016, at 12:38 PM,Jack Baker <icubed @ pacbell.net> wrote: > Ricardo, > I doubt that I will attend the upcoming council meeting where opponents of the removal of a redwood located in a neighboring back yard to our home will try to sway the council to get involved. lam not an opponent to this tree being taken down. Redwoods have a place where, indeed, they should be cherished and protected. A postage stamp yard where there is always a looming risk of personal harm and/or property damage could occur at a moments notice due to the trees size should be the primary concern in regard to this tree and others like it in our neighborhood. We happen to have a split trunk redwood in our backyard. Over the past 10 years, several limbs have come crashing down, gouging into the side our next door neighbors home on the way down and in another case, completely destroying a hot tub cover in my yard. While I have not attempted to try to take the oversized tree down at my residence, as a home owner who pays his mortgage and property taxes, I should have no dispute about choosing to take the tree down at my own cost at any time in which lchoose. I look at my Poppy neighbor in the same light. > There seems to be a hoard of people taking it upon themselves to take a position about this tree being removed eluding tothe removal of this tree asthe equivalent of destroying personal property. What these individuals are clearly not recognizing is that the "personal property" in question is being taken down by the property owner. lwould also suspect that bytaking thistree down the citywill likely require that a new tree be planted in its place. Whilel'msureat some point in history planting a redwood may have made sense when the property lines were substantially larger than theyaretoday. lt is unfortunate that the tree has overgrown its location burl encourage you and your fellow council members to not take any action to slow or stop its removal. > Thanks for taking the time to consider our position about this subject while considering your own. > John and Jean Baker > 2422 Hale Drive > Sent from my iPhone 1 December 28,2015 City Council Burlingame City Hall RE: Redwood Tree at 2325 Poppy Drive Dear Burlingame City Council [Vlembers, The lollowing seeks to illustrate the importance of protecting healthy trees in Burlingame from being unnecessarily cut down and to explain the sequence of events that have led us to requesting an appeal of the approval to remove the healthy Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy. The Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive lills our sky as viewed {rom our home of 21 years. lt is a dominant teature from the main living quarters and backyard. lt provides a backdrop of greenery and nature to our iamily and our neighbors. We watch the birds play in its branches, and it otfers us shade lrom the sun in late afternoon. The following shows the sequence of events leading up to and our perspectives regarding the appeal to Burlingame City Council to not cut down this Redwood tree. The first communications we received from the City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department regarding the Redwood tree a12325 Poppy is dated July 31, 2015. (See Exhibit A) In this letter Bob Disco, City Arborist, acknowledges that this "tree has multi leaders, unconventional form and is litting the garage concrete slab.' He states that the "Redwood tree is in good to lair health" and explains that the tree would benefit from being "maintained and trimmed by a tree professional." ln rebuttal to Bob Disco's denial of lhe requesl to remove the tree, the Kellys' architect hired an lndependent Arborist, Kevin Kielty. ln Kielty's reporl dated September 28, 2015, he states that "new home construction is planned Jor this site.'(The new homeowners purchased the home in December 2014 and have not yet moved in. ls that because they are anticipating this new construction project?) At the end of his report, Kielty writes, "Removal...of the tree is the only method that will eliminate all hazards and liabilities associated with the tree." lf we look closely at that statement and the words, "hazards and liabilities", words that raise a red flag to any city government, it is clear that thls is a true statement Ior any tree anywhere in Burlingame. The sure bet way to eliminate all "hazards and liabilities" associate with any tree in Burlingame is to remove it. One might assume that the homeowners who hired the architect who hired the arborist who re{erenced new construction in a report might be planning new construction. According to Aborist Kielty's report, new construction is planned for that property. ls the request for the removal of this healthy Redwood tree, in fact, because o{ new conslruction plans? Bob Disco's response in a letter dated October 5, 2015 to the Kellys' second request to remove the Redwood tree upon presentation of the lndependent Arborist's report in which the words, "hazards and liabilities" appear is as follows: "The lndependent Arborist report indicates... Bob Disco make no mention of this tree being a liability or suffering from stem or root rot. ln lact, he denies the Kellys' request to remove the Redwood tree. removal is the only way to eliminate all hazards and liabilities... Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal o, the tree." This October 5, 2015 letter was sent to twelve property owners on Poppy Drive and Hale Drive, announcing the decision to remove the tree and a deadline to appeal this decision. We spoke personally with several nelghbors on Poppy and Hale. Many Poppy neighbors elected to stay silent over the issue because they don't want 10 create a negative relationship with their new neighbors, the Kellys. (We understand that situation because we did the same when our new neighbors at 2320 Hale DIive did a remodel and removed a fabulous, mature podocarpus in 2015 that was just I feet from our lront walk and 1 5 leet from our front door. We lost our privacy, greenery, shade and home for the birds. We too wanted lo establish good relations with our neighbors.) Further, it is important to note thal the resident at 2340 Hale Drive, whose backyard is directly behind the Kellys'home and the Redwood lree, must surely want to maintain a positive relalionship wilh Peter Kelly, because they are colleagues at Kaiser. ln response to the october 5, 20.l5letter several neighbors did appeal the decision to remove the tree, and those who were able to attend the Beautilication commission's November 5, 2015 hearing spoke their concern. The vote by the Beautirication Commission to cut down the tree was very close, 3-2. The Beautification Commission's report dated November 5, 2015 states that the tree is granted removal under points l, 2 & 7 o{ Chapter 11.06.060 d of the Urban ReJorestation and Tree Protection Ordinance: Ordinance 1 of Chapter 11.06.060 d 1) "the condition of the tree with respecl to disease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveway and other trees; and interference with public utility services." Besponse: Further investigation regarding the health of Bedwood trees, their leaders and lheir long term viability needs to be considered before approving tree removal at 2325 Poppy and for future trees up for review. lnsight from one arborist hired by the one requesting removal might not be offering the full picture, especially when prior to this hiring, the city's arborist denied permission for removal. The below supports the normalcy and healthiness associated with multiple leader Bedwood trees. ln the Gymnosperm Database, a premier source of research and information on conifers, Christopher Earle, Ph.D. in Forest Ecology, confirms that the growth pattern ol the Redwood tree (S normal equoia sempervirens) such as the one at ://www.con /cu/S uora h 2325 Poppy Drive with multiple leaders is . (See Exhibil B) The article emphasizes the normalcy of 'trunk reiteration, by which redwoods substitute the usual single-stem architecture o{ conilers with a multiplicity ol stems originating as limbs from a cenlral trunk...Branch surfaces and crotches and rot pockets within this structure provide sites for storage of water and accumulation and development of soils, as well as providing habitat for various mammals, birds..." The article also states which environmental elemenls specifically deaden a Redwood tree: Big redwoods are killed mostly by some combination of fungus, wind, gravity, {ire, and flood. The most common death is due to stem or root rots that leave the tree vulnerable to breakage by wind, gravity, lire, and flood. Gravity kills trees when they develop a lean, which never gets better and usually gets worse, eventually breaking or uprooting the tree, oflen during a big storm when winds stress the crown and flooded soils reduce triction between rools and soil.... And of course there are chainsaws. None of these lhings are common (except chainsaws). The lndependent Arborist's report does not mention any stem or root rot in either the Observation or Summary sections of his report. To dispel concerns about this Redwood tree being multi leader and, therefore, unstable with hazardous limbs susceptible to breaking off , please view the DVD video ol the Redwood as it withstands Burlingame's most recenl winter slorm on December 12,2015. The tree stood strong and tall in high winds and rain with no resulting lean or broken limbs. The Redwood Irce at 2325 Poppy provides a habitat for birds to play and rest. see Exhibit c below and the video sent by email to Meaghan Hassel-shearer ,or inclusion in your packet. To address the concern about this Redwood tree'S proximity to the garage, consider a Solution of proper maintenance, care and landscaping as suggested by Bob Disco in his July 31 , 2015 letier and exemplified by a neighborhood Redwood tree around the block with multiple leaders that has been correctly maintained. Notice how close this neighboring Redwood tree is to the dwelling, and notice how the root mass has been managed and cared for with proper hardscape. See Exhibit D.l and D.2 below. Ordinance 2 of Chapter 11.06.060 d 2) '.the necessity to remove the tree in order to construct any proposed improvement lo allow economic enjoyment ol the property." Response: ll the garage will be repaired or reconstructed, the city can encourage the Kellys to consider naving the garage built on pedestals as was required by the city tor homeowners at 2309 Hale Drive who rebuilt their garage to accommodate the Redwood tree next door to them. Alternatively, the Kellys c-outd consider posilioning the garage further down the driveway which will place it lurther away lrom the Redwood tree. How does replacing or repairing the garage slab allow the homeowners economic enioyment? Ordinance 7 of Chapter 11.06.060 d 7) the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain." Besponse: when choosing to purchase the home and property at 2325 Poppy Drive, the new homeowners surely took into account the cost of maintaining their investment. These expenses would likely include paying lor property insurance, water & sewer, garbage pick up, landscape maintenance and repairing the garage slab, or even the cost to remove a massive redwood tree. The new homeowneri chose to buy this property which included this maiestic, old-wood Bedwood tree. They could have chosen NOT to buy 2325 Poppy Drive il they didn't want the tree. Did their real estate agent imply that they could easily get cily approval to remove the tree? see Exhibit E which shows how the backyard looked when the house was up lor sale in 2014. Going Forward Appealing the Beautilication Commission's vote to cut down the tree and bring this issue before City Council has given rise to asking more in-depth questions about Burlingame's track record oJ tree removal. ln November, the colemans inquired with the Parks and Flecreation Department to provide data going back three years regarding tree removal. The city of Burlingame does not have a database, a