Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2001.03.05BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 512001 PAGE 1 OF 3.0 • "� �� �W Cil J' bt✓FE`f, JAof-1{ �fab.Lbt�Y/ �t,J1�'i.t�� l�p•t-�t4e.+./ CLOSED SESSION a. Pending Litigation'(Government Code § 54956.9(a)); City of Burlingame vs. Gladysz, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412328 b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiator: Jim Nantell, Dennis Argyres, Bob Bell, IEDA; Labor Organization: IAFF, Local 2400 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 20, 2001 and Joint Planning/Council meeting of February 24, 20010 SAz z 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision on a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new house at 2405 Hillside Drive, Zoned R-1 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Commissioner Term Expirations (Planning Commission) b. Youth Center Planning Approach c. Proposed Rules and Regulations for Use of Village and Pershing Parks 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval to attend a Conference in Las Vegas Nevada by Vince Falzon, Assistant Street and Sewer Superintendent City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SUGGESTED ACTION 6:30 p.m., Conference Room A 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers `,_1 _ Approval Hearing / Action 2 Discuss/Appoint Discuss/Direct Discuss � D , i -D 0 1 Approval BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING -MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 2 OF 3 b. RESOLUTIONS: 1) Authorizing Construction Agreement for Fiber Optic System with TCI American Cable Holdings and 2) Authorizing Transfer of Funds for $149,362 from the unreserved fund balance to Capital Improvements Fund c. Corporation Yard Reconstruction Project - CP No. 9601 - Lease of Temporary Quarters, 1322-1326 Marsten Road d. Reject Claim of Carol Scheley for Personal Injury e. Adopt RESOLUTION amending the list of designated employees in the City's Conflict of Interest Code to include Human Resource9 Director 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Senior, February 15, 2001; Library Board of Trustees, January 16, 2001; Planning, February 26, 2001 b. Department Reports: Building, February 2001 c. Letters from Robert & Leslie Reisfeld, 724 Lexington; Alex & Nancy Herrera,'801 Burlingame Avenue; John Benson, 1401 Paloma; Sam and Gloria Malouf, 712 Vernon Way; Thomas Paine, 728 Concord Way; Roberto Guerciolini, 380 Robinwood Lane, Hillsborough; Bruce & Cindy Kaldor, 704 Burlingame Avenue; Gene Bordegaray, 1236 Cabrillo Avenue; regarding proposed Youth Center at Washington Park d. Letter from Tommy & Nancy Hawkins, 1465 Cabrillo, opposing a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez e. Letter from Florence Ribero, opposing the closing of the Cortez Avenue entrance of Ray Park f. Letter from Kingston and Doreen Lee supporting a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez g. Letter from Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello, regarding lot coverage ordinance h. Letter from Gerald R. Maxwell, 877 Hacienda, Millbrae, regarding litter on the Bay Trail City of BuYlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 al 22 -1C.DI BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 3 OF 3 i. Letter from Paul Constantino, 433 Airport regarding off-street parking j. Letter from Jennifer Cook, 610 Bayswater, regarding safety of Burlingame residents pertaining to vicious dogs k. Letter from David J. Vonderhaar complimenting Pubic Works employee Jim Brown for his help and quality customer service 1. Letter from Daniel Goldin, 900 Larkspur, regarding parking problems m. Letter from Sheila Myers, 1400 Floribunda, regarding proposed Safeway store n. Letter from Redwood City City Manager Ed Edverett regarding cooperation and assistance from Burlingame staff 13. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www. burl ineame.or¢. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING - March 19, 2001 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA March 5, 2001 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan. CLOSED SESSION a. Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)); City of Burlingame vs. Gladysz, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412328 Council instructed City Attorney with regard to this matter. b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiator Jim Nantell, Dennis Argyres, Bob Bell, IEDA; Labor Organization IAFF Local 2400 Council instructed City Manager, Human Resources Director, and IEDA regarding negotiations with IAFF Local 2400. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Human Resources Director Bob Bell. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. MINUTES There were no corrections to the minutes of the regular meeting of February 20, 2001. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to approve the minutes of February 20, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. There were no corrections to the minutes of the joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting of February 24, 2001. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to approve the minutes of February 24, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. RESOLUTION 19-2001— APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW HOUSE AT 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 Mayor Galligan noted he could not participate in this discussion or decision since he lives within 500 feet of the project. Burlingame City Council 1 March 5, 2001 CP Monroe reviewed her staff report of February 23, 2001, and noted that the applicants are requesting design review for a new two story house and conditional use permit for two windows within ten feet of property line which are located in a detached garage at the rear of the property. The basement area, 1,172 square feet, is not included in the FAR calculation because more than half of this area is below grade. One of the Planning Commission's concerns was two protected Redwood trees that are located on each side of the property. The majority of one of the trees is on the neighbor's property, but the two trees sit virtually on the property line between these two houses. The Planning Commission requested an additional arborist report because of a concern that when the City Arborist initially evaluated the trees he was unaware that the house was to be demolished. It was determined after reviewing the second arborist report that both trees were suitable for removal. Because of the Planning Commission's concern about the importance of these trees to the neighborhood, they added a condition that requires the applicant to plant three new 24" box trees on the site of a species that will be enough to replace the green backdrop lost by removal of the redwood trees. On the design, the Planning Commission felt that the style of the house was more suited to the Mills Estate area where ranch styles are typical; in this area, the 1920's and 30's bungalow homes are typical. The Commission felt that the second story addition resulted in more mass and bulk than the design guidelines directed because of its size and placement toward the front of the structure. The mass of the house was a concern, including the large habitable basement accessed by an elevator. In their comments, the Planning Commissioners noted that the design of this house does not fit into the neighborhood; agreed with putting the accessory structure close to the rear property line, but felt windows within ten feet of property line, one of the special permits being requested, should not be allowed due to privacy and the French doors; thought the house could be designed to fit the traditional styles of the neighborhood with a second floor. Council asked staff if we could add a condition that the basement not be used for living purposes; noted there are no windows in the basement area; without windows it cannot be legally used for living purposes. A condition can be added that states there would be no windows or doors to the exterior added to the basement. Vice Mayor Spinelli opened the public hearing. Mr. Rados, 2405 Hillside Drive, owner and resident, noted on February 12, 2001, he provided the Planning Commission with three pages of comments and 35 pages of backup information in an effort to answer the questions that were posed by the commission. Noted in 2000 he obtained a permit to remove the redwood tree on the east side of his property with the explanation that the tree had an "effect on existing structures and future construction", but primarily concern was about the disease of the tree. The City Arborist examined the tree and granted the permit for removal; plans for the new home were developed accordingly and submitted to the Planning Department. The Planning Commission requested more information about the Redwood trees. A long-time Burlingame arborist was hired to examine the trees in detail. This report was submitted to the City Arborist who fully agreed with the findings of the independent arborist. There are significant cracks inside his house caused by the tree. The arborist report notes the tree is leaning 16 degrees toward the south and is now beginning to develop cracks on the trunk because of the stretching. It has a 2' x 4' cavity at the base, which is full of decay and termite infestation. Mr. Rados noted that he has nursed these Redwood trees for 25 years, but now is concerned about safety issues. Setbacks of 30' to 40' from the trees as suggested by the arborist make the site very hard to develop. Noted that the neighbors are supportive of removing the tree. Regarding the design, Mr. Rados stated the house is not any larger than other houses in the neighborhood; the colors, materials and roof style are consistent with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood; noted the variety of styles of homes in the neighborhood. Complied with the requested changes made by the design reviewer. Feels they have shown good faith in trying to please the March 5, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council Planning Commission. Requested Council to reverse the Planning Commissions denial without prejudice. Council asked if the deed contain a condition that the basement could not be used for living purposes, which was agreed to by the applicant. The applicant agreed to go back to architectural review if the windows in the garage would be a big issues. He also stated the reason why he would like a large basement would be for wine storage, air conditioning units, and pool equipment; noted the French doors in the garage were for aesthetic reasons. There was no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Council comments: Councilwoman O'Mahony feels the plans meet all the conditions and noted the project is 1,700 square feet less than what the FAR allows. Councilman Coffey noted that Mr. Rados has property rights, as do the neighbors; he has gone to the effort to contact all the neighbors and all the neighbors support the project, the property rights of all parties involved have been assured. Councilwoman O'Mahony, made a motion to reverse the decision of the Planning Commissions denial for a design review and conditional use permit for a new house at 2405 Hillside Drive, with the conditions in the Council staff report and the added conditions that there be no windows in the basement and that the garage be used for parking only and that the French doors be replaced with double hung windows to match those already shown on the plans; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, Mayor Galligan abstaining. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT Speaking in support of teen center: Grant Gilliam, 2305 Ray Drive, presented petition containing signatures of 577 Burlingame Intermediate School students in support of teen center at Washington Park, expressed desire to serve on teen center committee; Lauren Kucera, resident on Vernon Way; Jonathan Weber, 1429 Benito; Stephanie Woodrow, 1360 Drake; Joan Davies, 122 Clarendon Road. Speaking in opposition to or in concern of the teen center project: Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, Sam Malouf, 712 Vernon Way (would like to serve on teen center committee), Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way (indicated desire to serve on teen center committee). Dave Luzuriaga, 2110 Poppy Drive, spoke with regard to Agenda Item 7a, Planning Commission Term Expirations and requested council consider reappointing incumbent commissioners. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 7a. COMMISSIONER TERM EXPIRATIONS (PLANNING COMMMISSION) City Manager reviewed staff report regarding two Planning Commissioner term expirations. Mayor Galligan expressed a desire to meet with the two incumbent Planning Commissioners Joe Bojues and Jerry Deal prior to reaching a decision on this matter. After some discussion, Council continued this item to their regular meeting of March 19, 2001, to allow Mayor Galligan an opportunity to meet with Commissioners Bojues and Deal. 7b. YOUTH CENTER PLANNING APPROACH City Manager reviewed his staff report recommending council appoint a committee of interested citizens to work with representatives of the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff to cooperatively look at the interest and alternatives to provide for the recreational needs of the community's teenage population. Burlingame City Council 3 March 5, 2001 Council Discussion: Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she was disappointed at the level of community outreach with regard to this project. Mayor Galligan noted there were at least ten people within the community interested in participating on the committee; did not want to overfill the committee; suggested one representative from each group be appointed to the committee; would like to see recommendation made to the Mayor prior to the regular council meeting of March 19, 2001. Vice Mayor Spinelli inquired about the number of committee members appointed to the Broadway Streetscape committee; staff responded that the number was ten to twelve individuals. Councilman Coffey noted that he had publicly campaigned for the teen center; has been very well publicized, not kept a secret; is thrilled to see the interest generated by this project; would like more input to result in a better project. 7c. RESOLUTION 20-2001 - PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR USE OF VILLAGE AND PERSHING PARKS DPR Williams reviewed his department's staff report to council recommending adoption of rules and regulations for the use of Village and Pershing Parks, as proposed by the Parks & Recreation Commission under Municipal Code Section 10.55.030. The proposed policy would limit school group use as an effort to avoid park overuse and crowding. After some council discussion, Vice Mayor Spinelli moved to approve the proposed rules and regulations for use of Village and Pershing Parks. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, and carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. APPROVAL TO ATTEND A CONFERENCE IN LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, BY VINCE FALZON, ASSISTANT STREET AND SEWER SUPERINTENDENT DPW Bagdon's memo of February 22, 2001, recommended council approve the attendance of one staff member at an out-of-state conference. b. RESOLUTION 21-2001 (1) AUTHORIZING CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR FIBER OPTIC SYSTEM WITH TCI AMERICAN CABLE HOLDINGS AND (2) RESOLUTION 22-2001 AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR $149,362 FROM THE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDS ACM/ASD Becker's memo of February 23, 2001, recommended council approve resolutions (1) authorizing the city manager to sign the construction agreement with TCI American Cable Holdings II, L.P. to install optical fiber cable between city buildings; and (2) authorizing transfer of $149,362 from the unreserved fund balance to capital improvements fund. C. CORPORATION YARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT — CP NO. 9601— LEASE OF TEMPORARY QUARTERS, 1322-1326 MARSTEN ROAD DPW Bagdon's memo of February 26, 2001, recommended council grant authority to the city manager to enter into a lease agreement (subject to the city attorney's approval) at 1322-1326 Marsten Road for March 5, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council a temporary site to house the corporation yard during the reconstruction of the existing site. d. REJECT CLAIM OF CAROL SCHELEY FOR PERSONAL INJURY CA Anderson's memo of February 26, 2001, recommended council reject the claim for personal injury occurring on November 14, 1999. e. ADOPT RESOLUTION 23-2001 AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO INCLUDE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR CA Anderson's memo of February 26, 2001, recommended council adopt resolution amending list of designated employee positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code to include the Human Resources Director. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Spinelli attended Airport Roundtable, Lions Club luncheon. Councilwoman Janney attended SamTrans meeting, parcel tax fundraiser, Heart Association fundraiser, Japanese/American Celebration at the San Mateo County Historical Association, a Tea Ceremony at Benihana relating to "Remembrance Week" of the Japanese American's interned in World War II. Councilwoman O'Mahony attended a meeting at the DoubleTree Hotel regarding Measure B, event at Washington Park during past weekend, and open house for Women's Recovery Center. Councilman Coffey reported participating in the phone bank for the parcel tax measure. Mayor Galligan gave a state -of - the -city address at Burlingame Rotary Club meeting, the tea ceremony at Benihana, participated in the parcel tax phone bank, and the welcome ceremony for the city's newly created human resources department. All councilmembers reported attending the joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting on February 24, 2001. 10. OLD BUSINESS Vice Mayor Spinelli noted that in the magazine "Location Update" there is an ad for the Northern California Film commission; he noted that the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau is not a member of this group and would like Councilwoman Janney to bring this issue to the Bureau. Councilwoman O'Mahony asked Director of Parks and Recreation Williams how the questions that were posed at the February 15th Parks and Recreation Commission meeting will be answered. DPR Williams explained that letters were mailed to each of the people attending the meeting explaining the questions were answered but would wait until the completion of this evening's meeting for Council's decision on how to proceed. A packet with the answers to their questions will be mailed tomorrow. Mayor Galligan referred to an article entitled "Cell Phone Linked to Fatal Crash"; would like to have a response back from the Chief of Police about how aggressive we can be but interpreting the rules regarding using cell phones in school zones. Councilwoman Janney noted that legislation sent to Burlingame City Council 5 March 5, 2001 Sacramento was rejected because of the concern about the enforcement. Lou Papan's office has offered to help if the City would like to pursue this. Mayor Galligan and Vice Mayor Spinelli discussed their different views regarding Measure B, which was going before the voters the next day. 11. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Senior, February 15, 2001; Library Board of Trustees, January 16, 2001; Planning, February 26, 2001 b. Department Reports: Building, February 2001 C. Letters from Robert & Leslie Reisfeld, 724 Lexington; Alex & Nancy Herrera, 801 Burlingame Avenue; John Benson, 1401 Paloma; Sam and Gloria Malouf, 712 Vernon Way; Thomas Paine, 728 Concord Way; Roberto Guerciolini, 380 Robinwood Lane, Hillsborough; Bruce & Cindy Kaldor, 704 Burlingame Avenue; Gene Bordegaray, 1236 Cabrillo Avenue; regarding proposed Youth Center at Washington Park d. Letter from Tommy & Nancy Hawkins, 1465 Cabrillo, opposing a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez e. Letter from Florence Ribero, opposing the closing of the Cortez Avenue entrance of Ray Park f. Letter from Kingston and Doreen Lee supporting a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez g. Letter from Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello, regarding lot coverage ordinance h. Letter from Gerald R. Maxwell, 877 Hacienda, Millbrae, regarding litter on the Bay Trail Letter from Paul Constantino, 433 Airport regarding off-street parking Letter from Jennifer Cook, 610 Bayswater, regarding safety of Burlingame residents pertaining to vicious dogs k. Letter from David J. Vonderhaar complimenting Public Works employee Jim Brown for his help and quality customer service Letter from Daniel Goldin, 900 Larkspur, regarding parking problems in. Letter from Sheila Myers, 1400 Floribunda, regarding proposed Safeway store n. Letter from Redwood City City Manager Ed Everett regarding cooperation and assistance from Burlingame staff 13. ADJOURNMENT March 5, 2001 6 Burlingame City Council Councilwoman O'Mahony noted the passing of Louis Nannini and Dave Supanich who recently passed away. After a moment of silence, Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Ann T. Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council 7 March 5, 2001 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 512001 PAGE 1 OF 3 CLOSED SESSION a. Pending Litigation'(Government Code § 54956.9(a)); City of Burlingame vs. Gladysz, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412328 b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiator: Jim Nantell, Dennis Argyres, Bob Bell, IEDA; Labor Organization: IAFF, Local 2400 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 20, 2001 and Joint Planning/Council meeting of February 24, 2001 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision on a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new house at 2405 Hillside Drive, Zoned R-1 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Commissioner Term Expirations (Planning Commission) b. Youth Center Planning Approach c. Proposed Rules and Regulations for Use of Village and Pershing Parks 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval to attend a Conference in Las Vegas Nevada by Vince Falzon, Assistant Street and Sewer Superintendent City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SUGGESTED ACTION 6:30 p.m., Conference Room A 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers Approval Hearing / Action Discuss/Appoint Discuss/Direct Discuss Approval I BURL'E a . b. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 2 OF 3 RESOLUTIONS: 1) Authorizing Construction Agreement for City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 7ORNIA 94010 BURLINGA M01 CALIF 58200 Fiber Optic System with TCI American Cable Holdings and 2) Authorizing Transfer of Funds for $149,362 from the unreserved fund balance to Capital Improvements Fund c. Corporation Yard Reconstruction Project - CP No. 9601 - Lease of Temporary Quarters, 1322-1326 Marsten Road d. Reject Claim of Carol Scheley for Personal Injury e. Adopt RESOLUTION amending the list of designated employees in the City's Conflict of Interest Code to include Human Resources Director 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Senior, February 15, 2001; Library Board of Trustees, January 16, 2001; Planning, February 26, 2001 b. Department Reports: Building, February 2001 c. Letters from Robert & Leslie Reisfeld, 724 Lexington; Alex & Nancy Herrera,'801 Burlingame Avenue; John Benson, 1401 Paloma; Sam and Gloria Malouf, 712 Vernon Way; Thomas Paine, 728 Concord Way; Roberto Guerciolini, 380 Robinwood Lane, Hillsborough; Bruce & Cindy Kaldor, 704 Burlingame Avenue; Gene Bordegaray, 1236 Cabrillo Avenue; regarding proposed Youth Center at Washington Park d. Letter from Tommy & Nancy Hawkins, 1465 Cabrillo, opposing a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez e. Letter from Florence Ribero, opposing the closing of the Cortez Avenue entrance of Ray Park f. Letter from Kingston and Doreen Lee supporting a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez g. Letter from Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello, regarding lot coverage ordinance h. Letter from Gerald R. Maxwell, 877 Hacienda, Millbrae, regarding litter on the Bay Trail BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURL— itv�gME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD _.; REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 BURLINGA MO) CALIF 70200IA 94010 PAGE 3 OF 3 i. Letter from Paul Constantino, 433 Airport regarding off-street parking j. Letter from Jennifer Cook, 610 Bayswater, regarding safety of Burlingame residents pertaining to vicious dogs k. Letter from David J. Vonderhaar complimenting Pubic Works employee Jim Brown for his help and quality customer service 1. Letter from Daniel Goldin, 900 Larkspur, regarding parking problems m. Letter from Sheila Myers, 1400 Floribunda, regarding proposed Safeway store n. Letter from Redwood City City Manager Ed Edverett regarding cooperation and assistance from Burlingame staff 13. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlin¢ame.ort , Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING - March 19, 2001 UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA February 20, 2001 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by David Barruto. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE At this time, Mayor Galligan noted a Closed Session item would be discussed at the end of the meeting in regards to the real estate negotiations for 1369 North Carolan Avenue. 