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