readily available documenl, spreadsheet or summary, of the history oi tree removal in order to study trends or gain insight into the decision making patterns o{ removing or keeping trees as decided by our arborist, Beautilication Commission and City Council. Per the city clerk, it would take 35 days to manually go through each available lile, and much of the data in these files would still insufficiently address the following questions: How many of these requests to remove trees were from new homeowners? How many were {or properties with plans {or new construction? See Exhibit F which is a copy ol December 01 , 2015 email correspondence. This highlights the bigger issue: by removing the Redwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive, is the city of Burlingame setting precedent to remove healthy trees and not use empirical data and evidence ol the historic trends as a guide to their decision making? Burlingame is a desirable place to live. Are new homeowners making improvements to properties that require removing mature trees thal tormer long time homeowners Saved because of the beauty and nature that their tree provided? ls this leading to unnecessary removal of healthy trees in our city? After manually tallying numbers from her paper files at the Parks and Flecreation Department, Gina Borba provided us with the iollowing information: 2013 2014 2015 Request to remove private trees Number ol private trees granted removal 88oo 80 90,9% 10.1 77 89 These numbers f rom Borba equate to the lollowing: Percentage ot requests granted removal 87.SYo Over the past three years, 246 private trees (oul01277 requests) have been granted removal, However, records documenting the reasonS why are not available. What does this trend imply? How many new homeowners have had trees removed? How many oI those 246 trees were removed on properties undergoing remodels or new construction? How many trees were actually removed because of disease or due to the drought, which raises yet another question: how many trees are removed for anticipated "hazards and liabilities"? Has the Kellys'request to remove this Redwood tree, originally requested because of a cracked garage floor and the repair being too costly because it was not anticipated upon the purchase of the home, now turned into a liability concern due to the tree's lorm and multi leaders, a liability of the tree or branches falllng that could occur but at no certain or predicable time? 88% With a lack o, detailed historic data about why trees are removed in Burlingame, we believe the city is making decisions blindly. lf there is a trend of removing trees dying trom the drought, then Burlingame can take action to protect luture trees through the support ol homeowners and a watering campaign like Palo Alto. Will the Fledwood tree at 2325 Poppy Drive set the precedent of granling removal of healthy Redwood trees in a scenario where a new homeowner doesnt want his/her protected tree because it gets in the way of new construction plans, so he/ she finds a reason to remove il, such as a raised garage jloor and the high cost of replacing it, even though, most likely, the garage will eventually be repaired or replaced under the new construction plans and was considered when buying the property. Or perhaps the scenario will be related to hazards and liabilities that could potentially be realized il and when the healthy tree becomes unstable. Then, per Bob Disco's October 5, 2015 letter, "removal and replacement of the tree is the only method that will eliminate all hazards and liabilities associated with the tree." What a shame when scenarios like these support the common demise ol Redwoods by chainsaws as relerred to by Forest Ecologist, Christopher Earle, referenced above. We respectfully request that City Council appeal the Beautification Commission's vote of 3-2 to remove the Redwood hee at 2325 Poppy Drive. Sincerel /*- 6&orr," John and Shirin Coleman Burlingame residents {or 28 years 2308 Hale Drive Evviib',1 A AME July 31, 2015 Peter Kelly 2325 Poppy Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 itE- uESqEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE REDWOOD rRr:b @,525 POPPY DRIVE _BARLINGAME I reviewed your request for ths removal of the above mentioned tree at the above addross and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: l) The large Redwood tree lras multi leaders, unconventional form and is lifting the garage concrete slab. ThE Redwood is in good to fair health but the tree needs to be maintained and trimmed by a tree piofessional- 2) This application is den,ed until there is further evidence provided to justi! the removal. An in-depth evaluation of the trees health, and, a structural ieport on the garage foundation are required for further review- Adjacent property owner(s) listed below are also receiving notification ofthis decision. The decision may be- appeaied- in writing to the Burlingame Beautification Commission, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame or gbor.ba@burlineame.org by Augusl 21, 2015 and sliould include any documentation supporting your request for removal ofthe tree. lf you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, /::6rrpr"'a4 Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/C ity Arborist bd/Cb CC: Property Owner 2317 Poppy Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2337 Poppy Drive Burtingame, CA 940i0 Property Owner 2321 Poppy Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2340 Poppy Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2340 Hale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2331 Poppy DriYe Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2344 Poppy Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2332 Poppy Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2308 Hale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7330 ' fax: (650) 696-7216 gborba@burlinsarne. org Propelty Owner 2320 Hale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2344 