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Spinelli noted a correction to the minutes of January 27, 2001; page three should be CalTrain instead of CalTrans. With this correction, Councilman Spinelli made a motion to approve the minutes of January 27, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Spinelli noted an addition to the minutes of February 5, 2001; Page 2, after Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing, it should be noted that there were no comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the minutes of February 5, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. PUBLIC HEARING WHETHER TO RESCIND ORDINANCE #1643 TO ADD STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE DPW Bagdon noted Council made a decision in October to reconsider the Ordinance #1643 that was adopted to install stop signs at Adeline and Cortez and requested staff review possible alternatives to increase safety for pedestrians crossing Adeline. City staff met with residents of the area and discussed options. Summary of concerns and issues raised by the residents was included in the staff report. The preferred options by the residents all include a crosswalk and better signage, together with either a stop sign or a warning light, crossing guard or more predominant pavement markings. Staff continues to have concerns -with respect to the crosswalks and signage; believes that having three sets of stop signs within 600 feet on a collector street increases the probability that drivers will not take them seriously and may not come to a full stop. Staff suggested more intensified traffic enforcement, possibly closing one of the public accesses at either Cortez or Cabrillo and put the stop signs in the Burlingame City Council 1 February 20, 2001 Unapproved Minutes location where the opening still existed, or having a crossing guard and improved signage at that location. CM Nantell noted staff appreciated the opportunity to be able to meet with the neighborhood representatives to review the issues. One of the difficulties is the issue that centers around traffic in the community. All five elementary schools have concerns about traffic and how it impacts the safety of the children near the schools. Important to recognize standards to be used to address traffic issues. The standard that is in place at this location is pedestrians can gain access to cross Adeline at a controlled intersection with pedestrian markings by walking one block to the right or one block to the left and cross the street safely. Feels the standard in place is an appropriate balance between these competing interests; safe access across the street for pedestrians as well as flowing traffic. Staff looks at stop signs as also becoming a traffic diversion vehicle, which pushes traffic from one street to another street. Continuing to add more stop signs will divert traffic to Hillside, which is already carrying the bulk of the east/west traffic. Council Questions: Vice Mayor Spinelli asked if there was any formal count done on how many children enter the gates at Cabrillo and Cortez. DPW stated there was no formal count done, but that the Traffic Engineer was there during one school session; at Cortez he counted approximately 12 pedestrians, but can't say that is representative of how many pedestrians are actually going across the street in those locations. CM Nantell noted that dismissal from school is spread out over a period of time and that the Traffic Engineer was only counting during one brief interval. DPW Bagdon noted having the stop signs further apart rather than closer will cause drivers to gain speed between the stop signs and perhaps go faster. Mayor Galligan asked if the issues are worse when Mercy High School is in session, which would warrant locking the gate at Cortez to the entrance to the park during this time frame. CM Nantell stated this could be done if necessary. Noted the City picks up the expense for the crossing guard. The estimate would be approximately $3,000 per year for crossing guard on Adeline Drive and Cortez. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor of the stop signs: Sue Pelequin, Cortez, stated she would like Council to look at the bigger picture; there is a major problem at Lincoln School with traffic on Devereaux; Lincoln School does not have a parking lot so cars back up; PTA is trying to educate parents to drop off their children at alternate locations in an attempt to increase flow around the school; need to try to decrease the number of cars parked in front of Lincoln School; would like to have a yellow crosswalk and stop sign to designate it as a school crossing. Shirley Lee, resident of Cortez, stated their family utilizes the entrance at Cortez two to four times per day; noted not just the families from Lincoln utilize that entrance; residents during the day also use that entrance; would like Burlingame to promote a more pedestrian -friendly city. Janice McGee, resident of Cortez and Adeline, stated she has had three cars hit due to speeding cars; supports installation of stop sign. Julia Winslow, parent at Lincoln School and PTA President, noted even the children's parents don't drive safely in the school zone; cars speed through the stop sign at Balboa and Adeline; feels if a stop sign at Cortez will slow down cars, it might help the problem and possibly save lives; agreed it is inconvenient to have to keep stopping. Demitri Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, and Jill Young, a resident on Cortez, also support the crosswalk and stop sign on Adeline at Cortez. Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, acknowledged and thanked City Manager Nantell for chairing the committee regarding this- subject. She noted that even though the residents spoke of various options, February 20, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes they still favor the stop sign as the best option and secondary options were provided as discussion items. Noted Adeline and Cortez has a lot of heavy pedestrian traffic, not just children going to Lincoln School or people visiting Ray Park. Some children cut through Ray Park to reach OLA as well as children cutting through to reach BIS. Feels drivers in the past were more courteous and respectful of pedestrians; some drivers do not pay attention to pedestrians that are crossing in an um -narked crosswalk. Does not feel closing the gate is a good solution; need to decompress Devereaux and using the Cabrillo and Cortez entrance could help. Mrs. Wentworth does not believe leaving things as they are and encouraging the children to walk to Balboa or Cabrillo will work; more traffic enforcement is a good idea but probably not a permanent solution. She does not advocate closing Cabrillo; wants it available for a drop off/pick up point for school. Would like to have the City be more pedestrian friendly and make the parks more accessible to people. Feels a crossing guard is a good idea, but with the inclusion of a marked crosswalk so it would also be safe on the weekend. Those in opposition of the stop sign: Metra Sonico, resident on Adeline, does not believe more stop signs are needed. David Taylor, resident at Drake and Taylor, stated he taught his daughter to stop, look and listen; parents should be teaching their children how to cross the streets; does not want or believe more stop signs are needed on Adeline; a possible solution could be closing the gate at Adeline and Cortez. Roy Christensen, resident on Carlos, does not believe another stop sign is needed and possibly stronger police enforcement is necessary. There were no additional comments and the hearing was closed. Council Comments: Mayor Galligan noted that at the time the stop sign ordinance for Adeline at Cortez was approved, comments were made at the hearing that led Council to believe that staff was recommending the installation of these stop signs. Consequently, staff distributed a memo to Council explaining they did not recommend the installation of the stop signs. Noted school safety is a priority to everyone; something schools have faced for many years; installing stop signs at Cortez could cause accidents; would like to take small steps before installing these stop signs. Noted there are no stop signs warning drivers there is a school in the area; signs stating there is a school in the area is necessary. Need more police enforcement; would like to have a police officer dedicated every morning and afternoon at one of the schools. Would like an ordinance adopted to make talking on cell phones while driving in a school zone illegal, whether dropping off a child or not; putting in a crosswalk without a sign would be a death warrant; a child will think a car is going to stop, which is not necessarily the case. Would like to rescind this stop sign ordinance, install school zone signs, assign a police officer in the morning and afternoon at Cortez and Adeline, and leave both openings at Cortez and Adeline open. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted she received many calls from residents against the installation of the stop sign. Noted there is only 100 yards between each stop sign; afraid an additional sign would encourage rolling stops. Appreciated the efforts being made by the residents in attempt to keep the children safe. Feels installing these stop signs would create an unfair standard for the traffic demands on Adeline and would shift the burden to Hillside Drive. Councilwoman Janney noted she also misunderstood the original staff report and that staff was recommending the stop sign; likes the idea of having a designated officer at all of the schools twice a day and in making this a priority; supportive of an ordinance regarding the use of cell phones in a school zone. Vice Mayor Spinelli stated that school zone signs are important on Adeline; feels the entrance on Cortez magnifies the problem; supports closing the Cortez entrance to force people to use the Cabrillo entrance. Councilman Coffey noted the focus should be on the safety of the children; does not support closing the entrance to Cortez; this is a safe entrance and is used by a number of people, not just children; Burlingame City Council 3 February 20, 2001 Unapproved Minutes noted the park is used for many different events and programs; feels the stop signs at Adeline and Cortez are necessary and does not support rescinding the ordinance. Mayor Galligan directed staff to research the history of when the Cortez opening was installed; does not want to close the entrance until other possibilities are researched; would like staff to come up with a plan to redesign the Cabrillo entrance; improve signage and have a greater police presence at all the schools in the City. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to adopt Ordinance # 1651 which would rescind Ordinance #1643 to Add Stop Signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-1, with Councilman Coffey dissenting. 5b. ORDINANCE #1650 TO EXTEND INDEFINITELY THE CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS STUDY OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS CP Monroe noted that at the meeting of February 5, 2001, an ordinance was introduced to extend indefinitely the current design review process. In April 2000, a revision was adopted to the process which streamlined the process and brought applicants before the Planning Commission for a public comment meeting before' it was determined to put the application on the consent calendar, action calendar, or refer it to a design reviewer. The process had a sunset clause written in at time of adoption and now it is at the period of expiration. Should the process expire, the Planning Commission would go back to the previous process which requires every application go to a design reviewer before going to the Planning Commission. The comments received from the public on the new process have been positive. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the adoption of Ordinance #1650 to extend indefinitely the current design review process which allows study of a single family house subject to design review at the beginning of the design review process; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5c. ADOPT ORDINANCE #1649 TO INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT AREAS IN FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS CP Monroe noted that at the meeting of February 5, 2001, an ordinance was introduced to include single family residential basement areas in floor area ratio calculations; noted in the current code, basement areas in single family houses are not included in the floor area ratio (FAR) calculation; there have been concerns expressed about the way basements are defined as well as the exclusion of the basement area. The Planning Commission recommends on this proposed ordinance in an attempt to redefine the way basements are addressed when calculating FAR for single-family residences. The proposed ordinance would include basement areas in single-family houses in the FAR calculation with some exceptions and prohibit full bathrooms and bedrooms in such basement areas Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1649 which includes single-family residential basement areas in floor area ratio calculations; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved February 20, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes unanimously by voice vote. Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT Sue Lindenberg, 865 Linden, requested the City of Burlingame research the over -parking on Rollins Road, Larkspur Drive, and Linden Avenue; states taxis and limousines are major offenders; feels parking and traffic ordinances are being enforced selectively; offenders are not being punished; commercial and unsightly vehicles are parked in the area daily. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Adopt ORDINANCE #1648 establishing San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District, the basis for and process of levy and collection of Assessments for the District, and the District Advisory Board Adopt RESOLUTION #13-2001 2001 Assessments and Programs for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and Broadway Area Business Improvement District CA Anderson recommended 1) adopt ORDINANCE # 1648 establishing the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District, establishing basis for and levy of assessments, and establishing the District advisory board; 2) Adopt RESOLUTION #13-2001 imposing assessments for Year 2001 and the programs for the year. b. LEASE OF CITY OF BURLINGAME RIGHT OF WAY TO RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY — RESOLUTION #14-2001 CA Anderson recommends approval of lease agreement with Rector Motor Car Company for a term of five years. C. TENTATIVE AGREEMENT: ASSOCIATION OF POLICE AND FIRE ADMINISTRATORS — RESOLUTION # 15-2001 Retired City Manager Argyres recommended Council adopt RESOLUTION #15-2001 approving the labor agreement with the Association of Police and Fire Administrators. This group represents the Police Sergeants, Police Commanders, Assistant Fire Chiefs, and Fire Marshal. d. PURCHASE NEW FIRE ENGINE FOR $364,375.63 FC Reilly recommended approval to purchase a new fire engine from Golden State Fire Apparatus for $364,375.63. Burlingame City Council 5 February 20, 2002 Unapproved Minutes e. ADOPT RESOLUTION #16-2001 OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS (CORPORATION YARD RECONSTRUCTION) CA Anderson recommended adopting RESOLUTION #16-2001 that will make it possible to reimburse the City's General Fund for expenditures made in preparing and acquiring property for the reconstruction of the City's Corporation Yard on North Carolan Avenue. L RESOLUTION #17-2001 APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CORPORATION YARD AT 1361 N. CAROLAN AVENUE DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve RESOLUTION #17-2001 approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conceptual Plans for the reconstruction of the Corporation Yard. g. RESOLUTION #18-2001 APPROVING STOP SIGN NOTICING PROCEDURES DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve RESOLUTION #18-2001 for Stop Sign noticing procedures for Council hearings on Stop Sign Ordinances. h. REJECT CLAIM OF METRO FURNITURE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON JUNE 21, 2000, AND NOVEMBER 2, 2000 CA Anderson recommended rejecting claim for damage to business operations occurring on June 21, 2000 and November 2, 2000, at Metro Furniture. i. REJECT CLAIM OF WERNER BERTRAM (CSAR) FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON NOVEMBER 8, 2000 CA Anderson recommended rejecting claim for damage to automobile occurring on November 8, 2000. j. WARRANT AND PAYROLL, JANUARY, 2001 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 74166-74745 (excluding library check numbers 74705-74745), duly audited, in the amount of $3,148,992.16, Payroll checks 133820-134607 in the amount of $1,363.241.65, and EFT's in the amount of $338,512.46 for the month of January, 2001. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Spinelli attended an Airport Roundtable Sub -Committee meeting. Councilwoman Janney attended the San Mateo/Hillsborough/Burlingame/Foster City Leadership Auction, BCE Dinner Dance, Rotary Dinner Dance, Taste of the Town, Burlingame School District Strategic Long Term Planning meeting, Poplar ReCare regarding childcare issues at 301 Airport. Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the downtown parking study forum, Parks and Recreation Meeting regarding the February 20, 2001 6 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes proposed youth center, C/CAG meeting, and Taste of the Town. Councilman Coffey attended the Rotary Dinner Dance, BCE Dinner Dance, Taste of the Town, Burlingame Chamber Board meeting, and Burlingame Committee on Commercial Design Review. Mayor Galligan met with Tom Huening regarding the Bay Trail, Burlingame Methodist Church, attended Bob Mark's show that featured the driving range, Leadership auction, speaker for Government Day for Leadership, met with representatives from Safeway, judged speech contents for Founders Day at the Lions Club, breakfast meeting with Mark Church, Roosevelt Founder's Day event, Taste of the Town, and the BCE Dinner Dance. 10. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 11. NEW BUSINESS An appeal hearing was scheduled for 2405 Hillside Drive for March 5, 2001, and an appeal hearing scheduled for 1209 Bellevue for April 2, 2001. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees, December 19,2000; Parks & Recreation, January 18, 2001; Planning, January 22, 2001; Traffic, Safety and Parking, January 25,2001; b. Department Reports: Finance, January 31, 2001; Building, January 2001; Police, January 2001 c. Memo from Director of Parks & Recreation regarding Proposed Skateboard Park d. Memo from Director of Parks & Recreation regarding Energy Conservation at Bayside Park e. Letter from Sue Lindenberg, 855 Linden Avenue, regarding parking problems on Rollins Road, Larkspur, and Linden Avenue f. Letter from Lorenz & Louisa Zee Kao, 1110 Burlingame Avenue, regarding illegal use of building g. Letter from Jennifer and Juergen Pfaff, 625 Bayswater Avenue, regarding traffic on Dwight Road and Bayswater Avenue h. Letter from Mr. Butler, 1519 Forestview Avenue, regarding AT&T Cable rate increases i. Letter from Pat Moore, P.O. Box 465, regarding Howard/East Lane sidewalk cracks j. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Kahn, Helmet Altherr, and Dr. and Mrs. Kelly regarding project at 1825 Castenada k. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Siddons, 208 Burlingame Avenue, opposing possible destruction of Lions Hall and Burlingame Recreation Dept. Council met in closed session at 8:45 p.m. and returned to open session at 8:55 p.m. Burlingame City Council 7 February 20, 2001 Unapproved Minutes 13. CLOSED SESSION Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)) and Real Estate Negotiations (Government Code 5 54956.8) - public hearing on property acquisition itself was held on May 1, 2000. City of Burlingame vs. Hurt, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412951; 1347N. Carolan Avenue - City Negotiators: Mike Nave, Larry Anderson, Jim Nantell; Property Owner Representatives - Dorritt Hurt, Bill Turner. Council approved a tentative settlement with Mrs. Hurt in the amount of $806,000. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Ann T. Musso City Clerk February 20, 2001 8 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes UNAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL/PLANNIGN COMMISSION JOINT STUDY MEETING MINUTES Burlingame, CA Saturday, February 24, 2001 9:00 a.m. 1. SPECIAL MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Mayor Galligan called the joint city council/planning commission study session to order on February 24, 2001 at 9:00 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL Council Present: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI Planning Commission Present: BOWES, DEAL, DREILING, OSTERLING, VISTICA Absent: . KEIGHRAN, LUZURIAGA Staff Present: ANDERSON, BAGDON, BROOKS, KEYLON, MONROE, MUSSO, NANTELL Public Present: Coleman Connelly, Iry Amstrup, Cathy & Joe Baylock, and Russ Cohen 3. SET GOALS AND PLANS FOR 2001 a. BAYFRONT & SPECIFIC AREA PLAN CP Monroe reviewed the staff report, which summarized the current design review workload; 18 items on current planning docket so far for 2001, there were 21 total in 2000. Noted with a high level of current planning activity it will take resolve to make select advance planning goals and stick with them; pleased with how much was accomplished in 2001 and noted that one item not accomplished, second unit amnesty, is currently in the review process. Discussion commenced regarding the Bayfront and Specific Area Plan, which was completed in 1991 and did not have a specific ending date. It was agreed that the City needs to review the role of the area east of Highway 101 in the broader view of the City's land uses. Discussed the form and use of the Traffic Analyzer; noted it was updated in 2000, and can accommodate BART and those taking mass transit. There will be roadway capacity for projects that stay within their traffic allocations; need to be concerned about exceeding allocations and reuse in Bayfront area. Noted that development in the Anza area affects Bayshore Highway as well as US 101. C. Dreiling stated there are ways to plan without relying on the Traffic Analyzer; transit oriented design as well as other components can reduce trips; would like to find ways to inject these ideas into developments. Burlingame City Council j February 24, 2001 Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes b. BAYFRONT PUBLIC ACCESS TRAIL POLICY CP Monroe noted the current policy regarding the Bayfront Trail development grew out of a relationship with BCDC and has been in effect for 20 years; closing the gaps might take years. Fisherman's Park will be developed due to the approval of 301 Airport. It could cost the City $2-4 million to purchase the easement rights for the gaps. Mayor Galligan suggested using the money saved by the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District being formed could be used to purchase the gaps now and future development could buy back the improvements. Councilwoman Janney noted TOT should go to promote tourism; Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she felt TOT money should be used for enhancement of hotels and surrounding properties; does not promote public purchase or public assumption of the maintenance of the trails. The Bay Trail is valuable to hotels and residents and benefits all to have it completed. Discussed offering incentives to developers to make improvements. Property owners are concerned if the path is built through their property, they would lose parking and worried about how it would affect the future development of their properties. Vice Mayor Spinelli feels the Airport should fund the entire cost if they extend the airport runway. C. ROLLINS ROAD: FUTURE OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA CP Monroe noted north Rollins Road is the City's last industrial area. In 1993, zoning in the light industrial area was modernized. Prohibited uses were used in this particular zoning district to identify conflicting land uses. The approach used in this area is performance based. In discussion, it was noted to identify the need to change uses in the north end of town because of BART and Millbrae's Specific Area Plan. Need to recognize previous assumptions in El Camino/California corridor north of Dufferin. Councilwoman Janney suggested every decision should contribute to child care to help reduce traffic. Councilman Coffey noted the City of Millbrae is doing a tremendous amount of development at the north end of Rollins Road. Guittard owns 11 buildings in the area; company has purchased property elsewhere in anticipation of moving their production. This is the area where larger parcels will exist. d. HOUSING ELEMENT — STATUS OF ACCOMPISHMENT OF CURRENT ELEMENT, TIME FRAME FOR UPDATE, UPDATING PROCESS It was pointed out by CP Monroe that last year the state had mandated all the communities in the ABAG area to complete updates of their housing element by June 2001, however, ABAG had difficulty with developing the regional and local housing needs numbers so the deadline for first submittal to HCD is now December 31, 2001. The city's present housing element was certified in 1994. The last major implementation program in the current Housing Element is a second dwelling unit amnesty program which is currently being reviewed. Noted she received a letter from the county suggesting one consultant be hired to do baseline studies for all the cities. With this document, staff could write the housing element. Another option would be to hire a consultant to prepare the Housing Element and also represent the City of Burlingame when negotiating with the state. The City will also need to decide about the type of citizen participation we want in preparing the Housing Element. February 24, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes Burlingame Planning Commission 4. ZONING CODE ISSUES After much discussion. the following were considered to be the zoning issues that need to be addressed in the code amendment in the coming year: 1. Multiple family loading zone, guest parking 2. Building replacement/maximum building/retail size in the core commercial areas 3. Special signage regulations for church and religious institutions in any zone 4. Use of existing basement areas in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area 5. HOW TO MANAGE ADVANCED CURRENT PLANNING NEEDS Mayor Galligan noted now that they are aware what the future planning needs are, he was concerned about time frames, how to balance the work and lighten up the commission's load. The new Design Review process has helped get more items on the consent calendar. A suggestion was a better timer/clock system to be used for the meetings. Noted time gets wasted with redundancy; Planning Commission wants to work on the big issues. CP Monroe noted the load in 2001 is expected to be about the same as 2000. On the Developer Contact Committee Proposal it was agreed that there were many advantages in setting such a committee. It should be the prerogative of the Mayor to decide who should sit but it should be City Council Members and Planning Commissioners to call for a meeting. The Mayor should be contacted directly or through the City Planner. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Iry Amstrup, 2708 Trousdale, asked if the Mayor could explain more clearly at each Council meeting when the public can participate. Staff noted that they could prepare a hand out annotating the agenda for the public, which would also clarify when people should speak on given agenda items. Staff did this for the Planning Commission and it seemed to help. Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, encouraged the Council to let citizens express their concerns without having to be timed. It makes the process friendly; the Planning Commission has done this and it has made the process friendly and comfortable. Would like to see the City hire a consultant to amend the General Plan to include protection of historic resources in residential and commercial areas; feels elders are passing on and there is a sense of urgency in this project's completion. Also, would like to see the R-3 and R-4 high density reduce along the south end of El Camino if going to increase residential densities dramatically at the north end. Commended the Planning Commission for all their hard work this year. Coleman Conneelly asked why the criteria is one parking space per hotel room; CP Monroe noted this requirement is based on the fact that our hotels are airport oriented, served by shuttles and is a low number. He stated he feels another convention hotel is necessary in the area. Currently there is only one that can accommodate larger conventions, the Hyatt with 45,000 square feet of meeting space. The future to filling hotel rooms is bringing new people into the area with convention facilities. Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington, requested the Commission pay close attention to signage of projects as new buildings mean more signage, which adds to visual pollution. Burlingame City Council 3 February 24, 2001 Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 7. SET PROIORITIES The City Council and Planning Commission agreed that the following items would be priorities for the coming year in this order: 1. Rollins Road: Future of a Light Industrial Area 2. Housing Element 3. Zoning Code Updates 4. Bayfront Specific Area Plan/Bayfront Trail Gaps Ann T. Musso City Clerk February 24, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes Burlingame Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 PAGE 1 of 3 CLOSED SESSION a. Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)); City of Burlingame vs. Gladysz, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412328 b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiator: Jim Nantell, Dennis Argyres, Bob Bell, IEDA; Labor Organization: IAFF, Local 2400 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of February 20, 2001 and Joint Planning/Council meeting of February 24, 2001 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision on a Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new house at 2405 Hillside Drive, Zoned R-1 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Commissioner Term Expirations (Planning Commission) b. Youth Center Planning Approach c. Proposed Rules and Regulations for Use of Village and Pershing Parks 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval to attend a Conference in Las Vegas Nevada by Vince Falzon, Assistant Street and Sewer Superintendent b. RESOLUTIONS: 1) Authorizing Construction Agreement for Fiber Optic System with TCI American Cable Holdings and 2) Authorizing Transfer of Funds for $149,362 from the unreserved fund balance to Capital Improvements Fund City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMRO•SE'ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SL-GGE-S TE-D,4CT10A 6:30 p.m., Conference Room A 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers Approval Hearing / Action Discuss/Appoint Discuss/Direct Discuss Approval BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME p J REGULAR MEETING - MONDAI', MARCH 5, 2001 PACE 2 of 3 Corporation Yard Reconstruction Project — CP No. 9601 — Lease of Temporary Quarters, 1322-1326 Marsten Road d. Reject Claim of Carol Scheley for Personal Injury e. Adopt RESOLUTION amending the list of designated employees in the City's Conflict of Interest Code to include Human Resources Director 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Senior, February 15, 2001; Library Board of Trustees, January 16, 2001; Planning, February 26, 2001 b. Department Reports: Building, February 2001 c. Letters from Robert & Leslie Reisfeld, 724 Lexington; Alex & Nancy Herrera, 801 Burlingame Avenue; John Benson, 1401 Paloma; Sam and Gloria Malouf, 712 Vernon Way; Thomas Paine, 728 Concord Way; Roberto Guerciolini, 380 Robinwood Lane, Hillsborough; Bruce & Cindy Kaldor, 704 Burlingame Avenue; Gene Bordegaray, 1236 Cabrillo Avenue; regarding proposed Youth Center at Washington Park d. Letter from Tommy & Nancy Hawkins, 1465 Cabrillo, opposing a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez e. Letter from Florence Ribero, opposing the closing of the Cortez Avenue entrance of Ray Park f. Letter from Kingston and Doreen Lee supporting a stop sign at Adeline and Cortez g. Letter from Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello, regarding lot coverage ordinance h. Letter from Gerald R. Maxwell, 877 Hacienda, Millbrae, regarding litter on the Bay Trail i. Letter from Paul Constantino, 433 Airport regarding off-street parking j. Letter from Jennifer Cook, 610 Bayswater, regarding safety of Burlingame residents pertaining to vicious dogs k. Letter from David J. Vonderhaar complimenting Pubic Works employee Jim Brown for his help and quality customer service City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 ' BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, MARCH 5, 2001 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 P�ce3oi:3 1. Letter from Daniel Goldin, 900 Larkspur. regarding parking problems m. Letter from Sheila Myers, 1400 Floribunda, regarding proposed Safeway store n. Letter from Redwood City City Manager Ed Edverett regarding cooperation and assistance from Burlingame staff 13. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities. please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558- 72103 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting Visit the City's website at \Nwlv.burlinoame.orP-. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING — March 19, 2001 P q j jSTAFF CITY "PORT , i AGENDA ITEM # 5,q MTG. DATE 3.5.01 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: FEBRUARY 23 2001 APPROV FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DE4KISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW HOUSE AT 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should be by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The Council's action alternatives and criteria for design review and conditional use permit are included at the end of the staff report. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on January 8, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to deny the design review and conditional use permit for windows in an accessory structure. The motion passed on a voice vote 3-2-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Vistica dissenting; Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent). In their comments the commissioners noted that the design of this house does not fit in this neighborhood, it is a box on a box in the sense that the first and second floors are almost the same square footage and the design has the second floor loaded at the front of the building which will increase the sense of mass and bulk when the structure is built; can agree with putting the accessory structure close to the property line but should keep windows 10 feet away, the design of these openings in a garage makes it look as if structure could be used as pool house when covered on site parking is what is intended and needed; concerned about site planning, loss of traditional single story house and two great trees in the Easton Addition, even with arborist's report since this is a new house feel more effort should be made to keep these trees by designing around them; concerned with the loss of parking; concerned with architecture, others working with same square footage in this neighborhood have tried and succeeded in making their projects compatible with this neighborhood's character, this has not been done in this case; double French doors from the garage opening into the rear yard by the pool indicate a pool house use rather than parking use for the garage; house does not meet the design guidelines. Suggested conditions: The following conditions should be considered at the public hearing: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 29, 2000, Sheets 1 through 8, site plan, floor plans and buildings elevations, and Sheet T-1, landscape plan; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 14, 2000, memo shall be met; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ONA DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R -I MARCH 5, 2001 4. that the applicant shall be required to plant three new 24 inch box trees, one to replace the existing redwood three to be removed, and two to comply with the City's reforestation ordinance; the new trees shall be placed and be of a size and species to replace the green backdrop now provided by the redwood trees to be removed; the placement and species of the new trees shall be approved by the City Arborist; and that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. BACKGROUND The applicants, Dave Howell, designer, and Dan Rados, property owner, are requesting design review for a new two story house and a conditional use permit for two windows within 10 feet of property line in a new detached garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, Zoned R-1. The site will be cleared of all structures in order to build the proposed project. The current floor area ratio on the site is 2080 SF (.35 FAR) and the existing one story house contains two bedrooms. The new two story house with full basement (1172 SF) will have a total floor area of 3223 SF (.54 FAR) excluding the proposed 1172 SF basement area.. (The maximum FAR allowed is 3240 SF or .54 FAR., with the basement the FAR on the site will be .73. The proposed basement area is not included in the FAR calculation since more than 50% of the proposed walls are below grade . The recently approved new definition of basement will not become effective until March 23, 2001; this basement area would not qualify as basement under the new definitions, it would be a lower floor and count fully in the FAR on the lot. Replacement of the proposed garage with a two car garage in the future would require an FAR variance. A major issue during Planning Commission review of this project was the presence of two protected redwood trees, one on each side of the existing house. The majority of the tree to the right as you face the house from the street is actually located on the neighbor's property (2409 Hillside) while the majority of the tree to the left is on the 2405 Hillside site. Prior to applying for a project which would remove the existing house, the property owner at 2405 Hillside had investigated, along with his neighbor, the status and possibility of removal of both of the redwood trees because of damage they were doing to the foundations of the existing houses. The City Arborist had issued a permits for the removal of both of the trees, noting that the one on the right was diseased. Commission was concerned in looking at the permits that the City Arborist may not have been aware that the house at 2405 Hillside was to be removed when he issued the tree removal permits. Commission felt that the new house should be designed around these trees since they are major contributors to the green backdrop which is so integral to the character of this residential block and neighborhood. Subsequently the applicant had a second arborist report to evaluate the tree to the right, an earlier report accepted by the city arborist had established that the tree to the left of 2405 Hillside was diseased. The second arborist's report was reviewed by Steve Porter, the City Arborist. The City Arborist found that in addition to its root flare posing an unacceptable level of hazard to the existing residence, this tree too was diseased with decay in the root crown and buttress root. Based on the reports provided tree removal permits have been approved by the City Arborist for both redwood trees. Because of their concern about the importance of these trees to the neighborhood, the commission added a condition to the application which requires that the applicant plant three new 24 inch box trees on the site at 2405 Hillside, one to replace the redwood tree and two as required by the city's reforestation ordinance; and that these trees shall be of a species that will grow to a size and scale to replace the redwood trees in the 2 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ONA DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R -I MARCH 5, 2001 existing vegetative backdrop and shall be placed on the site at locations where they will do this as approved by the city arborist. (see condition 2 above). The Planning Commission also had an issue with the design of this project. Generally they felt that the style chosen was better suited to the areas of Mills Estates where ranch style houses are typical. This particular style is not consistent , they felt, with the design guidelines direction of being compatible with existing 1920's and 1930's neighborhood character of the Easton Addition. They also felt that the design of this second story addition resulted in more mass and bulk than the design guidelines directed because of the size and placement of the second story. The mass of the house was also larger than those in the neighborhood because of the large, habitable basement, accessed by an elevator, which implies possible future use as living area. These comments from the commission were on plans which had been reviewed by a design reviewer. The design reviewer found that after adjustments adding more classic elements to the proposed structure (e.g. the front porch was enlarged and Doric columns were added, a brick base was added across the front to tie the brick steps at the entry into the structure, the fireplace chimney was tapered above the lower roof, and the craftsman style overlays were eliminated) he could recommend the design. (See December 8, 2000 comments) ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Criteria for a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review Monroe letter February 21, 2001, to Dave Howell, setting appeal hearing Planning Commission Minutes, February 12, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report, February 12, 2001, with attachments Public Notice, appeal hearing, mailed February 23, 2001 Resolution 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a conditional use permit for an accessory structure and design review application for a new two-story house with detached garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1, Dan Rados, property owner, APN: 027-191-230; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 12, 2001, at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was gppealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on March 5, 2001 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units is hereby approved; 2. Said conditional use permit and design review application are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit and design review application are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting; and 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5' day of March, 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption, conditional use permit and design review 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE effective MARCH 5, 2001 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 29, 2000, Sheets 1 through 8, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and Sheet T-1, landscape plan; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 14, 2000 memo shall be met; and 4. that the applicant shall be required to plant 3 new 24" box trees, one to replace the existing redwood tree to be removed, and two to comply with the City's reforestation ordinance; the new trees shall be placed and be of a size and species to replace the green backdrop now provided by the redwood trees to be removed; the placement and species of the new trees shall be approved by the City Arborist; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 2 2 3 ROUTING FORM DATE: August 14, 2000 TO: _CITY. ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a window within 10' of property line for a new detached single -car garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R- 1, APN: 027-340-170. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 14, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben g /!y/. 0 Date of Comments M, .�•��1 of i 6,e.. rko^ ju%- .-r► 1 lcvr" i..� " s(,� K 'LLL,.-CLk-w� CL AL� r L JLX&V gal d •� �- `A r 'rte ` CLAr 000 -OL jur& % K it ) r (Z;;;t1 . d V&VV%' 1�.�►�-� v tt S{ w & v CAAZ�, 2405 Hillside Drive, Action Alternative, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. Conditional Use Permit In order to grant a conditional use permit the following must be found to exist on the property: 1. That the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvemems in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; 2. That the proopsed use shall be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General plan and Zoning Ordinance; and 3. That the proposed project shall be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance Noll 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. CITY OF BURLINGAME Planning Department February 21, 2001 Dave Howell 2825 Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Howell, City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010.3997 Tet. (650) 556-72W At the City Council meeting of February 20, 2001, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1. This application was to allow anew two-story house with detached garage. A public hearing will be held on March 5, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 2405MT I acc c: property owner City Clerk Cil)? of Burlingame Conzinission Unapproved Minutes February 12, 2001 Commission discussion on the motloil: Wliy not niAe the conditional use pt rmit and variance void if the strictures are removed? CA Anderson noted motion would allow review if non-confomling garage chanced more, even if not demolished. Commission noted hardship as justification for the variance was the odd configuration of the buildings on the lot, but this hardship goes away when the structures are removed; can't support, feels that there are good design solutions to meet the owners needs which would eliminate the need for a conditional use and variance; can support if variance goes away; have faith that other Commissions will handle review appropriately if brought back before the Planning Commission; it should be handled appropriately now. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with added condition that the Planning Commission should review any change to this property in the future. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Vistica dissenting; Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:22 p.m. 6. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE HOWELL; DESIGNER) (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 8, 2001 MEETING) C. Osterling stated that he would be abstaining from this item since he resides within 300 feet of the property, and left the dais. CA Anderson noted that 3 affirmative votes are required to act on this item - Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff_ Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The owner, Dan Rados presented the project to the Commission and noted that he gave 3 pages of comments with 34-35 attachments to them for their review - He reviewed and answered the Planning Commission comments. He has reviewed his proposal with his neighbors and spent anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours with them. He presented a document to the Commission signed by neighbors in support of the project which states that they understand that the redwood tree would be removed on the subject property as well as the redwood tree shared with the adjacent property at 2409 Hillside Drive. This document was signed by both of the adjacent neighbors, neighbors on both sides of the block, as well as the neighbor at the rear. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: a lot of information was presented to the Commission from the owners, feel that this house does not belong in this neighborhood, it is a box on top of a box; square footage of I' and Td floor is almost the same, this should be a red flag warning, there is extreme front loading of the design of this project, on this basis voting for denial; special permit for accessory structure to be closer to the property line- would go along with that, but should try to keep window 10' away, need to have stipulation that accessory structure will not be used as a pool house, should be used for automobiles as it was designed; site planning is bothersome, losing traditional single story house and two great trees in Easton addition; even with arborist report have a hard time believing the trees should be removed, agree that the house has a_ layered cake look, concerned with loss of parking, can't support architecture; there are a lot of applicants working with the same square footage that are trying to make their projects compatible with this Burlingame neighborhoods character, does not see this attempted here, skeptical about arborist report, trees benefit N Ci.�, of Burlingame Plannine Commission Unapproved Minutes 7. February 12, 2001 entire community, not just home owner; rear garage appears to be intended to be used as a pool house with double french doors opeiiing into the backyard, architecture of the house doesn't meet intention of design guidelines, can't support, have seen a lot of houses at the maximum square footage that have responded to the neighborhood character and made the structure look not so big. C. Vistica moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining and Cers. Boju6s, Keighran absent,). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:43 p.m. 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE - ZONED R-4 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO UNIT (TOM LUNKLEY, AVR REALTY, C. Vistica stated that he would be abstaining from t ' item since he owns property within 300 feet of 1209 Bellevue Avenue. Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner sented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideratio . Commission asked for wording in Condition #2 to be changed from "issuance" to "applied for". Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tom Lunkley of 1169 Broadw represented the owner of the subject property and was available to answer questions. Commission asked i re is a kitchen in the room in question? Applicant stated that there is a gas line, faucet, and kitchen cabme Commission asked if there were appliances in place now. The applicant responded that that there are no pliance:s- Commission asked what the rent for the existing units on the site is. The applicant ='wh the s� rent for as low as $995 and the one bedroom rents for $1275. Commission asthe prope was built; applicant did not know. CP Monroe responded that at least as early as 1960, since it shows u on the Sanborn Map. The owner, Este Coldwell addressed the Commission, stating that she has owned the property for the last 26 years and has ne er rented the space as a studio. The lady that was storing furniture there has her own unit on the property. e took out permit in 1983 for pluming and electrical, and to change the sliding glass door to a solid door in or r to comply with the Fire Code in order to upgrade the laundry area. When she purchased the building it w laundry room and already had a toilet and gas dryer. She has used the space in the past to store furniture an pliances for her other properties. It was only rented out as a storage unit recently. No one could even live i the space since there is no heat. Commission questioned why would you want to make it into a unit now, w n it was never rented before as a living unit? The owner responded that she doesn't need it for storage anymo and wants to provide low income housing to address the housing problems in the area. She could rent it to so ne without a vehicle, perhaps an elderly person_ She could document yearly to the City that it was a low -i ome unit, that was rented to someone without a car_ She explained that she would promise to this. There e no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: currently the site is non-conforminggards to off-street parking, the burden shouldn't be put back on the City to increase a non -conforming situation, space was originally used and 7 W a. Vi �OU SO •w ` y ` r Ff l City of Burlingame Item # Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Structure Action Calendar Address: 2405 Hillside DriVe 'Meeting Date: VI'-__ Request: Design revie),N, and conditional use permit for an accessory structure with windows less than 10' from the rear property line for a new t«vo-story house with detached garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040 and 25.60.010 (i)) Applicant and Property ONvner: Dan Rados APN: 027-191-230 Designer: Dave Howell Lot Area: 6000 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R -I CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Class 3 - construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. History: On January 8, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this design review request (see attached 1/8/01 minutes). At the hearing, the commission expressed concern over the large redwood trees on each side of the house to be removed for construction of this new house. The commission, by a 6-0-I vote, continued the hearing until the January 22, 2001 meeting in order to get more information from the City Arborist on the tree removal permits for the two redwood trees. The commission wanted to know if permits were issued for both trees and, if so, would the determination of the City Arborist have been different if he knew the existing house was to be torn down and a new house built, and what was the extent of decline noted for one of the trees - Steve Porter, City Arborist, had reviewed the tree removal permit history and noted that a permit had been issued to Mr. Rados for the redwood tree to the left of the house (adjacent to 2401 Hillside Drive). The tree to the right of the house (between 2405 and 2409 Hillside Drive) is primarily located on the 2409 Hillside Drive site. Jeffiey Camilleri, the owner of 2409 Hillside Drive, received a tree removal permit for this tree. The City Arborist reports that regardless of the new construction plans because of its condition, he still recommends that the tree to the right of Mr. Rados' house should be removed. On January 19, 2001, the applicant requested a continuance of the Commission's January 22, 2001 hearing on the project in order to allow time to gather additional information regarding the tree to the left of the house. He has since obtained an arborist's report (see attached report date stamped February 2, 2001) which indicates that there is decay in the root crown and buttress root and the tree's expanding root flare pose an unacceptable Ievel of hazard to the existing residence and to the neighboring property. It is the recommendation of the hired arborist that the tree should be removed in the interest of all concerned. The arborist's report has been reviewed by Steve Porter, City Arborist (see attached memo dated February 5, 2001), and he concurs with the findings of the report. The applicant has also submitted the attached letter date stamped February 6, 2001 which responds to the Commission's concerns with the project design. Also included are letters from neighboring property owners in support of the project. Summary: The applicant is requesting design review and conditional use permit for an accessory structure with two windows within 10' of the rear property line for a new two-story house with a detached one -car garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (plans date stamped 11/29/00). The project requires the following applications: 1. conditional use permit for an accessory structure with two windows within 10' of the rear property line (27 and 8' from rear property line proposed); and Design Reviely and Conditional Permit 2405 Hillside Drive 2. design review Ior a new two-story hOrise with a detached The existing two-bedroom, one -stole house, detached garage and accessory structure to be demolished now contain 2080 SF of floor area (0.35 FAR). The new two-story house with a basement and detached one-cargarage would contain four bedrooms, and will have a total floor area of 3223 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3240 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum floor area ratio allowed. Since the proposed 1172 SF basement is more than 50% below grade, it is not included in the floor area ratio calculation. The remaining 17 SF from the FAR together with the 180 SF remaining from the detached garage allowance would allow a 417 SF garage (427 SF minimum required for a code compliant two -car garage). The basement is not proposed to be conditioned space and will not be used for habitation_ The applicant notes that the owner intends to use this area for storage. Staff Comments: Attached. Planning staff would note that the Planning Commission expressed concern about the role of the two redwood trees in providing a green backdrop to this block of Hillside Drive. The removal of the redwood tree will require planting of a new 24" box tree, and the reforestation ordinance requires 2 new 24" box trees (in addition to the existing oak tree in the front yard) as a requirement for the new construction. To address the commission's concern regarding the green backdrop, a condition has been added for commission review_ The condition would require that the three new 24" box trees shall be placed to replace the green backdrop now provided by the redwood trees. 2 PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWEDIREQ'D SETBACKS Front: 1st flr 23'-10" 25'-0" Block Average= 23'--9" 2nd flr 25'-10" N/A 20'-0" Side (left): 4'-0" 12'-0" 4'-0" Side (right): 9'-6" 13'-0" 4'-0" Rear. I st flr 41'-4" 46'-6" 15'-0" 2nd flr 46'-6" N/A 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: 32.9% 36.3% 40% (1974 SF) (2180 SF) (2400 SF) FAR: 3223 SF/ 2080 SF/ 3240 SF/ 0.54 FAR 0.35 FAR 0.54 FAR` PARKING. 1 covered in garage 2 covered in garage 1 covered in garage (10'x 20') + 1 unc. in (20' x 20') (10' x 20') driveway + 1 unc. in driveway + 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT. 30'-0" not known 30'/21/2 stories DHENVELOPE. meets requirements; window enclosure exception applied 2 Dt-siJn Revieiv and Conditional Permit ?401 Hillside Drive PROPOSED EXISTING ALLO\N'ED/REQ'D I Indo)vs: v' Windows proposed not a\-ailable Windows less than 10'-0" 2' and 8' from rear from property line require property line I conditional use permit I Conditional Use Permit required for two windows within 10' of rear property line (2' and 8' from rear property line proposed). This project meets all other zoning code requirements. ' (32% x 6000 SF) + 1100 SF + 220 SF = 3240 SF - (proposed garage is 220 SF) Preliminary Design Review Study Meeting: On October 23, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for preliminary design review (see attached 10/23/00 Planning Commission minutes). The Commission voted to send the application to a design reviewer. Concerns expressed by the Planning Commission included the following: • explain reasons for the elevator and full basement, would like to see a condition that the basement not be used for living purposes, should be recorded with the deed; • appears to be a two-story ranch style house, Mills Estates and Easton Addition contain a certain style, this style does not look like it fits into this neighborhood; • cannot tell the character of the building, see classic elements and craftsman style overlays, was there a goal when determining style; and • would like to see a copy of the arborist's report addressing the two redwood trees, redwood trees area wonderful amenity for the site and Burlingame, should be retained. The October 23, 2000 preliminary design review study meeting was noticed to surrounding property owners for the design review application, and there were no comments from neighboring property owners. The applicant has submitted revised plans date stamped November 29, 2000, and these plans have been reviewed by a design review consultant. The applicant has also submitted a written response to the commission's comments and an arborist's report regarding the redwood trees. He notes that the full basement is not being constructed as habitable space, and the ceiling height will not exceed 7'-6". The space will be used to store pool accessories, as a wine cellar and to house the air conditioning unit. The elevator will provide access to the basement storage area and is needed for 82 - year old family member who needs full access to all areas of the home. The applicant has also included an arborist's report dated July 3, 2000 regarding the tree on the left side property line and a letter from Steven Porter, City Arborist regarding the request for removal of the redwood tree along the right side property line. Permits for removal have been issued for both trees. The tree on the left side is 48" from the main residence and it protrudes 8" into the neighboring. property at 2401 Hillside Drive. The city arborist notes that the tree has caused significant property damage to the surrounding hardscape and indicates that attempts to mitigate current and future property damage would have negative impact on the overall stability of the tree The arborist's report indicates that the redwood tree on the right side (on the 2409 Hillside Drive site) is 27" from the foundation of the main structure and 30" from the eave of the neighbor's roof. The arborist notes that the tree has caused foundation cracking and is responsible for the structural damage in the home's interior, he also notes that the tree is diseased and in a state of decline. M DZvigii Review and Conditional Permit '1405 Hillside Drive In addition.. the applicant has made the following chan�?,>s to the design of the Louse: removed the rcd;t aOd dentils and corbels and the round ornamental window on the front elevation: added brick along the base at the front of the house; enlarged the fi-ont porch and added Boric columns; and the chllnnev has been tapered. Design Reviewer Comments and Conclusions: The design reviewer's comments date stamped December 8, 2000 are attached. The design reviewer notes that the applicant has responded to the commission's concerns by adding more classic elements. The front porch has been enlarged and opened and Doric columns have been added_ A brick base has been added across the front to tie into the brick steps at the entry. The fireplace chimney has been tapered above the lower roof, and the craftsman style overlays have been eliminated. The design reviewer recommends approval of the project. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for window placement, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a. -c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity_ Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4 Resign Revielu, and Conditional Permit ?405 Hillside Dare P1a11nina Commission Action: The P1:11111111y C01111111$Clpll sllollid 1101d a public hearing. fflrn,Lativc aCtioii S'10i11U be made by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any, action should be clearly stated. At the public hearin�c, the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 29, 2000, Sheets 1 through 8, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and Sheet T-1, landscape plan; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 14, 2000 memo shall be met; 4. that the applicant shall be required to plant 3 new 24" box trees, one to replace the existing redwood tree to be removed, and two to comply with the City's reforestation ordinance; the new trees shall be placed and be of a size and species to replace the green backdrop now provided by the redwood trees to be removed; the placement and species of the new trees shall be approved by the City Arborist; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner c: Dave Howell, designer PLG -Brooks, Maureen From: PARKS -Porter, Steve Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:48 PM To: PLG -Brooks, Maureen Subject: 2405 Hillside Dr. Redwood Tree Due to further, more extensive diagnostic studies/findings of the tree in question by the Treescape Tree Co., I have reinspected the situation and concur with the Arborist report submitted to me by the property owner, Mr. Dan Rados. 1 am recommending that the previously issued tree removal permit be reinstated based on these latest findings, that the tree has been found to be in an unsafe condition ......... sp RECEIVED FEB - 5 Z001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Burlinaame Planninu Coniimissioli Cit} of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca. 94010 February 5, 2001 RECEIVED FEB - 6 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Please note the following comments regarding the application to build a new residence at 2405 Hillside Drive, in Burlingame: 1.) Redwood tree located on the east side: primarily located at 2405 Hillside and protruding 8" into the adjacent property, 2401 Hillside. In May, 2000, an application was submitted to the City of Burlingame Parks And Recreation Department to remove the redwood tree based on a.) "Effect on existing structures" and b.) "New construction". (enc:l) The notification for removal was issued on May 25, 2000. ( enc: 2) . The actual permit to remove the tree was granted on June 7. It stipulated an expiration date on December 7, 2000. The same permit was subsequently extended through May 7, 2001. ( enc: 1 a). Following the recommendation by the Burlingame Planning Commission, the permit was suspended on January 17, 2001, indicating the the removal permit was granted on "current conditions". The concern was that the removal of the tree for the sole purpose of the construction was not justified. We contended that the tree was not safe, that it was located too close to both properties ( 2405 and 2401 Hillside), and that it needed to be removed under any circumstance. Additional information was required. On January 31, 2001, an independent arborist Bill Patchett (Treescape) examined the tree. Extensive testing was performed by sound and boring. The summary portion of the report indicates that "the decay in the root crown and buttress root system, and the tree's expanding root flare pose an unacceptable level of hazard to the Rados residence and the neighboring property". The recommendation was that "the tree should be removed in the interest of all concerned". (ene:3) A copy of the full report was made available to the City Arborist on February 2,2001. The City Arborist agreed fully with the findings. This was compatible with our original statement that the tree was a hazard and that - due to its condition - it needed to be removed under either scenario "new construction or status quo".(enc: 4) Please note that we looked at the effects of modifying the current plans, or developing new plans under the industry guidelines outlined in memo (enc: 5). It stipulates that the "root zone protection for a tree this size should be 20-40 feet from the trunk with regard to stability and health issues of the tree". The Tree Removal Resolution Diagram (enc:6) shows the impact of this guideline on a 50x120 parcel. As it stands, the lot at 2405 Hillside supports more vegetation than any other lot in the adjacent area. The removal of the redwood will still leave one 110 year old oak tree, 1 magnolia tree, and 1 new tree to be planted in the front portion of the property as shown on the landscaping detail.The 2 plum trees in the backyard will remain. 2.) Redwood tree located on the west side: in June 2000,we reviewed our plans with neighbor Jeffrey Camilleri and we agreed to remedy his problem with the redwood tree which is primarily located on his property (2409 Hillside) but which is considered to be jointly owned as it protrudes about 30" into 2405 Hillside. Due to the ongoing extensive damage to 2409 Hillside, the permit to remove was granted in August 2000, and extended through August 2001. The need to remove this tree was affirmed by the City Arborist on January 12,2100 1. (enc: 5). In summary, while we understand the benefits of the presence of the trees on our propem and the neighborhood, we ought to recognize that the removal is needed in the interest of safety and preservation of property. All the neighbors on the same side of the street, and the opposite side of the street have reviewed and fully support our comments. With the addition of the 24" box, 2405 will have a total of 5 trees.Please note that we are not opposed to the suggestion to plant up to five additional trees, either on the 2405 Hillside property,or elsewhere, as indicated. 3.) For questions regarding the elevator or the basement, please refer to enclosure # 4. 4.) Not enough FAR to provide for a two car garage without a variance for future oNvners: although the project involves a pool plan and a one car garage is inherent to the project, we offer to decrease the FAR as needed to match the needs. 5.) How does the design match the neighborhood? A. The house is no larger than some houses in the immediate vicinity. B. The proposed materials and colors, as well as windows and roof style are similar to those of other houses in the immediate neighborhood. C. Of the 12 homes in the immediate neighborhood, two pairs are of the same style. 10 of the 12 are of different style (83%). (enc: 7) D. Design review report indicates: "the architectural style of the proposed house is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood and is somewhat similar in style to the house diagonally across the street at 1400 Carlos Ave. (enc:8) E. All neighbors on both sides of the street support the project 6.) What is being done to respond to the neighborhood, not just the site plan? A. We completed a full consultation with all neighbors on both sides of the street, and behind the project property. We reviewed the issues of size, garage, trees, elevator and basement. We have a full support of the neighbors. B. We are planning to demolish a 1200 sq. Ft. Non -conforming garage and replace it with a new, conforming unit.The upper story of this structure is currently visible from both Carlos and Castillo.We are also planning to demolish a non -conforming 350 sq.ft cottage, and not to rebuild it at all. C. We are bringing all conditions into a full building code compliance. D. We are offering to plant 5 additional trees in the neighborhood, in locations to be suggested by the City Arborist. E. We, and the neighbors, feel that the overall project is beneficial to the neighborhood; it will contribute to its esthetic and value improvement 7.) Landscaping and its proportion to masss and bulk of structural components: A. The height complies with the regulation; no height exception is applied for. B. Roof pitch satisfies the required height and classic architectural style C. Lot coverage is 6% under maximum allowed. D. Less than 50 % of the project home will be visible from the street. The enclosed diagram indicates the position of the existiriv trees, and the additional tree to be planted (enc:9) The diagram does not offer the side view, but the oak canopy extends itself 42 feet from the Hillside property line toward the back of the property. 8.) Enclosure (enc: 10) portrays our contacts with the neighbors, our review of the pending items, and their support for the project as outlined. l Dan Rados 2405 Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 342-3918 i PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL (�%G r�r� CITY PERMIT APPLICATION ' SURLJNGAi`4F ', P-lR S & R.ECRE-1 TIO N DEP.-IRT.Il -N' P -• BURLLVG.111E, C-1 94010 TREE CITY US:� (650) 558-7330 FEB - 6 2001 The undersigned owner of the property at: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. L ADDRESS: v2 /0 A f �,'c � s i 4-) C L� 2 �3 1)/L (, r' /7 (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s): SPECIES RC-JO CIRCUMFERENCE 3 2- � LOCATION ON PROPERTY > WORK TO BE PERFORMEDhflU'4'�- REA ON WORK IS NECESSARYC VA,) CSL iS �� 6 Si2JC v�-k LR 1,J L-3 cJ Cor,-�S7-/e- L) G� 7�IJ (please use back of form for additional comments) NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OWNER IJ l2,4L� 0S OF THE TREE(S) MUST BE ADDRESS o2- q0-1 ���� 5 4 c ) SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION / PHONE (GiD) -3 -3f -------------------------------------------------------7----------------------------------------------------------------- PERMIT et", Ci This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipj of a copy of C apter 11.06, and agrees to comply v:zth its provisions arld all conditions listed beioN�,; that all a Z�tzi epired or been resolved. 1 OWNER CITY REPRESENTATIVE ---ZZSY CONDI'T'IONS: 24 - inch box size tree(s) required If conditions are not met svithin the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06.080, payment of 5.100 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (6S0) S59-7330 when rentoval(s) completed DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE 7 PERMIT EXPIRES 2 7 c A copy of this permit must be available at the job site 5C� at all times when work is being performed S- 77Q���!i/-r r� CITY CITY OF BURLINGA—ME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMEN1 IBURLINGA ME' 77� S50 BLlrlin`2anit .A%ellLle. BLIHIII`'Lllllk Caliform', 9-2180k)-21ti0k) 4� Telephone (0-�O)551-7.)O() • Parks Tree,;ln501111- O .........'c• Fax (650) ,)96-"/7-116 E-mail: bi11-1rCC@'adLconl May 25, 2000 Dan Rados RECEIVED FEB - 6 2001 2405 Hillside Dr. CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame, CA 94010 PLANNING DEPT. RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE REDWOOD TREE @ 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE -BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of one Redwood tree in the backyard of the property at the above address, and have made the following determination: 1) The Redwood tree's root mass is causing significant property damage to surrounding hardscape. 2) Attempts to mitigate current and future property damage would require root cutting which would have a negative impact on the overall stability of this large tree. 3) Replacement with one 24 -inch box size tree will be required as defined in Section 11.06.090 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance - Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the tree subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self addressed envelope BEFORE June 7, 2000. If you wish to appeal this decision or any of its conditions or findings, you must file a written request by, June 7, 2000 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, Steven Porter City Arborist - (ISA #WC -3073) SP/kh Enclosure TREESCAPE Quality Tree Care State Contractors License 9 712434 www.treescape.net 1229 Burlingame Ave., Suite 17 Burlingame, Ca 94010 - 4132 Office (650) 574-5354 FAX (650) 685-1002 Certified Arborist we - a Bill Patchett RECEIVED Dan Rados 2405 Hillside Drive Burlingame, Ca 94010 Re: Coast redwood evaluation Species: Coast redwood / Sequoia sempervirens Size: 46" (DBH) Height: 61.5.ft. Vigor Class: Fair Location: Rear yard Dear Dan, FEB - 2 2001 CITY OF BURUNGAME PLANNING: DEPT_ On Tuesday January 31, 2001, at your request, I visited your property at 2405 Hillside Drive, Burlingame. The purpose of my visit was to inspect and comment on the health and safety of the Coast redwood tree at the Southeast side of your lot. METHOD All observations and measurements were made from the ground (no climbing) the root collar was examined extensively by hand and with the use of various tools. And an increment borer was used to determine the soundness of the wood at the tree base an support root system. SUMMARY The tree exhibits a lean to the South of approximately 16 degrees and on the North side of the root collar there is an area of decay measuring 46" wide (Photo # 1), which in largely decayed. After performing a sounding test with the use of a hammer, I determined the majority of this area appeared to be hallow. Upon inspection of the cavity I was able to remove large areas of decayed wood and observed evidence of termite infestation_ The largest portion of the cavity was measured at 12" toward the trees center of the main stem (Photo # 2) with decay spreading to the left and right of the entry point. It is my opinion that this cavity extends further toward the trees center, but due to the size of the opening I was unable to probe further. As I preceded my inspection of the support root system, it became evident that the majority of the support system had suffered from the spread of the internal and external decay column. (Photo # 3 and 3 A ) With the use of a 12" increment borer I made a series of insertions into the wounded areas the all of the cores producing an initial sample of callus growth over large portions of decayed wood. The entire circumference was sampled at 12" in depth every 16" at 46" in height with the exception of 32" on the East side due to the presents of a fence. The cores sampled at this height produced samples of sound good. On the East side of the tree the effects of its expanding root system as caused structural damage to concrete pad on the neighboring property. (Photo # 4) The root expansion has caused damage on the Rados property as well, to the existing sidewalk (Photo # 5) and to the main structure. The tree is located 49" from the house with root flare 36" from the structures foundation. There are cracks present internally and externally at this point of the house. It is my opinion that these are a direct result the trees need to expand its root system to accommodate the upper canopy. The upper canopy exhibits tip die back, which may be a result of the tissue loss of the lack of feeding surface below. It is my opinion that the decay in the root crown and buttress root system and the trees expanding root flare pose an unacceptable level of hazard to the Rados residence and the neighboring property. Therefore, it is my recommendation the tree should be removed in the interest of all concerned. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Bill Patchett Certified Arborist WC- 3678 WJP: jy 0 :IV ex Photo # 3 IN fit' If - 4f Ile ZV4 'I-- a _ r•• f • �%lf 7 i .,. F + ,l 4 r.4�\ "•b;�< r 1 i Ita R s .-t , , Stela .�i ,�1� •r 4t Nr IV, � "1�'-. �' � , i e �.�• %[[771 aM'1' O, 7r/�•. fPi' Sr••. � � (i '� Photo 5 a _ r•• f • �%lf F + ,l 4 r 3 "•b;�< r 1 i ,•'fit: Y V ��� w �t� `� ��ty' a > ! 9 i n Gs C�,'I y� r; r Y i � r Y1 II • �` � lit � mar ;,.�� ry iiP yl'Y r • L ::� ii � �_�C... !t ``. ;i���'-`y�r♦1 a K?4."� `'�ii`w i'�h!�� !u '+.... }�.Ti.-C /�� "'-ira.t- .aV:. Z 1'. � ! /�• v vrs� M�..' f � ' .54 r � �� . '.:� � �tPt�:,�'�'�^`" ._., .may � ! =� r '+► f��"'s-. � r t 4�� r ►far r'lfi �.:{ a $ f' .�+:.�'�,.. iftzA . i-- �"` •.� i.,�s ✓�Rr¢'. �' . vim" ! . �S .j. ]T�� .y � _`'*�'-. i � ^_ r i .y�vrM N' .• ` 7 i,y� 7 iai r 'fit .a 'Y�''� 4rt - V'�� `�'P'it K '� r� �r �•4r �(r�T/ l�fp ���4. t •. n` 9' r r� , ` �if��� � �/T �� I•' y ��44**SSLL �•'� � � i L 'i t r4l; ee `.tel` -.r. �'r� •~`�L - ` - � � ' � .yam t ,>!•'� n., . ''��'''` } .') ` .., x "tom � ,. _-:''�:}� -.X - _ •� � �.• ry NORTH , OF • CROWN . City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED DEC - 12000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Please note the following comments regarding the application to build a new residence at 2405 Hillside Drive, in Burlingame: 1.) Basement: a full basement is intended to provide ample space for the pool accessories, HVAC unit, and an 800 bottles wine collection which is currently stored in a non -conforming garage. As the regulations require, the planned ceiling will not exceed 7.5 feet.The basement will not be used as a living space, and we agree to enter this limitation into the Deed 2.) Elevator: beyond the normal utilitarian reasons for its use, please note that we have an 82 year old member of the family who should have a full access to all areas of the home_ Our library will be located on the upper floor. 3.) Redwood trees: the tree on the east side is ninety feet high; it is located 48" from the main residence and it protrudes 8" into the neighboring property.The attached City of Burlingame report indicates "significant property damage to the sourrounding hardscape" and it stipulates that "attempts to mitigate current and future property damage would have a negative impact on the overall stability of the tree". (enc: 1) The redwood tree on the west side is 27" from the foundation of the main structure and 30" from the roof's eve of the adjacent property (2409 Hillside Drive). The attached report (enc: 2) indicates that the tree "has caused foundation cracking" and "is responsible for the structural damage in the homes interior". The report, in addition states that the tree is disseased and "in the state of decline". In both cases the city arborist examined the trees on site.Following a standard two weeks waiting period not a single opposing comment was registered. Permits were granted and we intend to remove the trees under either scenario: new construction or status quo.Please do note that the property at 2405 Hillside has a 110 years old oak tree which, in addition to other trees, will remain a part of the landscape. 4.) Please note that all suggestions and concerns brought up during the architectural review on November 16th have been accepted and are reflected in the new plans. We appreciate Paul's and Maureen's assistance. A final note: I have been a resident of Burlingame for the past 35 years. Although I have two other residences in Europe, 2405 will remain my main residence. It is not to be built for speculation or resale. We intend to demolish the existing non -conforming oversize garage, and replace it with a new unit. We intend to demolish an existing non -conforming cottage, and not to replace it at all. We intend to demolish the existing main structure, currently valued at $ 8007000 and build a new home approximately double that value. The final product v ill esthetically enhance the immediate neighborhood, and it will increase the value of the sourrounding properties. In the process, and afterwards, the city will collect additional revenues. In our view, this proposal is a win win situation which warrants approval. C bn Dan Rados 2405 Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 December 4,2000 MEMORANDUM CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY ARBORIST DATE: 1/12/01 TO: Maureen/Planning Dept. FROM: Steven Porter RE: 2405, 2409 Hillside Dr. RECEIVED JAN t 2 7005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. On 6/7/00 a private tree removal permit was issued to Dan Rados at 2405 Hillside Dr.. The permit approval was based solely on current findings of my inspection on that date. Any future proposal for a new structure involving this tree would of course present a different basis for any determination, namely, that evidence of some reasonable effort has been made by applicant / architect to protect and save this tree within the design. Note that industry guidelines recommend root zone protection for a tree of this size (132" circumference) should be 20-40 feet from the trunk with regard to stability and health issues of the tree. On 8/2/00 a private tree removal permit was issued to Jeffrey Camilleri at 2409 Hillside Dr. - Regardless of any new construction plans here or next door my opinion of this tree remains as was determined on 8/2/00 for the removal permit. CITY OF 611RUWGAME Qi I.001 MEMORANDUM FROM , 6TEVEN POR7ER TO. MAl1REEN BROOK: \ jml IND1,16TRT GUIDELINE6, 4wY RECO ENDED MIN. ' MAX. f�1lMr ROOT ZONE PROTECTION FOR A 132' dia. CIRCUMFERENCE (E) PARKIN. 61RIP a," Y-0' n.d. 4.0. b.•p. 40 7AvERAGE FRONTBETBAC m � 'ilT PLANTING "� I SU / M--------------'i N) 6TREET TREE IMAG ti _ lREJ AOCE6.•.ORT I SAWN NOME OTPRI T N 1 -i +%-=TRUG1llRE ALLE ------ -- --1'-----;-�•b ---- IT- --------- ---------- ---------- o O TRtE T_•I 0�0E Pp'Yc'�l� ' POOL 'u A 0"� \/ BATH •3 q ]ox u WOW I Fen STORY uUK yp /lRFJ OA—GE\ 7 I 1 ' u Ri ,A Y SINGLE CAR GARAGE 3 T m—'r i Y REMOVE ,� GO . 6 ®(piING t RED A' OA./. REDWOOD p O I TREE (PBeMT I APFRO'/EDI n FOBALANCE. TREE REMOVAL RESOLUTION DIAGRAM PLEASE ASE SEE FDRI MR. DAN RADOS PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN 1/16* 1 1'.0,TOPO /SURVEY BY Z O ^ 2825 HILLSIDE DRIVE KAVANAGH ENGINEERS 15-8-00a � J Z 2405 HILLSIDE DRIv6 BURLINGAME, CA, 54010 Z a BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 PH.K650).W-6561 PH.•(650J3Q-3518 FX•4 342-1845 Off•• N E-MAILI DCHOWELL49140ME,G011 rr .s p "NTAGTI PAVE HOWELL 2418 2412 2408 2404 2400 2415 0 ,0 d' 7 HILLSIDE DRIVE a W W<' d 2415 240 T 2401 2 w O Q Z PROJECT m u W SITE oza m U -WD TRM a W W<' d ua. > N 2 w O Z V m � W LU oza U NEIGH50RHOOD PHOTO M PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN 2825 HILLSIDE DRIVE 5URLINGAME, CA. 54010 PH."((o5O)341-6561 FX.* " 342-1849 E-MAIL: DCHOWELL46WOME.COM CONTACT: DAVE HOWELL NEW 51NGLE STORY RE5IDENGE 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE BURLINGAME, GA. 94010 CONTACT : MR. DAN RAD05 PH,*((o50)342-3918 ADDRESS: 2412 HILLSIDE ARCH, / STYLE : NEO TUDOR ADDRESS: 2418 HILLSIDE FOR: MR, DAN RADOS 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 PH,*(&50)342-3918 ARCH, / STYLE : FR / ENGL / CL ECLECTIC PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN[ 2825 HILLSIDE DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA. 34010 P14,0(650)341-6562 FX,• 342-1849 E-MAIL: DCHOWELL4*kO?lEC(3M CONTACT: DAVE HOWELL ADDRESS: 2404 HILLSIDE ARCH. / STYLE : MISSION (SPANISH) ADDRESS: 2408 HILLSIDE ARC". / STYLE : NEO CRAFTSMAN NEIGHBfORHTw7)OD PHOTO EXPO FOR: MR. DAN RADOS 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE 5URLING-AME, CA. 94010 PH.*(650)342-3918 PENINSULA BUILDING DESIGN 2825 HILLSIDE DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA, 34010 P14.0(650)341-6561 FX-* " 342-1843 E-MAIL: DCHOWELL4ispoMFC.(:j K CONTACT: DAVE HOWELL .fu �}fb t�iq I•'� 1. �AZ lk 77 YN17 AQ ilk "ILI 14 4 NBC K� A*q ........ ..... IR iems' . '•- r _ , • �. .: �.,i •4 _ ���'�. �:e.� • 1 • Vii..- �,:: ,�j:t v� dip!;, ;• � �:.N. � �� w.�� � -„•..fit \� S��J r � 1 _ .�"8ri21w Ave 1ti°. ,_ ` s .1 - � :,i Pfd -z •* :.r is r,1 0 r � - at 1 .yam go .•�� i F ,;: �a� `•z \.'_ I � � I r-C�„y�-tom- �� 5�: � jj ti 98121.40/2.7 DATE: December 5, 2000 TO: Maureen Brooks, Planner City of Burlingame FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA�e RE: 2405 Hillside Drive Burlingame GU\/BNGER ASSOCIATES c- East Trr� Ave^.t a e 3X Sr tv!ata- CA 94,27 Fox (65C) 570-1111 • TEL (650) 579-0995 E -Moil. Gu-7uOass.�;&GumbnoerAssocbtes.com RECEIVED A[Cf--IITECTS DEC - 8 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED November 29, 2000 (Received December 4, 2000) GENERAL Sent Via Facsimile 342-8386 The Design Reviewer together with the staff planner met with the applicant and applicant's designer, to review the design issues raised by the Planning Commission. The applicant's designer has endeavored to respond to the concerns of the Planning Commission. The revised elevations have more classic elements. The front porch has been enlarged and opened and Doric columns have been added - A brick base has been added across the front to tie into the brick steps at the entry. The fireplace chimney has been tapered above the lower roof. The craftsman style overlays have been eliminated DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The immediate neighborhood is a "mixed bag" of divergent architectural styles of both one and two story houses. The architectural style of the proposed house is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood and is somewhat similar in style to the house diagonally across the street at 1400 Carlos Avenue. 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD_ The proposed detached garage is appropriate to the neighborhood 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN The architectural style of the proposed house is consistent with the overall design of the structure. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TQ EACH SIDE. The proposed house will interface well with the existing two story house to the leis and bemuse ofthe lower roof elements and driveway, will relate to the one story house on the right. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The existing and proposed landscaping is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. Refer to reports from the City Arborist and an independent arborist regarding the trees to be removed RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for the proposed house: Paul J. GL rnbimw. FAIA - President & CEO Noemf K Avrom. A!A Associate r topobw ROOF E "m -130.50 RIOGH mzv*m P/coxAVERAGE Tor OF/"- cots a ELEVN EXTENT OF OA CANOPY L. v 7 (E) OAK TREE TO REMAIN -------r� ------------------------- I I 77-1-T- (E)STREET ETtENT ElEVN .'d.OB i I ------------- --_---- i (E) STREET I PROPOSED TREE -------- STREET TREE e PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION SHOWINS TREES TM REM ADN PROJECT NORTH 2405 HIl-L511DE DRIVE 13URLINGf4ME 2-5-01 1-011 RECEIVED E C D C I � / E FLENINSULA SUI!_DING DESIGN l_ 11 V 2525 HILLSIDF DRIvB6 z��� 13URLINGAME, CA. 34010 F E B FH."((p50)341-6361 FX.• w 942.1543 CM OF BURLINGAME F-MAllo pCH0WELL4*N0M8-00M DEPT. f' CONTACT; DAYF HOWF1.l. I / We have examined the plans for the construction of a new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined. (sr tune) { f f -date) RECEIVED FEB - 6 ZUU, C1ME LANNING DEPT p . I / We have examined the plans for the construction of a new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined. L'Ae1� (signature) ( date ) RECEIVED FEB - 6 ZGM CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I / We have examined the plans for the construction of a new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined. (signature) l-Z,� -v I ( date ) '14!11l'iP( J --1A RECEIVED FEB - 6 ZOUI CITY OF BURLFNGAME PLANNING DEPT_ I / We have examined the plans for the construction of a new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined Oz.s h L- ; P7 o� —' --(signature) l — / 7 — Zoz� ( date ) 2g17 r) l RECEIVED FEB - 6 2QQi CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT_ I / We have examined the plans for the construction of a new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined- la utlined la tit (signature) J ..3y( )00t ( date ) � 2 - 7�V RECEIVED FEB - 6 ZUQ1 CITY OF HURLINGAPAE PLANNING DEPT. I / We have examined the plans for the construction of new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined. (signature) L/I P/ (date) RECEIVED FEB - 6 ZGGI CI PLANNING DEPT- I / We have examined the plans for the construction of a new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined. 1/ 3n/tit date ) Z(10 49 RECEIVED FEB - 6 ZOat CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I / We have examined the plans for the construction of a new home at 2405 Hillside Drive in Burlingame, including the size of the structure,the garage, the elevator and the basement. I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the east side of the property (toward 2401 Hillside Drive). I / We understand that the applicant intends to remove a redwood tree on the west side of the property (towrd 2409 Hillside Drive) I / We support the construction project as outlined (signature) ( date ) Z Yir RECEIVED FEB - G Nal C' PLANNING DEPT - Ms. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner City Of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Brooks: AfW y1409- RECEIVED 4o9- RECEIVED JAN 1 9 2081 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. January 19, 2001 As you know, we are scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Monday, January 22 nd, regarding the application to build a new residence at 2405 Hillside Drive_ It is only after Tuesday, January 23rd that we will be able to gather addtional information regarding the disputed redwood tree located on the east side of the property. We believe that this new information will assist the commission in the process of making a final decisiom Therefore, in the interest of time, we are requesting that this issue be postponed to the following meeting on February 12th Please do note that we have notified the office of the city arborist that the results of the upcoming tests by a private arborist will be forwarded to his attention upon completion. We appreciate your assistance in this matter. 2405 Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 342-3918 7UN" TION RECEIVED TER PREPARATION[F STAFF REPORT July 20, 2000 Jeffrey C. Camilleri 2409 Hillside Dr. Burlin�,ame, CA 94010 RE: REQ [TES T FOR REMOVAL OF ONE REDWOOD TREE BETWEEN 2405 HILLSIDE dC 2409 HILLSIDE DR. - B URLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of one Rechcood tree in the backyard. between the above addresses. and have made the following determination - 1) The Rechvood tree is causing serious structural damaee to the foundation and surrounding hardscape. 2) The Rechvood tree has a serious structural defect with codominant stems. 3) Replacement with one 24 -inch box size tree will be required as defined in Section 11.06.090 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance - Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the tree subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If t'ou agree with the conditions. please sign the enclosed pertnit and return in the self addressed envelope BEF RE August 2, 2000. If you wish to appeal this decision or any of its conditions or findings, you must file a written request by, August 2, 2000 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urbarr Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordincawe (Burlingame Nfitnicipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, Steven Porter City Arborist - (ISA #WC -3073) SP/kh Enclosure I k i! K S & Z F' ..\ r i 0 �,N' 1 E 1). 1 • N I E N' ?~ _ \'50 B] 11-I!il_.�il?` f=as I(��tll rr1(i_'�Ir, i i:-nlatl: .li'�l`� I"1 01 .;_.. -'_ I�l:rir�c'.�+:1��L�t}ttl Burlin�,ame, CA 94010 RE: REQ [TES T FOR REMOVAL OF ONE REDWOOD TREE BETWEEN 2405 HILLSIDE dC 2409 HILLSIDE DR. - B URLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of one Rechcood tree in the backyard. between the above addresses. and have made the following determination - 1) The Rechvood tree is causing serious structural damaee to the foundation and surrounding hardscape. 2) The Rechvood tree has a serious structural defect with codominant stems. 3) Replacement with one 24 -inch box size tree will be required as defined in Section 11.06.090 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance - Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the tree subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If t'ou agree with the conditions. please sign the enclosed pertnit and return in the self addressed envelope BEF RE August 2, 2000. If you wish to appeal this decision or any of its conditions or findings, you must file a written request by, August 2, 2000 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urbarr Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordincawe (Burlingame Nfitnicipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, Steven Porter City Arborist - (ISA #WC -3073) SP/kh Enclosure BU PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION PARKS & RECREA T10,NDEP_4RTVEiVT 850 BURLING.42VfE A IrENUE B URLINGAAfE, CA 94010 (65 0) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the propem- at: ADDRESS: 6 Ar TREE MY USk (print or �-pe) - her -.b%- applies for a permit to remove or prune more'than 1l3 of the crown or roots of the folloWing protected tree(s): " SPECIES _�� L-3 o D e� CIRCUMFERENCE LOCATION ON PROPERTY SN 10"1°• Lr N e r3L l WORK TO BE PERFORMED REASON WORK IS NECESSARY 14- t-1 0j 4--k- � "> ZYd � A G fl� G�i`S GD,�J S i2 v (please use back of form for additional comments) 2 `fo,r, NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OWNER OF THE TREE(S) MUST BE ADDRESS.7-4-o9- STJBIAITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION PHONE (1.,561 PER -NUT This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06)_ By signing this pernit, the applicant aclmowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below-, and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. CONDITIONS: OM 24 - inch box size trees) required If conditions are nor ntet wither the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06.080, payment of 5400 for eack tree into the tree replacement fund will be required - NO replacements) required Contact the Parks Dii ision at (6� 0) S 8-7330 when removal(s) completed DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES A copy of this permit must be.available at the job site AREESCAPE Quality Tree Care State Contractors License # 712434 www.treescape.net 1229 Burlingame Ave., Suite 17 Burlingame, Ca 94010 - 4132 Office (650) 574-5354 FAX (650) 685-1002 Certified Arborist WC - 3678 Bill Patchett Tree report for: Mr. Radas 2405 Hill iDr. IF r ingame, Ca 94010 Species: Coast Redwood l Sequoia sempervirens Size: 67" (DBH) Height: 75.8 ft. Vigor class: Fair Location: Southwest side of house. Page 1 of Z On June 30, 2000 I inspected one Coast Redwood / Sequoia sempervirens on the Southwest side of the house at the Radus residence. The purpose of this inspection was to determine the health and safety of the tree in its present condition. At the time of my inspection I observed a very large diameter tree that borders the Radus residence and a neighboring property to the west. The trees location in relation to the neighboring property is only 27" from the foundation of the main structure and 30" from the roofs eve. (Photo 1& 2) The trees root system has caused foundation cracking (Photo # 3) and is also responsible for structural damage in the homes interior. In addition the tree has a large codominant stem with one side of the attachment leaning toward the property to the West. The seam at the point of attachment runs 8' from its point of origin down to the root collar. (Photo # 4) The tree is also exhibiting dieback in the upper canopy which is an indication that the tree is in a state of decline. (Photo # 5) The critical root zone of the tree is covered with concrete on one side (Photo # 6) and the main structure to the West, which only provides minimal root zone area for a tree of its size. , Page 2 of 2 Owing its close proximity to the Rados residence and the neighboring property to the West, it is my option that the tree be removed in the interest of safety for all concerned. I believe this report to be accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles. Respectfully, c Bill Patchett Certified Arborist # WC -3678 July 3, 2000 'r City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 Discuson on the motion: u, erstand the feel gs that the house - '.l violate then ghborhood, arch' ct has One a good job with eping the mass d bulk down, not erceived as a ster house. an Luzuriaga c ed for a roll call to on the motion o approve. Th otion passed on 4-2-I roll call vote (Cers. Lu aga and Dreilin issenting, C. Ke' an absent). peal procedures ere advised. This item conclu at 9:20 p.m 6. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE HOWELL, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the applicant had a permit to remove the redwood tree because it was damaging hardscape; he also noted that there are two redwood trees on this site one straddling the property line on each side of the site. The documentation is not clear which tree is addressed or whether both trees are included. The CA noted that this item could be continued until the city arborist can clarify his statement. C. Osterling noted that he lives within the noticing area of this application so will abstain from this item. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioners asked if a trees straddles a property line does the neighbor have something to say about its removal; yes, both property owners need to agree to have the tree removed. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, represented the project. He noted that this project had been referred to, and reviewed by a design review consultant and the consultant recommended it. Commissioners noted that the City arborist needs to look at both trees, if the tree is causing damage to the existing foundation it is not relevant since this is a request for a new house, need to know if the arborist was aware of this. Applicant summarized the revisions made to the design in response to the commission's last review. Commissioners noted that by itself the design is all right however don't see how this design matches this neighborhood, it would be consistent with the Trousdale area. Applicant noted that this neighborhood is eclectic. Commissioners expressed concern about the trees, not the one to the west next to the garage as it is in decline, but the one on the east; the tree removal permit is not clear about which tree, although it does not appear to include both trees; tree to the right should be retained, could pull the foundation of a new house back and accommodate nicely, in some circumstances variances have been granted to save a tree. Applicant noted that the tree to the right is affecting the foundations of both houses. Applicant noted that he believed that the tree permit was for removal of both trees. Commissioners noted that the backdrop of trees is a big component of the character of this neighborhood and this proposal removing the two redwoods would take a big chuck of that backdrop, there is a lot of opportunity on this site to design around the trees, would like to see what is being done to respond to the neighborhood not just the site plan. Also concerned that there was not enough FAR set aside to provide for a two car garage in the future without having to get an FAR variance, don't like to be put in that position with new construction. Applicant noted he has worked with the design reviewer as directed, why is the commission reviewing it now? Commissioners noted that a project must respond to both the clients needs and uphold and reinforce the neighborhood character, in this case that was not done. Applicant noted that.this is the house the client wants, on the same footprint as existing, and it is within the code requirements. CA pointed out that the design review guidelines are a part of the code as well, and the applicant needs to explain why this proposal fits them. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 Commissioner discussion: City Attorney and City Planner recommend that we continue this matter until we can get more information from the City Arborist on the trees; comfortable with the design, if the issue is just the tree can continue, if the issues are greater then we would need a different motion; the issue is greater than the tree, the building design is not compatible with a number of design guideline components: mass and bulk, design has no relief on either side -straight up; front of the building is boxy, windows and a lot of plain stucco, is a bit of a monster; site design is not compatible with the trees; if come back with the trees saved and a notch in the house to do it, still have to live with the house. Modifying the design to save the trees would affect the design, if item continued would get back the same design, wish to clarify the tree issue and give direction to the designer. CA noted that item could be denied without prejudice and sent back to design review study when the applicant has responded and the tree issue has been clarified. C. Boju6s moved for a denial without prejudice directing that the tree issue be clarified, direction given on the design addressed, and then returned to design review study. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: design needs to accommodate the tree, so footprint needs to be changed; concerned that the denial without prejudice will allow the applicant to use the tree permit to remove the tree, suggest a continuance to get the information needed from the city arborist then decide the action on the project, would like to know from the arborist what needs to be done to save the trees; the tree report notes that one tree is in decline but it could be 100 years before it dies. C. Boju6s suggested that the motion be amended to continue this item to the next meeting for information on the tree and clarification for the scope of the tree removal permit and the reasons for the decision by the city arborist; and suggest that the tree removal permit be suspended until the arborist could review it and report back to the commission. The second C. Vistica agreed to the amendment to the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to continue action on this item until the next meeting , January 22, 2001, and receipt of a report from the city arborist. The motion passed on a 6- 0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item ended at 10:07 pm. 7. 810 ALPINE RO - ZONED R-1 - PLICATION FORNDITIONAL USE P FOR CONSTRUJCTI OF A FIRST FLOORADDITION CLWR THAN 4'-0" TOq EXISTING ACCESSOR STRUCTURE (RA BRAYER BC&D,/APPLICANT ANDD GNER; MIKE AND NOE E ENGEMANN, P PERTY OWNERS , Referen staff report, 01.08.01 ith attachments. Ci Planner presented the ff report, nevi d crite ' and staff comments. bree conditions wer suggested for consider 'on. Commission no qu tions of staff. Chairman Luzuriag pened the public he i g. Ray Brayer, 920 ell, represented project noting that he would be ppy to answer questi s. Commissioner aske by the applicant requesting a 6 inch sepazatio etween the mains a and the garage. A licant noted there been a recent addition to a family and they nee to add a bedroom and ay area for the chil en, the area they r proposi to add extends the 1' of the existing buil ' Commissioners n ed that proposed a tion does t make good use of exterior space in his a erience, having 2'- ' between house garage do not work, only way o of the rearyard is thr gh garage or house a house could be atched t and adequate sep on provided or the gar a narrowed the gar a is wider thanit t cally needs to be now so re is room. Applicant oted that it is a cost" sue of having to p for the 11 .y City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 23. 200 of wall length ft, often fmd termite age and all 4valls are nov�K, new foundation 'I be necessary to suppor second flo ,project results in a co plete floor plan change o-thirds of the neighbo ood is composed of dela( garages since really new hous by not build a detach garage at the rear of th of and reduce bulk; ther ns n( roof verhang, should consi adding; solution will t be in breaking up the ass, but in working with a scale cerned with the way garage works, house ' set up high from street, ere will be a steep driv ay up to; two-car garage, garage ill be a prominent vie from the street, present 1 tion of garage door wool work better There we.-..- othey comments from the fl rand the public hearing as closed. 7 C. BojuBs m de a motion to send project to a design rev wer with the direction seconded by�C. Osterling. / Chao6an Luzuriaga called f a vote on the motion to nd this project to the 7 on a voice vote. The arming Commission's ac#n n is advisory and not ap p.m. reviewer. 1 This item passe( at 8:0" 5. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDMONAI USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE FOR E NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS APPT WANT AND PRQPFRTY OWNER- DAVF N(IWFT.T. nF.mnNFR) C. Osterling noted that he lives within 300' of the project so would abstain from this project and stepped down fron the dais. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. David Howell, architect, and Damir Rados, property owne represented the project. Commissioners discussed with the applicant: asked the applicant to explain reasons for the elevator and full basement would like to see a condition that the basement not be used for living purposes, should be recorded with the deed appears to be a two-story ranch -style house, Mills Estate and Easton Addition contains a certain style, that style doe not look like it fits into this neighborhood, am struggling with the design, cannot tell character of building, see classy elements and craftsman style overlays, was there a goal when determining style; concerned with the removal of tw( mature redwood trees, they are an important site amenity at edges of side property lines, building can be designee around redwood trees, there are ways to save trees, can adjust basement footprint. There were no other.comment from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see project go to design reviewer, house could be harmonized, direction o architectural style is unclear. C. Dreiling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction given. The motion wa seconded by C. Deal.. Comment on motion: would like to see a copy of the arborist's report addressing two redwood trees, redwood tree are a wonderful amenity for the site and Burlingame, should be retai$ed. 4 r 'City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 23, 2La Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to send this project to the design reviewer. The motior passed 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstain) on a voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and no appealable. This item concluded at 8:22 p.m. VIII. ACTION ITEMS t Calettdar -Items on consent calendar areidered to be routine. They ar acted on simultaneously unle, discussion and/or actio is requested by the applipant, a member of the public or commissioner prior to jhe time ti ,ion votes on the mo ' n to adopt. 7 2ha an Lu2arriaga noted at the commission hack feceived a letter from th�(iplicant for the prof t at 800 Airpor d., item 6c, asking r a continuance to thy/action calendar at thvember 13, 2000, m ting. He asked i gone in the public the commissioners wished to take any other tt off tonight's corse calendar. C. Vistia noted that he woul ike to add a conditi�/to item 6d, 1009 Burlin ame Avenue, requirm a masonry wall betweer this property the property to the east as discussed at study. Deal noted a busines relationship with applies� at both 1228 ernal Road and 1009j3urlingame Avenue; andXe would abstain from a vote on each of those jt�m (6a and 6 1228 BERNAL A FOR DECLININ( DETACHED GA - ZONED R -1 - HT ENVELOPE (JAMES ANDS? 'ICATION FOR A NEW TWO -S' ELLE DELIA, 6 N REVIEW AND SINGLE FAMILY :ANTS AND PRO] L PERMIT -ING ANL OWNERS 6b. 1440 IN AVENUFSS,,,IE 100 & 101 - ZO D C-1, SUBAREA B /PPLICATION FARPCO ITIONAL USE T FOR A FI ANCIAL INSTITUTI9 (MICHAEL NILMEYEF c. 800 AIRPORT BO EVARD -ZONED -4 - APPLICATION F A CONDI770NAL /PERMIT TC LEASE ON -SIT ARKING SPACES ODD GREEN, 800 RT PARTNERSHIP PPLICANT ANL POPPPTV This item w continued to the acti calenda/�3A 3, 2ZRONEYEAR mis=3-UNIT, the appli t. 6D 1009 BURLING AVENUE - ZONATIPARKING VA CE AND FRONT SAPOR C. Boju6s mo/ed for approval of th consent calendar bas on the facts in the s reports, commissio r comments d the findings in thee,f reports with recd ended conditions in a staff reports and b resolutio with the conditions for 9 Burlingame Ave amended to read: that a property owners provid a ma my wall between his roperty and the prop to the east. The mo 'on was seconded by Keighran C Luzuriaga call ora voice vote; 1009 lingame Avenue and 8.Bernal Road pass on a 6-0-1 (C eal abstaining) voice v e; 1440 Chapin Aven passed on a 7-0 voice v Appeal procedures ere advised. Thi item concluded at 8• p.m. The commissiontook a break and repdnvened at 8:50 p.m. L « CITY OF BURLINGAMIiJ eunuHgwMc APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of AppHeation:_Special Permit_Variance_Other Project Address: Assessor's Parcel Number(s):_ APPLICANT Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone M: fax:. PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address:.-�,,,�- !/j/ 1 :51C2F�_` City/State/Zip:et g�1f Phone (w): (h): ARCHPTECT/DESIGNER Name:�Ave �oy,icL/ Please indicate with an asterisk Address:4ez4- 4 j / 1)pF �� \ City/State/Zip:�/4MFe:�lD Phone (w):_a zrks) PROJECT DES AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATU herein is true and correct I know about the proposed application and hereby application to the.Planning Commission. contact person for this application. of perjury that the information given feF Dl -1/ "0 0 the above applicant to submit this Ate. Property Owner's Signature Date —---------- —FOR OFFICE USE ONLYEE Date Filed: 8- I I • oo C � Fee: X345+ .S Soo AUG I 12000 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. • .4i.r. " 6bU b9b dluu; NUY-e')-UU i i .UDAM3 ayc -Ji , The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020{. Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission In making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. PI se type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these uestions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or _ uiiores to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, sgl4y, general welfare, or con vsRitnce. vv 6 Y�., cFn 4-2- L� aS` li c -T -r -S . rt'4, 6 A -S ; `� ►� nJ .�) D wS r D ,P jD0 J 11- Z) fzF &kt- 14- Ll AJ 19ry t`STe6 A-bDvR- PPL : 2. How will the proposed use be louted and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? r�uvt, Pv x f--(, 4�__ L's" -1-v J.,tv ✓ �-� ft- =-�`^o ��-4Q b-40 ,ti- o 4D `— c � U0 L? I(-C)_/o -rr-t. - o v s� _ \ R F C ���,�ElVED AUG 2 9 MOD How will tilt osed rb'ect be c n Y OF BURLIN ME Ctp p compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk ana 'Wit existing and p&endd. uses on ad'j'oining properties in the genera! Vicinity? 74' L..VX W ► L4, P-r\P� L�,A- Gc p N 0A) Cote Frog �--t. •�v G 6 6 e .: f-A,j-- A-. C.% LA tom = := 0 PEW PL rt� --,� C V �-� t1 c;gram ��L t -,L 7_ bA) 08Z�Z_a_o L77-NN°,vs_ . "v r` -t. A N t,� V n ./i1 A 0i . ./ l' ROUTING FORM DATE: August 14, 2000 TO: CIT'YyE1TGINEER_ _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and Conditional Use Permit for a window within 10' of property line for a new detached single -car garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R- 1, APN: 027-340-170. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, August 14, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben 8 / Date of Comments i . Io vo j � t' v�,�v b L" r w. v . v s ,t Jpr .Ga -4 A1W1 'n12 CV- t s 2 Ire dvA1 t • ; v.t `V. �' CL - -&4. 3 W L� ;v • .1 cwva o a �" � soar,. �' �- d a � � _I S.e w -t v t U. x11 '� t V `�`�` ��t CITY o1 CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD X..Z BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE Application for design review and conditional use permit for accessory structure windows PUBLIC HEARING within 10 feet of property line for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached NOTICE garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-191-230) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday February 12, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed February 2, 2001 (Please refer to other side) ��w�,;�����`.�'r3��"r�f��fc�3�j�°' ��"�r � �,:��•.;ir7j�+��`al?P �jti,.:.�t �r1 �=_a: CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applica ' ans rt- i --project may be reviewed prior to the meeting a la pg� Dpainent at 501 Primrose Road; Burlingame, Cal' r" {W If you challe get urt; you ma be limited to raising onl hos ssues :. a e•e a : ed at=the blic hearing, described i ftew4cgMJNG.sXqXe[ce deliace d to the city at or prior t .>. C A L I F O A_ N ! Property o ers _r i t are ponsi.We or i tenants abo t thi no > ' a information ple 558-7250. T ank u. M i / r ' Margaret M �� �, ' ' 0W City Planner� .00 . PU �1�1CIVOTICE (Please refer to other side) ming their call (650) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a conditional use permit for an accessory structure and design review application for a new two-story house with detached Izarage at 2405 Hillside Drive zoned R-1 Dan Rados roe owner 230; APN: 027-191- WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 12. 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit and design review application are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit and design review application are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Joe Boiues , Acting Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of February , 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ACTING SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption, conditional use permit and design review 2405 Hillside Drive effective February 20, 2001 1 • that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the PIanning Department date stamped November 29, 2000, Sheets 1 through 8, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and Sheet T-1, landscape plan; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 14, 2000 memo shall be met; and 4. that the applicant shall be required to plant 3 new 24" box trees, one to replace the existing redwood tree to be removed, and two to comply with the City's reforestation ordinance; the new trees shall be placed and be of a size and species to replace the green backdrop now provided by the redwood trees to be removed; the placement and species of the new trees shall be approved by the City Arborist; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 2 •'}� � �, � . Jt� ��• �a • �, •� • .« • L• r f E'f F{'1�4, '� � / I � t,rtf,,,y.; 1. 1 I ° 'J. '^a f • r,ft• at•1•• Y .eJs'� �I '."� � ..'� J.`) / �tiSXA#'•• "` 1 ' J . ,�.� �. J 1f � .. r°''t i f i. • r a y / / %i):s�' 1 •a + r} ♦ yt �., 'RYy � °t'i,`tiaa r �� Y�, Yjj�µ Y w .. �q.,.f !�� {` ! � .(}, ,. _ .• .v ay yrTuY.'�: v i\ •,°'G •� ..L a` 1� �i 1y ''' VAR'• a 4 �•n �' • 'lgvY.,S _f r' • .r !tM � �� �' �;.,4♦ r •. �1 � j � � ( , � Fra sl:. �k.•�:f''�-.��.:' } � .,L •Y J' .� .. sr` ��7'rG^gi.�e� •.� yTrt' Y .. , �• � �•✓a} a \ s ,•*el AZ- pM '/; 'af;tl ! ) • } i 4 y�. ,•, . rR sp `- ' •u. hP* ',!' } x•��S `�( •dry.. / • Irr y., .d�,�,� +y• � '1� 1° a ' G'.�iS�s�^'1 +S ... � .RSA {1 +� fr,.-\ Al•' . � JG ✓?Y.>( ''+.�• �i ,. ° ,t, r�'�{�. '•%Rl`.,t• �"�r - '<e.°Y� y�y ��,,�pg1,� - 'fq1,.. r♦ R.�i •i"� t i �_�' } .:." • .� i M t�a Af. wd •' J y. +li►'�f'•I.y .t �7', w ti 7y_ � , " i:✓ W Y I .� . • w.\ YA' fi,„ r" �, f a V j, oA: }8 ,r.^'tcr, • l �r,. . ✓� ' '� v.. "1� ='^{ . ya y t •�{T��'51•7 !L nOR.+rr r. a ,(p��q�'.®� /� 1 T �:1. 1� 3 <-}. v�.; .,.. �., •e Y:' :1 j�jF' / +v�'t(�aa "' '�elM'••�y � �. $,fin•\"i'yC;'*!N,,ill���"' x'i� a.73{��Y`• „�`k• '") �, � �f +Fi p F. -lit 1' ' 7s �`°•.� i ir_ x� '�YF :��f� '" ••� x• ,�l�.�•r=3•!i ry�V'�.t ;r'%, `I�s: `Cs.,.::,1 "` , c. �� Rf+l ,; ... `v' ..''^.' %d ♦• }y+�, : cv-,p}„ ,.., �,.. , .J • 'vj Y •'^h :1l f.j��. .Y,�. •y9A i � r,,,f� ��;{•,.a. ,l' �: ,, �..a ,r ,}. �ti r� JJv .-. %fi :�f, �d J•.,,. ( ..f.{t�. uF,s}r "' y',h ,�r. "+li.•. "1 a''•r JAII0 ,�`d ai'G I. ��'.,I a., +�aL �•1.,,.. 8. ...'a a� Ct ) R`ej��:�. G� pb i�• t tl9f. a ,'}:i,• fir is.• ft .,, „�. 5'.''t � ; � ,� N.'r.' % ,. ' { wJ ..�. � g, .y� /; V•s� a a.� .., (� �]. �•. .; r .Sp rpl r, ��r yl' � y4v���� ,',• � :.'r' tf. .1 i.9P ...'� � (i/ -y L • •! i. M'l. ' }' , '� '>"' Y '!fa• vi �T u 3��(� .y, ♦��Yj..y, ,r '�'::.': ` � E.: Ja �. •yam\ �< '*•✓M as A -, �a}v is ia. •'lI1. `":!'a• a �.."1i'. I` :'i' `c' aC w , ie7 �'i.'�1'� w, _ '�Y y.f./! "c""• 1 +Zr4. ♦ . .ri-`yy.t�j •< a � i+, i ri ,� � r '`\.',•`\'; _ �r' "ZZ � s. "L�'14 rt a°° K..1'`;u , :• � ��►Wt li ',� �y.J:. " � a :::, , •- .. r � �• 7�'..j�ir� Rr 'lyd X .r4. � ✓� rte' Y ,� r h �•: Jn �. ♦ w !,' � `•'.. r j rl• ': I ljl I• r i •' �' ... ; /�I' 's f �y r• .'f✓-•+/Y. �Y' ty }.e.:t". �' / ,'.`".,F. f .�ell ka r��! )lY:a �.,r • •� lir l'�-' 'yf"" T�.yrr.2 '`. n- �'"j;,w� ,i• fJt ..;n + na •,"Va• G • y' x °iL..'. >~ ! 4 'f,}tY 4 " • nw ✓' i/'4•/J ,F J r .. ,,r iV+a , ..r ' :'✓ ♦ /,.r 1i�4. � l , tp `�., we ' •'a•'• I 'Y',f� � .• +�.`. a.r n ' Inn, y,).. � �iyrr)i✓+iY. �/ r• r �.S � • .i al� 'f')`Y",7{� a � � � ' 1r�' 04 1 '� - f� •"t�� ! • Af r..�'.. ' �$'�`, }' �' 1 /�,". . + ♦ d r �. . + $.4'i"a.`y�yy+,, '•1 • �'M1 .'r' y}a� rf.. K�:. �Vy, � �q Q•••4 Y.,�. i' •f: i , !(i J>/Rf.. �/` �, �f.. ,•_ ` � ,�'i { °$ " - at�„ ' �, ���''•{i!riFa .1. • yy •.� '/.f';r'' .� r! 'h't• � 1 'f. ff r,. N. ^ � • J� . ^ T ,�il. a'.} {��•F i .e ..2Y ('V; . ..,.� ,,. t f}° ya�F-4� Pi 1 • 4 '1 . .. .�y,�R'�Ff•;��'y.•� /� i 3f ` '.f�': • J"? l+� liip � ,�' ., `++.'� '; f � ° •N • ;7 rA1. "}ir! 7 � '=x + c :,, ` ;. i •Y ) a, �.f, J��"� I a W,,L. .�f_ �•, S :..'�ttI a a - • s:.•F ,! }� � >60 `�� "/ �1. atl`' •.• +��. rJ ,J.,}• '.iso e.. ,�, 4uA\ �' ,a, +T•' �. ! 'ti•z•g^�-a •",�' (, � .. � k,�.yj{rrri • q +tr ':w,., � I •L"' � it'd i £;•'_ Y.` 2Y.. .♦) , ^I. a.' s'r!„i .,J,SY: 0 e w �' "� � • ��.'� �'� } it 9•�i �+� i) '�,• � ' '� '. '*� t` "'- Y .�J nrV '• `} a � -i lv.; }.aw �{' Y r �.^I, �.1 < f. 1�jj .� Q. • 9�5..� .y. •.MS � ��.� yw) f•�}� �. �{ y �i'.r'' w � i•w. { • R7i'�� f1C .) '/� , ti .•... � ;' ,� h �,:. ,�.rl ,� r' ,'CV"< •y „rte' i/M ,. �1• -. ,.` < • ; 1.1 .f wt.� ay'v� Ik � /" • � .r •� q ' 1. .:nor .r V r'rr. :. r� ♦ +7 <i^, 1'.' ) 1 . "� eiu k�a eJV•. �r SR'r'' F"•w ', •`' L Y Y +y, _� / .y1 .� Ja..V`. I.. I• Y •� <.-l1 { r in♦ . a�: i} •.. Sf}°y' t':w��� 'W.' yt► r••"A� ,, �a � p, J^•�„ +. �, a.,e! S :Sd' «. (•y � •'��� it•, Yl.� �+_�° :� ! hp.G'i� •� , � ;ry5 � 1{; .�'!f•t•Y � w\c� ��t� ,�'� �u , s•'r • • .{ i�vs�, d •gt�f �: ���'rt, ,;. ':•i A4r�.::(1 •1.; 2'� �1. � .¢s. •7r� i�\: ��. •„ •.. v.f 4 ..k. a.•� } h ii ♦' ',,, ),. -'� � ai eY I �• ;� z ,s`iy ��/+`.d ..��Y Q.. + .o`-' �w;� �:' .t 'i'�"`h9 r�' �1�j�j1e .• }/ '.:� }, y," ����" G!! ylr �c � �(i''' •CY It -,Y/• a �`� ,,.� .� ''} ' �iiq .t� �V +� '`P 1 h n v� a�•y � �' �.%'i+,l- la �': r45.q" ,. �`f1}t '+�',•e • .`•f�'J•: '�""'�11' �• •�2' ,'�. fJw .4 N '. �..Y• •;.h (k y' * i """ I^<^`� .r y .n , /I ,.,,j •.a, ��•' }I^,.. })d�i°'y '•�i':};. .i :r'� .� „i `u-. =Jf.• a! • I •�1t �w •. , 1) .j. ♦ .�� \IA,i� .' ,rrr.(� 8 �4 � . �C`./,Sjn.� .�R 1 r{!V. •'r.. s' af' o lj �f /.• • a � �P rcY SO yiW`IE� it �f • "`� ,. 'i"- kyr a� , r .' ,,/ '�'R+k J i .• Y �^ ♦. L j.i p'�s i•'r .j :5.•"Irt 'i J' f' :i . Vii . �sR: iA ,yR,, :r � T'.c J.• r• } 4 ,:� .yi3f r .}� . 1�Cir Y'.• .y, r •r3 'h �,...A_ q � I.r4� � r ) i� y ,!_,'�}� ! &p!: ik-{y+;,:;.,a � + � �i i ••P k'iJ t( �"'S Y .� •.p ,N dL .a l.l�.�'x �vi Y� Y 'tis: •n�r ..'f�' "A'.. s, •e? { y�.4^ 1 r� Yi I! , r !a•' _. . + moi•%*4 •F 'n� 'StK ' �• 7," 1 i Z• frl r,4 v 1 ` \ ..�. / ,'j'•' . 4 3� /. wGif a�'pw„ ` o `'� i'" '° yw' ^ • w.,`ii: t } . `',1 .' + "`" 4 �''. i4 • �� .y ..9 y„'Mx ',x 1i" •�� 4„ i:. ..;,.,�r. it °. .H. .; Y 'a.,,� ; IAF Fh' • .`xa� .v ,f'v 4:.1 "'w :.j #t. A• 1' ��•'' . .0 •e�r .d •:� ..� r� } � *.* .a�%•�I :l 'F'. � r '••V}•�. J A•'Xr G..� w-f• • "! ° rrd x• ;�_ J �� '.. _Y • Kr •/�� �, r '�"a \ a �ti}� � r (' 7 '';•i ) .� fat v ) S .iT� ��) � �" "� •rd ��^ /,:y 1 ;t, n ,j ,, y.r'� k',: � t� •P/°} yl�-�r J•a4 . �t'` CiTY CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 b.,..., .< TEL: (650) 558-7250 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of an application for design review and conditional use permit for accessory structure windows PUB LIC HEARING within 10 feet of property line for a new NOTICE two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1. (APN: 027-191-230) The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Monday, March 5, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed February 23, 2001 (Please refer to other side) •o �;fj ,� w`�G....•e�`m'L•c..:.:sa:�s-�4�•�4ta.Fae�..,-'i-..".:.^c�•Lt.: � :�., . _ _. CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application to the meeting at, W. .li Burlingame, Cal' orrua If you chall nge t u e4 raising on i os _ ssues s described i t c r at or prior t C A Property o ers Q ii tenants A t t no 558-7250. ank Qu. Margaret�co�.�� City Planner \'j16NC_) PUB: (Please refer to other side) s_-pioject, may be reviewed prior ment t,�501 Primrose Road, CE be limited to Iblic hearing, :d to the city ming their call (650) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, 1-nN YTY"-.T A L i T�L� Thr, w !TT ..rte v. L141\/1\c1 V L` 1 L`R1V111 A1\jf DES!aN REVIEW RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a conditional use permit for an accessory structure and design review application for a new two-story house with detached garage at 2405 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 Dan Rados property owner APN: 027-191-230; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on February 12, 2001, at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on March S_ 2001 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3, construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including (a) single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units, is hereby approved; 2. Said conditional use permit and design review application are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit and design review application are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting; and 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5' day of March, 200L and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval categorical exemption_, conditional ner-i4, d 1�..:._.- tt L 1 uiiu design ut0review 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE effective MARCH S, 2001 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 29, 2000, Sheets 1 through 8, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and Sheet T-1, landscape plan; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 14, 2000 memo shall be met; and 4. that the applicant shall be required to plant 3 new 24" box trees, one to replace the existing redwood tree to be removed, and two to comply with the City's reforestation ordinance; the new trees shall be placed and be of a size and species to replace the green backdrop now provided by the redwood trees to be removed; the placement and species of the new trees shall be approved by the City Arborist; and 5. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. _ �::. ". �eS �. a� CITY G BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ��9sT[O DYNE 6` TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2001 FROM: EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY -- --- SUBJECT: COMMISSIONER TERM EXPIRATIONS (Planning Commission) In April, the term of the below -listed commissioners will expire: Commissioner Joe Bojues Jerry Deal Commission Planning Planning Term Expires 4-7-01 4-7-01 7 a 3-5-01 Terms Served 1 3 At the end of March, three seats on the Senior Commission will reach term end (Clara Crook, Herman Katz, and David Plyer). It is staff's recommendation to postpone filling these three seats pending a proposal to restructure this commission. Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The current commissioners will be invited to reapply if they wish to serve again. In addition, the attached table is provided for council members to quickly reference those commission candidates interviewed within the past 2 -year period. Council may choose one of the following, or other, options and direct staff accordingly.. • Reappoint the above -listed incumbent commissioners; or • Establish a filing deadline of Tuesday, March 27, 2001, for accepting commissioner applications, and • Select a council interview team for eventual commissioner interviews. V [B:COMMISSION\COMMTERMI Attachment p ... x ... , Carney, Jeanne ,,.,:.., Commissioner Candidates 2 -Year`- ommission Application ate 727 Winchester Drive Beautification 11-30-99 t»! . Interviewed.Interview 12-20-99 . Team r. .... Coffey / Spinelli 3 �K Nov 2001 Windsor, Carina 31 55 Frontera Way #318 Beautification 11-30-99 12-20-99 Coffey / Spinelli Nov 2001 Katz, Dorothy 1 1 10 Donnelly Ave #1 Beautification 9-26-00 n/a incumb reappt'd Sep 2002 Malaspina, Rick 1 537 Howard Ave Beautification 9-26-00 n/a incumb reappt'd Sep 2002 Ernst, Jay 1434 Capuchino Park & Rec 11-30-99 12-20-99 Janney /O'Mahony Nov 2001 Popin, Richard 760 Walnut Avenue Park & Rec 11-30-99 12-20-99 Janney / O'Mahony Nov 2001 Amstrup, Irving 2708 Trousdale Drive TSPC 11-30-99 12-28-99 Coffey /Galligan Nov 2001 Cottrell, Richard 1685 Hunt Drive TSPC 11-30-99 12-28-99 Coffey / Galligan Nov 2001 Root, John 1407 Montero Avenue TSPC 11-30-99 12-28-99 Coffey / Galligan Nov 2001 Grandcolas, Mark 1432 Alvarado Planning 12-27-99 1-19-00 Janney / Spinelli Dec 2001 Hinckle, David 1616 Sanchez Planning 12-27-99 1-19-00 Janney / Spinelli Dec 2001 Fuchs, Elaine 1 1 1 7 Hamilton Lane Library 6-13-00 10-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan Oct 2002 Hipps, Carolyn 1649 Balboa Way Library 6-13-00 10-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan Oct 2002 Cottrell, Richard 1685 Hunt Drive TSPC 10-30-00 12-4-00 Coffey / O'Mahony Dec 2002 Page, Howard 1 1 1 Central Avenue TSPC 10-30-00 12-4-00 Coffey / O'Mahony Dec 2002 Winkler, Erik 36 Victoria Road TSPC 10-30-00 12-4-00 Coffey / O'Mahony Dec 2002 Garcia, Bill 1 148 Cambridge Road Civil Service 10-30-00 12-18-00 Galligan / Spinelli Dec 2002 Appt'd to Commission Wentworth, Gerard S16 Burlingame Avenue Civil Service 1-4-00 Galligan / Spinelli 2-7-00, waived Gurthet, Andrew 1452 Floribunda Ave #203 Library 6-13-00 12-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan 10-16-00 Pasquali, Rolando 2836 Hillside Drive Civil Service 11-27-00 12-18-00 Galligan / Spinelli 12-18-00 Revised 2121 /01 [C:\My Documents\Commission\commissioner-mail ing-list.wpd] ��� CITio � STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME W TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 26, 2001 FROM: James Nantell, City Manager SUBJECT: Youth Center Planning Approach Sul BY API BY AGENDA ITEM # 7 b MTG. DATE 3-5-01 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council concur with the recommendation of the City Manager to appoint a committee of interested citizens to work with representatives of the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff to cooperatively look at the interests and alternatives to provide for the recreational needs of the community's teenage population. BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Commission have now held three public hearings to review different alternatives that have been developed by the consultants and the staff as how to respond to the recreational needs of teen in our community. At the third meeting held on February 15th over 150 people attended and were very vocal relative to their desire that we allow more discussion and consideration of the issues associated with the different options, particularly any of the options that involved Washington Park. Given the depth of passion and level of interest we would recommend that the City Council appoint a committee of Park and Recreation Commissioners and community representatives, including people from such groups as the teens, Burlingame Mother's Club, and the newly formed Washington Park Society, to work with staff on the various options, alternative sites and the interest that have been articulated at the previous Park & Recreation Commission Meetings. Essentially this suggestion is along the lines of what the Council did on the Broadway Streetscape and the Commercial Design Review. We believe that this approach would allow an opportunity to involve more representatives from the community in the process of reviewing the various options and issues. Once the committee was done we would return to the Parks and Recreation Commission to share the out come of those cooperative efforts. We would estimate that the time necessary would be two to three months. If after three months we were not ready to return to the Commission we would return to the City Council to report on the status of the group's efforts and seek further direction from the City Council. U:\Council ARs\Youth Center.doc CITY OF BURLINGAME BURL['NGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 ti�•�'o•ATeo,�• Telephone (650) 558-7300 Parks /Trees (650) 558-7330 Fax (650) 696-7216 E-mail: burlrec@aol.com March 5, 2001 TO: Honorable Mayor Galligan and Members of the City Council FROM: John Williams, Parks & Recreation Director 1 SUBJECT: Publicity for Youth Center Alternatives Study - I Report Staff has invested considerable time, energy and money in trying to get the word out and to recruit participants in the youth center alternative study process now underway. Undoubtedly, we could now do a better job if we could start over, understanding who should be the target audience. The first meeting was by invitation only to ask five groups of stakeholders in the project what their interests were. For the three public meetings, Recreation staff went door to door distributing fliers announcing the meetings and inviting participation. As you know, fliers cannot be placed in mail boxes. For meetings two and three, fliers were distributed to all homes between Myrtle and Chatham on the west and Bloomfield on the east; as well as between Plymouth and Bayswater in that same section. For all three public meetings, the usual press releases were sent to all local media. Several followup calls were made to local newspapers to encourage more coverage, but, as usual, newspapers prefer to cover the story after the fact and the meeting announcements are often buried back in the paper. All three public meetings were listed on the cable TV bulletin board of community events. Meeting fliers were sent home with every student at Burlingame Intermediate School. Several hundred meeting fliers were mailed or given to persons or groups in Burlingame, in addition to posting meeting notices at City Hall and the Rec Center. In November, two group type meetings with staff and consultant were scheduled. Groups who were represented were: Historical Society, Lions Club, Parks & Recreation Commission, Senior Commission, and the Youth Advisory Commission. In December, the first public meeting was held at the Recreation Center. About 35 persons attended this meeting, including a few Rec Center neighbors and several members of the Lions Club. The first alternatives to be considered were discussed. In January, the Parks & Recreation Commission conducted a two hour public discussion of the old and new alternatives that were presented that evening. About 45 persons attended that meeting. The second group of alternatives were discussed. • In February, the Parks & Recreation Commission conducted a 2-1/2 hour public meeting at the Recreation Center. 180-200 persons attended that meeting. The third group of alternatives were discussed. In addition to the above activities, John Williams, Randy Schwartz, Peter Callander and a DES Engineers representative gave some formal presentations to the Burlingame Lions Club, the Burlingame Mothers Club and to an interested group of students at Burlingame Intermediate School. Two members of the Burlingame Planning Commission participated in two or more of the various meetings. Although Planning Commissioners asked for more information about the project, staff declined to provide more information because it seems way too soon in this study of alternatives to ask for a review of any of these rough cut proposals. Some neighbors have complained about the lack of a traffic impact study, but it is impossible to do that kind of work until one or more serious alternatives have been identified. That has not happened yet. This is still a work in progress. Please feel free to contact Randy Schwartz or me if you have any further questions about our public outreach for the alternative study process. ACITY o� STAFF REPORT WwRLIN9 ME �o ,o �N4T® JUM66 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: February 23, 2001 APP96VED I FROM: Randy Schwartz BY SUBJECT: PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR USE OF VILLAGE AND PERSHING PARKS AGENDA ITEM # 7 c MTG. DATE 3-5-01 r ti. ,. 77 RECOMMENDATION: RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt rules and regulations for the use of Village and Pershing Parks as proposed by the Parks & Recreation Commission under Municipal Code Section 10.55.030, Rules and Regulations. BACKGROUND: In recent years, many school groups have used these two parks for field trips. With no regulations in place, several groups have used the parks on the same day causing overcrowding for the school groups, the City's preschool program and public individuals. City staff intends to send a letter to each school annually, reminding them that Village and Pershing Parks are only open to weekday group use on a reservation basis. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT "A" - Proposed Rules and Regulations for Use of Village and Pershing Parks BUDGETIMPACT: None. E TWN35444ATR 'tr'Ofl AA - :Xij :(fio'UOA')A )I a 2(pli bit)il 161 �-'Auq t)-jf; eAijq 01 f, no Jmij ri jqo i")AW1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF VILLAGE AND PERSHING PARKS WHEREAS, pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.055.030, the City may adopt rules and regulations for specific City parks; and WHEREAS, both Village and Pershing Parks are small neighborhood parks; and WHEREAS, both Village and Pershing Parks are very popular site for picnics by school groups, private birthday parties and other uses; and WHEREAS, Village Park is the site for the City's Preschool Program, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine and find as follows: 1. The rules and regulations for Village and Pershing Parks contained in Exhibit A hereto are adopted. 2. These rules and regulations will be enforced pursuant to Section 10.55.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. MAYOR I, ANNE T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of March, 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony, Spinelli NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE CITY CLERK January 18, 2001 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF VILLAGE AND PERSHING PARKS EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 10.55, Section 030, the following special rules and regulations apply to the use of Village Park. These rules and regulations are in addition to and supplement the general rules and regulations governing the use of City of Burlingame parks. On weekdays, between the hours of 10:00 am and 3:00 pm, no group of more than fifteen (15) persons shall gather in the park without the specific written permission from the City's Parks & Recreation Director. BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 22, 2001 FROM: HUBLIG WUKKS SUBMITTED BY APPROVE �J/ BY !f L SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ATTENDANCE AT OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE AGENDA ITEM # 8a MTG. 3/5/01 DATV!) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attendance of one staff member at an out of state conference. BACKGROUND: The University of Nevada is conducting a seminar on the management of gravity sewer systems. It is recommended that the Assistant Street and Sewer Superintendent attend the conference as this position is responsible for the operation, construction and maintenance of the City's sanitary sewer and storm drain systems. The conference is located in Las Vegas, Nevada, occurring March 28 through March 30, 2001. EXHIBITS: Conference Outline BUDGET IMPACT: The estimated cost for travel, accommodations, registration and food for the three-day conference is approximately $1,450. Funds are available in the existing Street and Sewer Division operating budget. c: City Clerk Phil Scott Vince Falzon S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\outofstate.conf.wpd r-_ Collection Seminars Management of Operation and Maintenance Programs for Gravity Sewer Systems March 28, 29, 30, 2001 Stardust Hotel, Las Vegas, NV Management of Operation and Maintenance Programs for Pump Stations and Force Mains .; May 2, 3, 4, 2001 k Stardust Hotel, Las Vegas, NV Spring 2001 Presented by Professional Development Center Division of Continuing Education COURSE GOALS The challenges involved with the Managing the Operation and Maintenance of Wastewater Collection Systems have, in the past 10 years, become more complex because of advances in technology, more aggressive regulatory enforcement, higher levels of service demands from customers, and the need to deliver services more efficiently to compete with private sector contract operations and public utility privatization. There are two recent initiatives that will have an impact on every community in the U.S. with a wastewater collection system. The first is the Environmental Protection Agency draft Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) rule that incorporates a Capacity, Management of Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) requirement. The second is the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Standard 34 (GASB 34) that establishes new financial reporting requirements for state and local governments in the U.S.. The two -course series has been designed to assist those responsible for managing Collection Systems O&M in the development of a program that will address these challenges. Both courses focus on maintaining the investment communities have made in the gravity sewer system, pump stations and force mains using concepts of asset management. Asset Management is a process based on the implementation of Operations and Maintenance, Engineering and Constructions, Financial, Administrative and Information Management best practices for managing collection system MOM programs. All of the speakers have extensive experience in collection system CMOM and regulatory issues. They present "real world" application of best practices established by leading utilities in the U.S.. COURSE DESCRIPTIONS "Management of Operation and Maintenance Programs for Gravity Sewer Systems" The first course focuses on the methods and procedures for managing the operation and maintenance of the gravity sewer system. An adequate, well maintained collection system is essential to the health and safety of the public, the ecor(omic development of the community, and to comply with federal, state and local regulations and laws, particularly the SSO rule. Agencies that fail to manage 0&M programs will face increased liability and resulting costs due to fines, litigation and catastrophic failures in the collection system. "Management of Operation and Maintenance Programs for Pump Stations and Force Mains" Wastewater pump stations are major components of the collection system. They are complex and expensive to operate and maintain and because of the consequences of failure they must be reliable. Good management of pump station 0&M programs will result in cost effective and reliable operations as well as protecting the agencies capital investment and compliance with federal, state and local regulations and laws. WHO SHOULD ATTEND Collection Systems Operations and Maintenance Managers, Supervisors, Utility Managers, Consultants and Elected Officials Responsible for Collection Systems will benefit from these intensive three- day course that are focused on regulatory compliance, reducing operation and maintenance costs while improving system performance and reliability. "MANAGEMENT OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS FOR GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEMS" March 28, 29, 30, 2001 Stardust Hotel, Las Vegas, NV This full three-day course will center on O&M management of gravity sewer systems. The speakers, all with extensive experience in collection system management, will present current industry practices for all aspects of a MOM program. ABOUT THE INSTRUCTORS Rick Arbour, President, Rick Arbour & Associates, Inc., Eagan, MN. Mr. Arbour has over 40 years of operation and maintenance experience that includes 14 years managing a large regional collection system. For the past 10 years, he has provided specialized collection system operation, maintenance, management and training services to clients throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico and South America. He participated in the development of draft SSO rule and has provided technical assistance to the EPA, Department of Justice and utilities throughout the U.S.. He has held a Minnesota Class S- A Collection System Certification since 1976. Richard Cunningham, Superintendent, Bureau of Street and Sewer Repair, City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Mr. Cunningham has worked for the City and County of San Francisco for 22 years. The City and County's collection system has 894 miles of combined sewers in a 49 square mile service area that includes over 60 miles of CSO transport and in- line storage, 120,000 service laterals and 70 miles of brick sewers approaching 100 years of age. He also manages street repair. He has extensive experience in Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment and Information Management Systems. He is past chair of the Water Environment Federation Collection System Committee and has held a California WEA Grade IV Collection System Certification since 1986. Roy Herwig, P.E., has 16 years experience with EPA, Region 4 in Atlanta in the NPDES enforcement program. He is the lead enforcement officer on the Miami -Dade County, Florida, Jefferson County, Alabama, and City of Atlanta, Georgia judicial cases. He has served on the national EPA/State Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Internal Work Group for the last seven years as part of the national SSO policy development process. Roy is the Region 4 Program Manager for municipal infrastructure compliance related to collection system and treatment facility management, operation and maintenance (MOM), including the development and implementation of the Region 4 collection system regulatory approach and the MOM Project. He also served as manager of stream water quality survey projects, basin planning programs, establishment of water quality standards, and wastewater treatment plant evaluations at the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for 13 years. Gary Skipper, P.E., is a Professional Civil Engineer with 19 years experience, primarily in design, construction, inspection and monitoring of public and private collection system infrastructure. He is co-founder and principal of MGD Technologies Inc.. MGD provides field investigation service to support municipalities, federal agencies, private enterprises and engineering consulting firms to design, operate, maintain and manage wastewater, storm water and industrial waste collection systems and potable water distribution systems. He has extensive experience in the capacity component of CMOM, including the use of monitoring data as an O&M diagnostic tool and the development of innovative asset condition inspection and assessment methods. Mel Young, President, Northeast Consulting, Inc. Has over 28 years of experience with the Eastman Kodak Company, Process Engineering Division, where he was responsible for identifying and evaluating all trenchless technologies for pipes, manholes and laterals, determining the feasibility of use and making recommendations for use within Kodak facilities. He was involved in the development of a Sewer Inspection Manual, and a Repair and Upgrade Manual used by Kodak facilities worldwide as part of an infrastructure repair and upgrade program. He is currently providing specialized services in the area of collection systems rehabilitation and trenchless technology. He recently served as Marketing Director and Engineering Manager at the Plastics Pipe Institute, Washington, D.C. COURSE OUTLINE Tuesday, March 28 7:30am Registration - Stardust Hotel Convention Area 8:15 Welcome & Introductions - Chris Schearer, UNLV, Program Coordinator 8:30 EPA Draft SSO Rule (Herwig) Development, History, and Process Components: Prohibition, CMOM, Reporting, Legal and Satellite Systems Current Status of SSO rule Overview of EPA Regions Approach 9:30 Break 10:00 Asset Management Practices Wastewater Collection Systems (Arbour) System Inventory and Attribute Data Condition Assessment Work Management Financial and Administrative Support Services Information Management Optimized Decision Making for CMOM Compliance 11:00 Pipeline Preventive Maintenance Program (Arbour) Maintenance Program Goals Components of a Preventive Maintenance Program Benefits 12:00n Lunch (provided) 1:00pm Pipeline Inspection and Condition Assessment (Cunningham) Methods Inspection Criteria and Ratings Evaluation and Interpretation of Data Use of Inspection Information for System Maintenance, Repair and Rehabilitation Planning 2:00 Innovative Inspection and Assessment Techniques (Skipper) Sonar Inspection Conductivity/Salinity Testing Concrete Pipe Corrosion Testing Force Main Pressure Tests Debris Mapping 3:00 Mechanical and Hydraulic Cleaning Program (Arbour) Mechanical and Hydraulic Cleaning Equipment Establishing Corrective and Preventive Maintenance Cleaning Programs Grease Control Programs Performance Indicators and Best Industry Practices 5:00 Announcements and Adjourn Wednesday, March 29 8:00am Auditing and Assessment Perspective (Herwig) • Management Programs • Operations Programs • Maintenance Programs of CMOM from a Regulatory 9:00 Equipment Specifications (Cunningham) (All participants will receive a computer disk with all equipment and instrument specifications developed by the City and County of San Francisco Bureau of Street and Sewer Repair Equipment Manager.) • Evaluation of Equipment Needs . Equipment Performance Specifications and Purchase • Equipment PM • Federal DOT Compliance 10:00 Break 10:30 Trenchless Technology in New Construction and Rehabilitation Projects (Young) . Mainlines . Performance and Design Specifications • Comparison of Different Methods and Their Effectiveness 12:00n Lunch (provided) 1:00pm Maintenance Program Organization and Staffing (Arbour) • Organizational Structure • Classifications . Certification and Training 2:00 Flow Monitoring Basics and Technology (Skipper) Need for Flow Monitoring Methods of Open Channel Flow Monitoring Conditions (Safety, Hydraulic, Traffic, Etc.) Encountered in Monitoring Future Technology Likely to be Applied to Flow Monitoring. 3:00 Break 3:30 Flow Monitoring as an O&M Tool (Skipper) • Flow Data Indicators for O&M . Inflow and Infiltration • Management, Planning and Engineering use of Flow Data 5:00 Announcements and Adjourn Thursday, March 30, 2001 8:00amTrenchless Technology in New Construction and Rehabilitation Projects (Young) • Manhole Rehabilitation • Lateral Rehabilitation . Performance and Design Specifications . Comparison of Different Methods and Their Effectiveness 9:00 CMOM Reporting (Herwig) Record Keeping Reporting Performance Data Frequency of Reporting Reporting for Small Systems 10:00 Break 10:30 Information Management (Cunningham) • Why Computerize • What to Computerize • How to Computerize 12:00n Lunch (provided) 1:00pm Information Management (continued) • Computer-based Management Tools . Current Technology F . Case Histories A 2:00 Break 2:30 Satellite Systems (Arbour) . SSO Rule and Satellite Systems • Approaches to Managing Satellite Systems 3:30 Open Forum and Conclude 6 7 DATE, LOCATION and TIME March 28.30, 2001, Stardust Hotel Convention Center, 3000 S. Las Vegas Blvd. S., Las Vegas, NV 89109. To receive the special rate of $65.00 per night, Sunday through Thursday ($85.00 per night, Friday and Saturday), single or double occupancy, plus 9% Clark County room tax, make your reservations by Feb. 26, 2001, by 5:OOpm, Pacific Time. Call (800) 634-6757, ask for the convention desk and indicate the Meeting Group #UNLV 328. FEE $975.00, includes instructional materials, refreshment breaks, lunches and 2.1 CEUs. The fee does not include lodging or other meals. 4 �ICIWTYIOW-1 STAFF REPORT WIMMQWE 9Fo9,p o0 oAnTCD JUNe 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 23, 2001 FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ Administrative Services Director AGENDA ITEM # Sb MTG. DATE 3/5/01 SUBMITE BY APPROVED SUBJECT: Resolutions: 1) Authorizing Construction Agreement for Fiber Optic System and 2) Authorizing Transfer of Funds RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolutions 1) authorizing the city manager to sign the construction agreement with TCI American Cable Holdings II, L.P. to install optical fiber cable between city buildings, and 2) authorizing transfer of $149,362 from the Unreserved Fund Balance to Capital Improvements Fund. BACKGROUND: Last August, Council approved in concept an agreement with TCI, one of our cable television franchisees, to install optical fiber cable between city buildings. TCI had previously submitted, as a condition of the franchise, a proposal to install fiber between city and school buildings. The elementary and high school districts elected to not participate in the project. The attached agreement involves only city buildings. The benefits of this "dark fiber" network ("dark" refers to raw fiber with no signal or content transmitted by AT&T) are as follows: • It replaces the leased telephone lines presently connecting city buildings as part of the wide area network linking city computers and serving as our link to the Internet. • It greatly increases the speed of data transmissions,. which is especially important for our geographic information system developed by Public Works. This application involves intensive use of graphics, a notorious drag on download time. • With deregulation of telephone service, it offers increased competition, since AT&T also provides telephone service. • It would cost the city a great deal more and take several years for the city to install its own fiber network. • There is a "potential" benefit: future telecommunications, video and data network applications within the city would be more easily implemented with the fiber in place. BUDGET IMPACT: The city's present cost for "T-1" data lines connecting city buildings for phone and data purposes is about $16,000 per year. The city is subject to periodic rate adjustments approved by the State Public Utilities Commission. The construction agreement cost would be $149,362. TCI has six months to complete the work. AT&T would be totally responsible for the maintenance of the fiber and their equipment; the city would need to invest about $150,000 for data routing equipment, though the library could obtain a discount for some of the cost based on the "E -rate" program that provides reduced telecommunications fees for libraries and schools. Burlingame High School could tie in to the city's line going to the Recreation Center and pool complex, and incur only the cost of linking to the pool's fiber. Staff examined estimates for a fiber network prepared by RCN Telecom Services for Redwood City and reviewed by Redwood City IT staff to determine if this would be a more cost effective option. On a per -mile basis, the costs are similar, but RCN would not be ready to deploy the complete system for several years, whereas AT&T has actually proceeded with laying the fiber as part of their upgrade work recently completed. No funds are presently budgeted, and if council approves this proposal, it is recommended that the city's cost for data routing equipment be deferred to the 2001-02 budget and considered at that time, since further discussions with AT&T will be necessary to develop a formal agreement, and time is needed to plan the configuration of the equipment. Staff recommends a transfer from the unreserved fund balance of $149,362 to fund the construction. ATTACHMENTS: Construction Agreement for Provision, Repair and Maintenance of Optical Fiber System Resolution Authorizing City Manager to Sign Agreement Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Funds CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT Capital Projects DATE: February 23, 2001 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION 101 26000 $149,362.00 General Fund - Unreserved Fund Balance FROM: TO: 320 80250 1 010 1 $149,362.00 Installation of Optical Fiber System Justification (Attach Memo if Necessary) DEPARTMENT HEAD BY: / DATE: 2—'2-3 —O/ 2.g COUNCIL ACTION ❑COUNCIL REQUIRED Remarks: ACTION NOT REQUI D FINANCE DIRECTOR BY: DATE 3. ®APPROVE AS REQUESTED ❑APPROVE AS REVISED ❑DISA PROVE Remarks: CITY M AGER BY: &&DATE: 3-7-01 RESOLUTION 21-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation, Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. o -C MAY I, ANN T.MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify tha a foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of March . 