Hale Drive Burlingame CA 94010 : The Gyrnnosperrn Database ttolnc I Tott6 | Boo*slott I tt& t Sne lr.ap I Conrdd tk Sequoia sempervirens (D. Don) Endlicher 1847 Common names Coast redwood, redwood, California redwood (Little 1980), coastal sequoia, palo colorado. CONSE RVATION Vulnerable STATUS Search the Database Taxonomic notes Syn. Taxodium sempeNircns D. Don in Lambert 1824 (Watson 1993); Seguola sempeyirens (Lambert) Endlicher (Peattie 1950). lt is the sole species in Seguo,a Endiicher 1847. Described varieties, all horticultural, include adpressa, glauca, nana pendula, pendula and prostrafa (Silba 19B6). Description Tree to 60-100(-110) m tall and 300-460(-900) cm dbh. Trunk much enlarged and buttressed at the base and often with rounded swellings or burls, slightly tapering. Crown crown conic and monopodial when young, nanowed conic in age, inegular and open. Bark red-brown, to ca. 35 cm thick, tough and iibrous, deeply furrowed into broad, scaly ridges; inner bark cinnamon-brown. Branches downward sweeping to slightly ascending. Twigs slender, dark green, forking in a plane, ending in a scaly bud. Leaves'1-30 mm, generally with stomates on both surfaces, the free portion to 30 mm, those on leaders, ascending branchlets, and fertile shoots divergent to strongly appressed, short-lanceolate to deltate, those on horizontally spreading to drooping branchlets mostly linear to linear-lanceolate, divergent and in 2 ranks, with 2 prominent, white abaxial stomatal bands. Pollen cones neadf globose to ovoid, 2-5 mm, borne singly on short terminal or axillary stalks. Female conei iz-gs mm long, elliptical, reddish-brown, with many flat, short-polnted scales;. pendant at end of tea! twig; maturing in one season; with 2-5 seeds per scale, light brown, 2-winged. Seeds flattened, H mm, leathery. 2n= 66 (Litlel Wg, Watson 1993). The genus Sequoia has been described as follows: "Trees giant, evergreen. Branchlets terete, with obvious annual groMh constrictions. Leaves alternate, mostly in 2 ranks. Adult leaves linear or linear-lanceolate to deltate, generally flaftened, divergent to strongly appressed; abaxial glands absent. Pollen cones with 6-12 sporophylls, each sporophyll with 2-b pollen sacs. Seed cones maturing and opening in 1 season, oblong to globose; scales persistent, 15-30, valvate, t peltate, thick and woody. Seeds 2-7 per scale' lenticular, narrowly 2-winged; cotyledons 2(4). x = 1 1" @aiss!-199o. Distribution and Ecology USA: SW Oregon and NW Ca lifornia, confined to coastal areas (within 60 km ofthe sea) experiencing a great deal of fog;at elevations generally below 300 m, occasionally to 1000 m. Mostly found in alluvial soils,where it forms pure stands or occurs with Pseudolsuga menzie sii. Cham ae cvp a ris I awso ni an a , or other local conifers (Watson 1993). Hardy to Zone 8 (cold hardiness limit between -12.1"C and -6.7"C)fBannister and Neuner 2001) see also Thomoson ef a/. (1999) Mature shade loliage from an ornamental lree lC.J. Earlel. €>.vtib, r'b The Arco Giant, one of the largest known redwoods [Robert Van Pertl c&!fet2!gl. Mature sun foliage from the canopy of an old- groMh tree [C.J. Earle]. e Iffi ffi. Mature seed cones on sun foliage, from Humboldt Redwoods State Pa* [C.J. Earle] The very top of the tallest known tree in 2006 lsteve sillett, 2008.09.'l6I Seguoia, like all of the Cupressaceae, is cladoptosic: dead foliage falls with the accompanying shoot, rather than as individual leaves [Dr. Linda B. Brubakerl. The largest known redwood [Michael Taylorl fiavlor 1998) INE lm 0201 5 Terra cs Teams Distribution data from USGS {1999). Points plotted as tree icons represent isolated or approximate locations. Canopy ecology of the redwoods has received a lot of attention in recent years; the best summary of the state of knowledge is provided by Sillett and Van Pelt (2007)' who document the existence of an essentially complete forest ecosystem (including water sources and storage, nutrient sources and cycling, soil development, and fairly complex animal and plant communities) 60 m offthe ground, with a relatively depauperate zone between that height and the ground. This is largely a consequence of trunk reiteration, by which redwoods iubstitute the usual single-stem architecture of conifers with a multiplicity of stems originating as limbs from a central trunk. ln some cases a single tre€ may hav-e over a hundied suih stems, essentially creating a forest from a single tree. Branch surfaces and crotches and rot pockets within this structure provide sites for storage of water and accumulation and development of soils, as well as providing habitat for various mammals' birds, amphibians, and of course a huge arthropod diversity. On a more terrestrial plane, redwood ecology is nicely summarized by Barbour eI a/. (2001). The subject is really too complex to summarize here, but some important ideas can be discerned from this list of "fun facts": . On a unit area basis, redwood forests have the highest biomass loadings of any ecosystem on earth. . Redwoods commonly stump sprout, which has various consquences. For instance, a redwood forest can be completely destroyed by fire and promptly resprout, a situation which characterizes most redwood stands found on relatively dry sites' such as near the southern and eastern limits of the species'range. Also, redwoods commonly grow in clumps of clonal stems. This means that seedlings may receive carbohydrates, water and nutrition from associated canopy trees, which allows redwoods to outcompete other conifers and to regenerate even in the deep shade beneath their own canopy. lt also accounts for the "white redwoods" which have no chlorophyll in their leaves and are entirely supported by the root connections with associated canopy trees. . Redwood fire ecology includes not only resprout potential, but also fire tolerance mechanisms inclucling highly flre-resistant bark, and an ability to produce epicormic branches in the aftermath of fire. Canopy researchers have found evidence that large trees might lose live foliage throughout a substantial portion of the crown in response lo a crown fire, and then replace it all within the span of a century or so via epicormic branching. . Redwoods have spectacular height growth, with young lrees sometimes growing more than 1 m per year. This places a heavy competitive stress on associated conifers, with the result that some of the tallest and most slender individuals of data O?015l\,4a .,t, i 1 A white redwood in Humboldt Redwoods State Park [C,J. Earle] U.S. postage stamp, released 2006. Richard Preston and his daughter climbing a 100 m plus redwood called BCG in Humboldt Redwoods State Park lC.J. Earle, 2007.03.031. View from, and of, the top of ihe BCG tree [C.J Earle, 2007.03.031. Tree Hyperion Helios lcarus Stratosphere Giant National Geographic Orion Federation Gianl Paradox Mendocino Park Redwood National Park Redwood National Park Redwood National Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Redwood National Park Redwood National Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Montgomery Woods State Reserve PseLtcJotsuoa menziesiiand Picea sr'Ichensis are found growing in redwood groves, attaining heights of well over 90 m in their efforts to keep up with the redwoods. Big tree The coast redwood is the tallest tree on earlh. Older sources speak of extraordinarily tall eucalypts in Westem Australia, but thorough searching has documented the heights of those trees in some detail and they are clearly not competitive with coast redwood for height. During historical times there have been Douglas-firs (Pseudotsuga menziesii) recorded as being taller than any coast redwoods now living. However, redwoods growing on benign lowland coastal sites with negligible water stress and very low fire risk were among the earliest victims ofthe axe and saw, so it reasonable to think that the tallest lrees on Earth were thereby felled during the historical period. We do know that some historically felled redwoods contained larger wood volumes than any tree now living. The largest volume single-stem tree was discovered in Redwood National Park in 2014 by Mario Vaden and Chris Atkins. Based on multiple measurements by highly credible observers including Chris Atkins, Michael Taylor, and Ron Hildebrandt, the tree, which is named Grogan's Fault, has an estimated stem volume of 1,084.5 m3 (38,299 ft3). This is all the more impressive because it is clearly a single.stem tree (Vaden 2015, Mario Vaden email 2015.05.20). A larger volume is found in the Lost Monarch, 1205 m3 and 98 m tall (Sillett [no date]). This is a multiple-stem tree from a single genetic individual (a clone) in which the wood of the separate stems is completely fused to a substantial height. Fleldwork in a new location-the library-has recently turned up details on what may well have been the largest coast redwood ever cut. Taylor and Mifsud (20 10) report on the Crannell Giant, which formerly grew about a mile southeast of Big Lagoon, north of Trinidad, California. This tree carried a total stem volume of al least 1,743 cubic meters and was 94 m tall. A cookie from this tree makes up one wall of the "One Log Tree House" tourist attraction on Broadway in Eureka, California, Logged in about 1945, this was the largest tree ever measured, with a total aboveground wood volume about 18% larger than the largest Seouoiadendron now living. lt proved to be extremely roften, and yielded little merchantable timber. The following table (source, Michael Taylor email 2009.10.17 with some later updates), provides summary information on all coast redwoods known to be over 1't0 meters tall, as measured by direct tape drop or laser by surveyors including Steve Sillett, Robert Van Pelt, Chris Atkins, Ron Hildebrant, and Michael Taylor. Most of these trees are remeasured at intervals of no more lhan three years; the tallest are remeasured yearly. As a point of interest, when I first published this table in 1998, it had only 12 trees. At this point, though, nearly all trees over 110 m have likely been discovered, and none have been found outside ofthe parks shown below, despite extensive surveys- The inventory of trees 100 to 110 m tall, though, covers much ofthe species' range, and many new trees are discovered yearlyi for the most current information consult Taylor and Mifsud (2010) and Vaden (2010). Note also that this table assigns a name to each tree. These names are widely used by people familiar with the largest redwoods, and many of them have appeared in the popular press, such as in Van Pelt (2001) and Preston (2007), as well as in the scientific literature, e.g. Sillett and Van Pelt (2007). The use of such names personifies these trees as individuals and thus helps foster support for their continued prolection. However, it may attract undue attention to individual trees, which can lead to their harm. Thus the precise locations of these trees are not presented here, and should remain secret. Diameter (m) 4.U 4.96 3.78 5.16 4.39 4.33 4.54 3.90 4.',tg Height (m) 115.85 114.58 113.14 1 13.05 112.71 112.63 112..62 11?..51 112.32 Here I am with a stump of Sequoia aftinis al Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument in Colorado. A ranger at the Monument told me that hundreds more such stumps, still buried, have been identiied by acoustic imaging [C.J. Ear|e,2006.07.051, -l Evidence of multiple episodes of epicormic branch formation in the BCG tree. Due to the mechanism of epicormic branch regeneration, an individual redwood tree may be much older than any of its branches [C.J. Eade, 2007.03.031. lsolated redwood grove in a frequently bumed area near the southernmost range limit of the species, in the Santa Lucia Mountains lC.J. Ear1e, 2007.03.021. The Crannell Giant, largest tree ever recorded (scanned from Hammond Lumber Company advertisement in American Lumberman, 191'l). I bet you told her a your trees are seguotas- crace Kelly in Io Catch A Thief Millennium Apex Pipe Dream Harry Cole Rockefeller Minaret Alice Rhodes Mother & Daughler Lone Fern Teepee Bell Paul zinke Aetheis Arrow Paul Zahl Daedalus Rocket Top Pinnacle Harriett Weaver Pyramid Giant Valentine Libby (A.K.A. Tall) Tranquility Crown Jewel South Fork Springing Buck Swamp John Muir T4 Rockview Oldest I have prepared a report on a section from a log in Humboldt Redwoods state Park that has 2267 rings. The specimen, which has poor circuit uniformity with many missing rings, was scannedand crossdated by Allyson Carroll at Humboldt State University in 2013; the record evidently extends from 385 BC to 1881 (2,266 years), of which the 1071-1813 period has been crossdated with other Sequo,a samples. Besides this specimen, a ring-counted age of 2,200 years was reported for a specimen from N Califomia collected by Fritz (Blqwq]-990). This was probably a stump count. There is also said to be a cross-section on display at the visitor center in Henry Cowell State Park, Santa Cruz, CA, that has 1,935 rings with the center of the log missingi the original tree was felled in Humboldt County (Kenyon Moon email 2007.11.04). Wlth many old trees, there arises the question, €n they live forever? ln principle, yes. There is little evidence supporting the existence of senescence in conifers, and all really old trees (discussion) live many times longer than the oldest living cells in the tree. ln practice, though, there are certain environmental factors that can kill trees. \ryhen a tree is resistant to those factors, and/or when the factors are expressed weakly or rarely, then the tee may attain a great age. The environmental factors never go away, though, and it is a statistical inevitability thafevery tree will eventually meet its end. Big redwoods are killed mostly by some combination of fungus, wind, gravity, fire, and flood. The most common death is due to stem or root rots that leave the tree vulnerable to breakage by wind, gravity, fire, and flood. Gravity kitls trees when they develop a lean, which never gets better and usually gets worse, eveniually breaklng or uprooting the tree, often during a big storm when winds stress the crown and flooded soils reduce friction between roots and soil. Fire, if not immediately fatal, can kill by repetition: one fire opens a fire scar through the thick bark, and later flres enlarge the scar and allow fungi to enter the heartwood, so that the tree will eventual!y break off. Floods usually kill redwoods when streambank erosion undercuts and Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Redwood National Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldl Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Montgomery Woods State Reserve Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Redwood National Park Redwood National Park Humboldt Redwoods Slate Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Redwood National Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Redwood National Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Humboldt Redwoods State Park Montgomery Woods State Reserve Humboldt Redwoods State Park Redwood National Park Humboldl Redwoods State Park 2.71 3.38 4.27 4.94 4.84 J.OO 3.35 3.60 z.5b 4.08 2.90 3.38 3.78 4.26 3.29 3.05 4.11 5.03 3.47 2.90 4.14 3.54 4.02 4.79 3.41 4.27 3.99 3.84 111.92 111.E3 111.71 'l 11.65 11 1.59 111.56 '111.53 111.50 111.47 't11.34 1 1 1.31 1 1 1.16 111.16 110.77 110.77 110.71 110.68 110.68 110.65 110.62 110.55 110.40 110.40 110.20 110.09 110.06 110.06 110.03 tI { F-'f. lsi*u topples a tree on a floodplain. There are also freak accidents, like when a falling tree hits another tree and delivers an injury that eventually proves fatal. And of course there are chainsaws. None ofthese things are common (except chainsaws), but 2,000 years is a long time. A few years ago, dendrochronology suffered a bit of a scandal-or at least, what might pass for a scandal in this peaceful fleld of study-when a person having no knowledge of ihe subject represented themselves as an expert to someone at the Guinness Book of World Records, claiming to have found a 12,000 year old redwood tree, which they modestly named the Eternal God Tree. Guinness duly published the claim Later that year, I was shown the tree and had the opportunity to sample it with an increment borer. The sample produced 515 years and the tree is rotten inside of that. Given the tree's relatively smail size (about 3 m in diameter, which, yes, is "small" in comparison with other trees nearby), I would very much doubt it could be a day over 2,000 years old, and my best guess is about 1,200 years-a tenth of its claimed age. lncidentally, the 2,266-year-old tree described above was assigned an age of 7,000 years by the same person. I only mention this because you may see these {anciful ages of 7,000 and 12,000 years reported in the news media. Dendroch ronology Fritz (1940) found that the species is not generally useful due to poor circuit unifolmity (i.e. the rings do not go all the way around). However, a more exhaustive study by Schulman (1940)1ound thai circuit uniformity improves when samples are taken well above the base of the tree; he successfully crossdated samples from cross-sections taken (from logged trees) 30 m above the ground, and found evidence of nanow rings in drought years. More recent work (ongoing, atitl unpublished) by Steve Sillett and Allyson Canoll at Humboldt State University-has confirmed Schulmanis findings and is investigating the use of stable isotope data to reconstruct longlerm variation in climats'growth response within the redwood canopy. These researchers have found that Seguoia crossdates quite well, provided that tire increment core samples are taken well above the tree's base - the best iesults are found for cores taken at the base of the live crown, usually aboul 50 m off the ground. lncremenl core samples are limited by the available equipment, rarely delivering a Iore more than 60 cm long. However, because most ofthese large trees are 2-3 m in diameter at the base of the live crown, a 60 cm core may record more than 1,000 years of record. lt is possible to extrapolate to a conservative minimum total age.estimate based. on knowing thetree's growth potential (the amount of stem wood deposited in a good year) and baik-calculating to when the tree first attained its canopy-mature height, usually at 200-300 years old. Numbers to date suggest ages in excess of 1,000 years are likely common ior large, canopy-dominant redwoods. Results to date also suggest that among large trees (bigger than maybe a-+ m DBH) there is a fairly weak correlation between size anl age, soth-e largest tree! may not be especially old in comparison to other trees in their cohort. Ethnobotany There was a time when redwoods were the largest trees on earth, and nearly all were cut in a frenzy of logging activity that lasted over a century, beginning when Califomia was Spanish and not enOing until the 1990s, when lhe last old-grolvth grove on timber pioduction lands was cut. The most severe period of logging began in about 1850, driven by the demand for mine and building timber created by the California gold rush, and c6ntinued well into the 20th Century. Opposition to the logging began almost immediately (in 1852, Assemblyman Henry A. Crabb of San Joaquin County askF.d the California . iegislature to secure into public ownership all ofthe state's redwood forest lands) and stirted to bear fruit in 1900, when the Sempervirens Club was establlshed (Sempervirens Fund [no date]). This was the flrst activist organization to formally work to preferve the trees, and two years Iater, lhe first redwood park (now Big Basin Redwoods State Park) was set aside. Muir Woods National Monument was preserved in 1908, and in 1918 the Save The Redwoods League was estabtished. ln subsequent decades the League and many other activist groups fought to protect remaining old redwoods by advocating for state and federal parks, securing donations of land, and sometimes buying land outright. Today, the redwoods are one ofthe most symbolically important of alltree species, revered by millions of people for the aesthetic and other intangible values provided by these remaining groves of immense, majestic trees. See also: 83 a . Hanis, D. 1997. Ihe Last Sfand. The War Between Wall Street and Main Street over California's Ancient Redwoods. Sierra Club Books. . Hill, J.B. 2000. The Legacy of Luna. Hatpet. . Yaryan, W., D. Verardo and J. Verardo. 2OAO. The Semperv,Tens Story: A Century of Preserving Califomia's Ancient Redwood Forest, 1900-2000. Sempervirens Fund Press. Managed redwood plantations now cover large expanses of private land in northem Calffornia, and in them this very fasfgrowing species produces commercial crops of a lumber valued for its beauty, strength, light weight and decay resistance. lt is widely used for outdoor products such as decks, lawn furniture, planters, hot tubs, etc. Observations The species is well protected in its native range and can easily be seen in California's Redwood National Park, Muir Woods National Monument, and a long chain of State Parks of which some of the more noteworthy are, from north to south, Jedediah Smith Redwoods, Prairie Creek Redwoods, Humboidt Redwoods, Montoomery Woods, and Big Basin Redwoods. lf you have never seen a grove of ancient rcdwoods, you should do so. lt is one of the finest sights anywhere on the planet. Remarks The genus is widely thought to be named for Sequoyah, also known as George Guess, inventor and publisher ofthe Cherokee alphabet. Endlicher was also a philologist, so he likely knew of Sequoyah's achievements. Unfortunately, Endlicher's writings give no clue to the etymology ot Sequoia, and some very eminent botanists have proposed plausible alternatives. Asa Gray, for instance, thought it came from the Latin segui 'following', since it is the sole living representative of a sizable group of extinct plants (Hartesveldt et al. 1975). Redwood is the only naturally occuning hexaploid conifer (all of the others are diploid). See Ahuja (2009) for a review of its genetics. The sequoias (including Seguoia and Sequoiadendron) were another group, like Metasequoia, first known from the fossil record, although fossil material was nol formally named until Steinhauera Presl 1838, ten years after Lambert described this species as Taxodium semperv,rens (Hartesveldl etal. 1975). The genus has a rich fossil record in western North America, represented by the Eocene and Oligocene fossil taxon Seguoia affinrs and the pollen morphogenera Taxidiaceaepollen tes and Sequo,bpol/en[es. Well- preserved examples of S. affnis cones, foliage and wood-including in sdu stumps over 200 cm dbh-have been found at Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument (Anonymous [no datel), at Copper Basin in Nevada (lnyo lno date]), and at various other locations in the West. These fossils bear a close resemblance to living S. sempervlrens. Redwood is one of the few vegetatively reproducing conifers, readily regenerating from stump sprouts in the wake of a major disturbance (typlcally fire). One consequence of this is the occurrence of 'white' or'albino' redwoods (see photo), which are trees that originate as root sprouts and are complelely nonphotosynthetic, deriving all of their carbohydrate from the roots of their photosynthetic associates (which are not necessarily related, as root grafting is common between redwoods). White redwoods are found only in old-groMh forests, where the overstory biomass of photosynthetic redwoods is colossal and the white trees are generally less than 3 meters tall. However, white redwoods up to 20 meters tall are known to exist. The tree in the photograph is about 10 m tall. At the time ofthe photograph, the new year's foliage had not emerged; trees clad in fresh foliage are snow- white. Redwoods (Seguorb sempervirens and Sequoiadendron giganteum) are the state tree of California (Watson 1993). The species was eady (ca. 1826) introduced to Spain thanks to the collections of Tadeas Haenke during the Malaspina expedition; an account ot these trees appears HERE. Redwoods have been featured in quite a few movies. Some of the more memorable examples include the air motorcycle chase scene in "Return ofthe Jedi" and a 1950's period piece, "The Big Trees," starring Kirk Douglas as a dimpled logger. lncidentally, the scene in "Return of the Jedi" was filmed in a stand that was logged soon after the filming, which is probably why they were able to get permission to film on such a site. On a more scientifically respectable level, redwoods also co-star in the Tyrannosaurus rex episode of the BBC miniseries, "Walking \Mth Dinosaurs,'' a DVD that also features great photography in such gymnospermous locations as Chile, New Caledonia and the redwood forest. These are among the few places left where you can see the world as it looked to the dinosaurs. Since that time the radiation of angiosperms and the appearance of grasses have dramatically remade most of the world's terrestrial ecosystems. Citations Ahu.ia, M.R. 2009. Genetic constitution and diversity in four narrow endemic redwoods from the family Cupressaceae. Euphytica 165:5-19. Anonymous. [no date]. Welcome to Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument! IliELtgg Iong to displayl, accessed 2006.10.03. lncludes photos of Seguoia ailtnis fossils. Barbour, M.G., S. Lydon, lvl. Borchert, M. Popper, V. \Mritworth and J. Evarts. 200'1. Coasf Redwood: A Natural and Cultural History. Los Olivos, CA: Cachuma Press. Fritz, E. 1940. Problems in dating rings of California coast redwood. Tree-Ring Bulletin 6(3):19-21. Available online at www,treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvolo 3.odf, accessed 2006.06.05. lnyo. [no date]. Field Trip To The Copper Basin Fossil Flora, Nevada. members.aol.comMaucobaT/cb/copoerbasin.html (accessed 2006.10.03). Schulman, E. 1940. Climatic chronology in some coast redwoods. Trce-Ring Bulletin 6(3\:22-23. Available online at www.treerinosociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol6 3.odf, accessed 2006.06.05. Sempervirens Fund. [no date]. History of Sempervirens Fund. htto://www.sempervirens.oro/history.htm, accessed 2008.08.08. Silleu, S. C. [no date]. Redwood photo tour. hftp://www.humboldt.edu/-silletuphotos/sese/championttees/full/3-metricjpg, accessed 2008.08.07, now elqlulsL. Taylor, Michael and Brett Mifsud. 2010. Landmark Trees. Highly cunent information on big trees discoveries, with a strong focus on redwoods. Vaden, Mario.2010. Laroest & Tallest Coast Redwoods. Parks. Photos, accessed 2o10.02.12. Lots of interesting information, links, and great photos. Vaden, Mario. 2015. Larqest Coast Redwood - 1 (a), accessed 2015.07 .26. See also Brown, J.E. 1982. Monarchs of the Mist: The Story of Redwood National Pa* and the Coasf Redwoods. Redwood Natural History Association. Davis, Douglas F. and Dale F. Holderman. 1980. Ihe White Redwoods. Happy Camp, CA Naturegraph. 45pp. Del Tredici, Peter. 1998. Lignotuber formation in Seguoia sempeNirens. development and ecological signiflcance. Madrcfio 45:. 255-260. Del Tredici, Peter. 1999. Redwood burls: immortality underground. Amoldia 59(3): 14-22. Farjon 2005. Johnstone, P and P. E. Palmquist. 2001. Giants in the Earth: The Califomia Redwads. Heyday Books. Meyer, H.W.2003.The Fossi/s of F/onssant New York: HarperCollins. Moore, Zane. [no date, ca. 2013]. Coast redwood albinism and mosaicism. www mdvaden com/docum albin o redwoods chimera odf , accessed 2014.03.?9 Excellent discussion and bibliography for "white" or "albino" redwoods. Noss, R.F. (ed.). 1999. The Redwood Forest lsland Press. O'Hara, K. L. and J.-P. Berrill. 2009. Epicormic sprout development in pruned coast redwood: pruning severity, genotype, and sprouting characteristics. Annals of Forest Science 66:409-41 7. Available: htto://www.afs- iournal.oro/articles/foresuabs/2009/04/f08276/f08276.htmt, accessed 2009.10 14 Schwarz and Weide (1962). Wingate, F.H. and D.J. Nichols. 2001. Palynology of the Uppermost Eocene Lacustrine Deposits at the Florissant Fossll Beds National Monument, Colorado. ln: Fossil Flora and Stratigraphy of the Florissant Fomation, Colorado; Proceedings of Denver Museum of Natural Science: Series 4, No. 1. Home Back I Site mao I Contact us Copyright 2015 The Gymnosperm Database Edited by Christopher J. Earle earlecj(Agmail.com About Chris Earle t Back to top Last Modified 201 5-10-19 Exhibit C. Taken Decembet LT, zots -: t t*ET. Exhibit D.1 , i t' JIE f#: .;{".di -*,' + rf! .r, .t a L,{ 1l: a. t, .a?'I i+ .,,1.'t ,{t It piI ! i+ l.lt r l+L rr. ...rtf { ,. Exhibit D.2 I r. t I a- a F !i ..t-\.f* l'.' ,{l Exhibit E. Photo from redfin.com when z3z5 Poppy Drive was up for sale in zor4 n Exhibit F From : CLK-Hassel-Shearer, Meaghan Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 4:34 PM To: shlrincoleman@gmail.com Cc: PARKSiREC-Borba, Gina; ATTY-Kane, Kathleen Subject: Information requested from Park and Recreation Hi Shirin, I'm in receipt ofyour request for information that you filed with Gina Borba conceming the following items: lfyou can go back tkee years (2013. 2014. 2015) that would be most helpful' I ) How many requests have there been to renrove private lrees? 2) Reason for those requests? 3) How many were granted removal? Was removal granted for the reason lequested? 4) How many rl'ere new horneow:rer purchases? After careful consideration ofyour lequest, the Ciry* Attomey and I deternrined that the lequest is tbr infonnation and not records. Accordiugl-v- *e are not obligated to respond. However, staff can compile answers to item I and the firs1 part of item 3 by December 14. In response to item 2 and the second parr of item 3, sta{f w'ould need 35 days to compile and redact the original permirs for the requesters review. As to itenr 4. that information is not tracked and would not be available as part of city records. Let me know how you wish to proceed. Thank you and feel free to call me should you have any questions: 650-558-7203 Meaghan