2001. and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERSNONE yy�� ja,,Dhee�L�4.DEPUTY CITY CLERK L:1Forms RESOLUTION NO. 20-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF VILLAGE AND PERSHING PARKS WHEREAS, pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.055.030, the City may adopt rules and regulations for specific City parks; and WHEREAS, both Village and Pershing Parks are small neighborhood parks; and WHEREAS, both Village and Pershing Parks are very popular site for picnics by school groups, private birthday parties and other uses; and WHEREAS, Village Park is the site for the City's Preschool Program, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine and find as follows: 1. The rules and regulations for Village and Pershing Parks contained in Exhibit A hereto are adopted. 2. These rules and regulations will be enforced pursuant to Section 10.55.030 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. I, ANNE T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of March, 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony, Spinelli NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: I�Celm NONE f� ZL,�� DEPUTY CITY CLERK January 18, 2001 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF VILLAGE AND PERSHING PARKS EXHIBIT "A" Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 10.55, Section 030, the following special rules and regulations apply to the use of Village Park. These rules and regulations are in addition to and supplement the general rules and regulations governing the use of City of Burlingame parks. 1. On weekdays, between the hours of 10:00 am and 3:00 pm, no group of more than fifteen (15) persons shall gather in the park without the specific written permission from the City's Parks & Recreation Director. CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT FOR PROVISION, REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF OPTICAL FIBER SYSTEM This Construction Agreement (hereinafter "tl-e Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2001, by and between the City of Burlingame, California, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and TCI American Cable Holding, II, L.P. FINDINGS 1. The City of Burlingame (hereinafter "the City") entered into a Cable System Franchise Agreement, dated October 23, 1998, with TCI American Cable Holdings II, L.P., a California limited partnership, which subsequently was acquired by AT&T Corp ("TCI"). 2. The Cable System Franchise Agreement required Grantee to provide interactive communications capability to selected City Buildings. The City and TCI have agreed that provision, repair and maintenance by TCI of "dark fiber" (optical fiber without activation electronics) to the City buildings designated herein, under the terms and conditions of this Agreement, will satisfy TCI's obligations under Exhibit C, Paragraph 4 of the Cable System Franchise Agreement. AGREEMENT Section A. Scope of Work TCI shall install a network of "dark fiber" bebNeen the following nine (9) City locations: Building City Hall Library Library — Easton Branch Recreation Center Police Station Public Works Yard Fire Station 36 Fire Station 34 Fire Station 35 Address 501 Primrose Rd. 450 Primrose Rd. 1800 Easton Dr. 850 Burlingame Ave. 1111 Trousdale Dr. 1361 N. Carolan Ave. 1399 Rollins Rd. 799 California Dr. 2832 Hillsdale Dr. 2. The network shall be configured as indicated in Figure 1 of Exhibit A herein. Six (6) single -mode optical fibers shall be installed between each pair of buildings. U -.\Word Docs\Cable TNB�,1,n9.m ATT -Const ,g Final.— 3. The optical fibers shall terminate at a Point of Demarcation outside each building to be specified by the City. The City also shall specify the type of connector(s) that shall be utilized to terminate the fibers at each location. 4. The City shall be responsible for the acquisition, installation, operation and maintenance of all electronic and electro -optical equipment necessary to utilize the optical fibers in a functional telecommunications network. 5. TCI shall be responsible for maintaining the integrity of the optical fiber paths on TCI's side of the Point of Demarcation for the duration of the Cable System Franchise Agreement with the City. In the event of any break, failure or discontinuity in any fiber path, TCI shall repair the break, failure or discontinuity promptly at no charge to the City. 6. TCI, in its construction, shall meet all applicable City construction codes, including all relevant permit and inspection requirements. 7. If space in any City -owned conduit is available along the path of the optical fibers, and if TCI desires to utilize such space, the City and TCI shall negotiate the terms and conditions of sich use. Section B. Completion Schedule 1. TCI shall complete the dark fiber installation no later than six (6) months after the execution of this Agreement. TCI shall submit to the City a written status report on the progress of the installation at two (2) months and four (4) months after the date of execution of this Agreement. 2. Within thirty (30) days after the date of execution of this Agreement, TCI shall post a construction performance bond in the face amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000), as surety for timely completion of construction. The format of the bond shall be subject to approval of the City Attorney. The bond shall be subject to "orfeit if the completion date of Section B(1) is not met, and TCI is not excused by reason of the Force Majeure provisions of Section C(1) below. The bond shall be released upon the City's written acceptance of verification by TCI that the dark fiber network has been completed in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. Section C. Force Majeure 1. In the event TCI's performance of any of the obligations required by this Agreement is prevented by a cause or event not within TCI's control, such inability to perform shall be deemed excused and no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof. Causes or events not within the control of TCI shall included without limitation, acts of God, war, 4 U \Mld Dxs Cabl MButlingama-ATT-Cw$Mgml-FFnal. d.c sabotage, riots or civil disturbances, restraints imposed by order of a governmental agency or court, explosions, acts of public enemies, and natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, landslides, and fires, but shall not include the financial inability of TCI to perform or failure of TCI to obtain any necessary permits or licenses from governmental agencies or the right to use the facilities of any public utility where such failure is due solely to the acts or omissions of TCI, or the failure of TCI to secure supplies, services or equipment necessary for the installation of the optical fiber network where TCI has failed to exercise reasonable diligence to secure such supplies, services or equipment. Section D. Cost 1. The City shall pay to TCI, as indicated in Figure 2 of Exhibit A herein, the sum of One Hundred Forty-nine Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two Dollars ($149,362) for construction and satisfactory completion of the optical fiber network. 2. TCI may invoice the City the sum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) concurrent with its submission of the two (2) month status report specified in B(1) above, and an additional Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) concurrent with its submission of the four (4) month status report specified in B(1) above. The final payment of Forty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Two Dollars ($49,362) shall be invoiced upon completion of installation of the network and written acceptance by the City. If TCI completes construction and installation prior to six (6) months after the execution of this Agreement, TCI may invoice the City for any outstanding balance at that time. Section E. Waiver The parties agree that a waiver by one party of any breach or violation of any term or condition of this Agreement by the other parry shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained herein, or a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or any other term or condition. The acceptance by the City of the performance of any work or services by TCI shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition of this Agreement. Section F. Indemnity Indemnity. In addition to indemnification required pursuant to other Agreement Documents, TCI shall to the fullest extent permitted by law protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless City from and against liability, claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, arising out of or resulting from performance of the work required under this U Mord Do kCabk T Burlmgwm-AU_Go,al gmt-Rnal Goc agreement, provided that such liability, claims, damages, loss or expense is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease or death, or to injury or to destruction of tangible property (other than that required to complete the work required under this agreement) including loss of use resulting therefrom, but only to the extent caused in whole or part by negligent acts or omissions of TCI, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them or anyone for whose acts they may be liable, regardless of whether or not such liability, claim, damage, loss or expense is caused in part by a party indemnified hereunder. 2. Limitations on Warranties and Liability. In no event will either party be liable to the other party for any indirect, special, incidental, punitive or consequential damages, whether or not foreseeable, including but not limited to, loss of revenue, loss of customers or clients, loss of goodwill, or loss of profits arising out of or in relation to this agreement or the performance or nonperformance of any obligation herein, whether arising out of contract or tort; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not limit TCI's obligation to indemnify the City pursuant to the requirements of section F(1). TCI disclaims all warranties, whether express, implied or statutory, including without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose and non -infringement of third party rights. Except as specifically provided in this agreement, and subject to the limitations set forth in this section, TCI specifically disclaims any responsibility for any damages suffered by City or any third party, except for those caused by TCI's gross negligence, or reckless action, or willful, or wonton misconduct. Section G. Governing Law 1. California Law Applies. Except as to matters that are governed solely by federal law, this Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and this Agreement is deemed to have been executed in the City of Burlingame, California. Section H. Commercial Use Restriction The dark fiber network is a private communications network governed by the TCI Franchise and the Cable Act. The dark fiber network may be used by the City to provide any technically and legally compatible, non- commercial service. The City agrees to require all users of the dark fiber network to stipulate and agree to this limitation. "Technically compatible" includes, but is not limited to, the understanding that the dark fiber network will not be used in any way that will intentionally or unreasonably interfere with the signal quality and the normal operation of TCI's Subscriber Network. "Legally compatible" includes, but is not limited to, the 112 U \Mrd DO kCable MBurlingame-ATT-GOMs gmt Final, o understanding that the dark fiber network may not be used for Telecommunications Services unless by separate agreement between the TCI and the user, and that the dark fiber network users will not resell access to the dark fiber network; provided, however, that the dark fiber network users shall have the right to provide for the internal switching, routing and/or cross connection to Telecommunications carriers of their choice, for their normal voice and data communications operations, unless expressly prohibited by State or federal law. In addition, TCI and the City shall at all times provide such management of the dark fiber network as applicable to ensure the necessary protection of proprietary dark fiber network signals. Executed this day of , 2001. Approved as to Form: City Attorney Date: Attest: City Clerk U \Word Docs\Cable TV\Burlingame-ATT-ConstAgmt-Final doc City of Burlingame By: Date TO I.1 Date EXHIBIT A FIGURE 1. FIBER NETWORK CONFIGURATION FIGURE 2. COST BREAKDOWN FIGURE 1 OPTICAL FIBER NETWORK CONFIGURATION 9 Main Police station 6 strands 6 Strands LJ Strwds 10 4 6 6 strar, ds 11 I - Net List of City Facilities 9. Fire Station 36 7. Public Works Yard 3. Library Easton Branch 10 Fire Station 34 11 Fire Station 35 6. Parks Yard 4. Recreation Center City Hall City of Burlingame Fiber optic Network Layout proposed by AT&T Site I.D. 1 2 4 5 Easton Library Rec. Center Police Public Works Yard Fire St. 36 Fire St. 34 Fire St. 35 Sub -Total 7,970 2,130 2,400 2,670 9,380 2,130 2,130 4,020 3 1,61 1,300 1,0K 1,603 FIGURE 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSTRUCTION COST ITEMIZATION 4 g $0 0 5 $1,106 6 $8,217 1,021 888 6,600 1,133 444 3,300 1,834 1,332 9,900 6,555 1,777 13,200 992 711 5,280 1,046 222 1,650 3,699 711 5,280 1,552 444 3,300 17,832 $ 7,635 $ 56,727 � I �vM+lnn Rwiilr4iinn Llama 2. Pre Term Materials, Pre -Term & OSP Splicing 3. Cable Placement, Labor & Incidental Materials 4. Fiber Cost 5. Pole Line Engineering & Applications 6. New Trench/Strand Construction 7. Design, Engineering & Walkout 8. Project Management 9. Diagrams 10. Site Costs [Add (1)-(9)] 7 8 9 10 106 $ 205 $ 200 $ 19,423 85 165 200 12,389 43 83 200 8,686 200 18,532 200 34,482 200 11,116 200 6,198 W419$ 200 15,583 200 9,375 ,800 $135,784 I 13,578 ngency $149, 362 6d1RLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: February 26, 2001 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY BY AGENDA ITEM # 8 c MTG. 3/5/01 DATE on CORPORATION YARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - CITY PROJECT NO. 9601 - LEASE OF TEMPORARY QUARTERS - 1322-1326 MARSTEN ROAD RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council grant authority to the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement (subject to the City Attorney's approval) at 1322-1326 Marsten Road for a temporary site to house the Corporation Yard during the reconstruction of the existing site. BACKGROUND: For the last two and one-half years staff has been working to develop the project scope for a new Corporation Yard. The City's consultant has nearly completed construction documents and the project will be bid in May with work to begin in August. The construction is estimated to take approximately 14 to18 months. As a result, the Corporation Yard operations will need to be relocated during this time. DISCUSSION: Over the past several months staff has investigated the eight sites in Attachment "A" as potential temporary quarters. Staff recommends the one acre site at 1322-1326 Marsten Road as it is large enough to accommodate all the space needs of the Street and Sewer Division, Water Division, Fleet Maintenance Division, Electrical Division and the Facilities Maintenance Division. The site consists of approximately 11,200 square feet of warehouse space, 3,800 square feet of office space and 25,000 square feet of fenced yard. The agreement would be for twenty months with an option to lease month to month upon advanced notification to the owner if additional time is required. The property will become available in early March and it would be prudent to secure the lease now due to the very active commercial real estate market. The lease is $25,000 per month which consists of $1.25 per square foot for the warehouse /office space and $0.25 per square foot for the yard space. This monthly lease cost appears to be in line with the current Burlingame area commercial real estate market. EXHIBITS: Exhibit "A", aerial photo. BUDGET IMPACT: Presently there are funds available in the project budget to cover the total lease expense of up to$500,000. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9601.stf.wpd "Exhibit A" Potential Corp Yard Sites 1322-1326 Marsten Vacant site under renovation. Available early March. 11,200 s.f. of warehouse, 3800 s.f. of office and 25,000 s.f. of fenced yard. 1831 Bayshore Just leased to Roto -Rooter for $27,500 per month. 10,800 s.f. warehouse / office building with 15,000 s.f. yard. (10,800 @ $2.55/s.f including yard) 1666 Gilbreath Sublease of existing tenant space. 7250 s.f. of warehouse space and 15,400 s.f.of yard. No office space and shared restroom with existing tenant. One roll up door for warehouse access. Would need to install a partition wall between leased space and existing tenant space. Would need to rent approximately 2500 s.f .of office and locker room space. Some large equipment would need to be parked elsewhere. ( $11,240/mo.- 7250 s.f. @ $1.00 /s.f and 15,400@$0.35 per s.f). UPDATE 2-19-01 Realtor notified city to suggest that the entire 1666 Gilbreath site could be sub -let for the duration of the present lease (about 25months) at $25,000 per month. The total site is approximately 19,000 s.f. of warehouse and 15,400 s.f. of yard. One problem is the one roll up door is the only access to warehouse space. 1409 Rollins Road Wrote a letter to the owner because the site appeared to be empty. Was told that Enterprise Car Rental had an active lease on the site and were in the process of evicting a sub -lease holder, Hayat Car Rental. Notified Enterprise and was told they were not interested in sub -leasing as they needed the space themselves 1730 Rollins Rd. 28,000 s.f. dirt lot under PG&E towers. Access is through Prime Athletic Clubs parking lot and the city's pump station. Access requires tight turning radii which large equipment can not navigate. Dirt lot would require paving and 2500 s.f.of rented office and locker room space would be needed. 1899 Bayshore Owner is presently in planning for a new hotel. Plan to start within next year. 860-880 Stanton In Planning for use -permit. 1511 Adrian Too small. �� ITY G 210 Ou`'"AmSTAFF REPORT 4W.'e- TO: Honorable M4yor and Council DATE: February 26, 2001 FROM: Lam E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY AGENDA ITEM * 8d MTG. DATE 3/5/2001 J REJECT CLAIM OF CAROL SCHELEY FOR PERSONAL INJURY ON NOVEMBER 14, 1999 RECOMMENDATION: Reject claim for personal injury occurring on November 14, 1999. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scheley apparently fell on November 14, 1999, somewhere near her home. However, after working for almost a year with different attorneys, we have not yet been able to determine where she may have fallen or what the circumstances may have been. Therefore, rejection of the claim is recommended. Attachment Claim of Carol Scheley Distribution ABAG Plan wN-2b-2000 14:17 CITY OF BURLINGAME 650 342 8386 P.02iO3 -Claim Against the City of jurlingame �r --------tet A��------- ; Please return to: Ciry Clerk 501 Primrose Road s Burlingame, CA 96010 Please or print el tt O; 1 6'74 CIN Gr i;U::1.,4rLU:= [[ Complete the following, adding ad4donal sluett as necetrary. CLAIMN'S N : :C nAS aF _ Sr ' LIZ-/ e0d'* ate - - , C4 240/0 CLAAATs AugfiSsw7V r P O A= N Amet. Ciii; SrAM 7IP) CtaD+Arrr•s xoMTi PHONE ` sC) 44 _ 1 5 12 - WORK PHONE: AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $-L- C�SS )S� (ATUCa CLIPX1 DF0QySrST1-7Z4 IF AMOUNT' CLAWED IS MORE THAN $10,00+�0,�, INDICATE vnEmE 1=sDicnoN RFSTB: El/ � MuNTcrpAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT ADDRESS To WHICH NOTICFS ARE TO AS SENT. IF DIFFERMrr FROM 12NW I AND 2: P• �r�sfiica,n .Sc1�ef�•� (salsa �4 do '�ron (7 rl acs Shoo (sTxer or< r o nae MotaRul (Yle+Il� 6-rk, Tom{ -(654)3A7-1300 =UZ; ZLI) DATE OF INCIDENT: 1 I 1'q '_ O 9 ''WE OF IMCIDENT: pyD � 1e f r 100 r>1 LOCATION OF INCIDI?3 7S: S d cuxl'� Q��c..cen f _ c`��7� �i'osswa� av r� I ng a me,CR DEscxME THE W=ENT OR ACCIDENT INCLUDING YOUR REASON JUi W321SVFORG THAT THE CTry IS UU" FOR YOUR DAMAGES: C I rti r,),, -Ai - I r� i P �v u-✓r� f'e l ( o ger a. vQ- f; ve s I'cJeuxA cqA c•cr?,n% Fj07CrosSr�'{,�b1UC�ir�{�.✓.�li1q.•/�Eer��'�ledr.�i�SG(vfyl6,p!f' �� 4� PAUC 2�a "Sf'{I^� s�o r'n c ry. In'i£o { oleo l� �-hiYFrr c..� rte�c, al d<frrn r„h,'ck created ca tCo7�se % rrsk o`CinJuryo 17"4 Su ctci. lms ;ny elc/�cecns�ft��rve notice of {�s Crn%ih�??+ono` FSt9,I88 AIS �AMAGI� WH YOu DELIEYE You HAVE INCURRM LS RESULT OF INCIDENT: SC, tit' A:1t �•>*2 t+erec7 knaecc�(�i (ct ce-r'a� rvn fo her I 1p es- Pr ror�e�ti �h7b h ans Waco a-� 6ody . dos f w s , e7JU 1-y . ci1n aro S� U-4NP M9 CAUSING THIS DAMAGES YOU ARE CLNMWO: I hereby dedmn, under penalty of perjury, that I haus ntadthe foregoing and that the same Is true to the best of my knowladg- Date: I,grpraer.wJm.r+.htn,rnrwas/I,u.s.D�mgJ+olre orfYatduleu�-sya�'1���► te.e«!t Odrr jbp p r—d W -y v larwott b rarowl PrOPHp rmf Le JFd 7rJIiGt ISD dot q/Ixtde . a6' athn eLdtr truR s.A►r MSW o+r P.�glatidau. Ste remommaLr2a Stcdon 900ILg4 CITY O� B11,i1JNOAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council m DATE: February 26, 2001 APPROVED BY FROM: Lam E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8 MTG. DATE 3/5/2001 ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO INCLUDE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution amending the list of designated employee positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code to include the Human Resources Director. DISCUSSION: The Political Reform Act requires the City to ensure that City employees whose decisions have the potential to affect City purchasing or policy are designated to file statements disclosing economic interests in the City. The new position of Human Resources Director falls within this category. Attachment Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 23-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE TO INCLUDE THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 and following, requires the City to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code for the: City; and WHEREAS, Resolution 47-80 adopted a City Conflict of Interest Code, and the list of designated employees required to file statements of economic interests was subsequently amended by Resolutions 19-87 and 51-92 and 90-96; and WHEREAS, Resolution 12-98 adopted an amended conflict of interest code pursuant to the Political Reform Act, and the list of designated employees was further amended by Resolutions 32-98 and 102-00; and WHEREAS, the City has created the position ofHuman Resources Director and this position should be added to the list of designated employees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Appendix A to Resolution 102-00 is hereby amended to designate the Human Resources Director as provided in Appendix A to this Resolution. ��— yor L� I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of March , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE Deputy City Clerk APPENDIX A DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES The following City employees are designated for filing statements of economic interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code and the Political Reform Act: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Code Enforcement Officer CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk CONSULTANTS Design Review Consultants to City Planner/Planning Commission FINANCE DEPARTMENT Finance Director/Treasurer Deputy Treasurer Billing & Collections Supervisor FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief Fire Marshal Deputy Fire Marshal Information Technology Liaison (designated captain or officer) HUMAN RESOURCES Human Resources Director LIBRARY City Librarian Library Services Manager Circulation Supervisor Librarian III*** Library Assistant II - Acquisitions Disclosure Category PARKS & RECREATION DEP'T I Parks & Recreation Director Parks Superintendent I Recreation Superintendent City Arborist I PLANNING DEPARTMENT City Planner Senior Planner Planner Senior Landscape Inspector I I I I I I I II II I II II II II *** — Employees designated for "purchasing only" POLICE DEPARTMENT Chief of Police Commander PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Director of Public Works Assistant Director of Public Works City Engineer Senior Civil Engineer Traffic Engineer Public Works Superintendent Assistant Streets and Sewers Superintendent Assistant Water Superintendent Shop Supervisor Chief Building Inspector Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Building Inspector Public Works Inspector A-1 Disclosure Category I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES: I — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category I shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; b) Income; and c) Interests in real property within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Dugrwd employees in Category I shall complete Schedules A through F II — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category II shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; and b) Income within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Dt34grMd employees in Category II shall complete Schedules A, C through F. A-2 APPENDIX A DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES The following City employees are designated for filing statements Df economic interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code and the Political Reform Act: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Code Enforcement Officer CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Clerk CONSULTANTS Design Review Consultants to City Planner/Planning Commission FINANCE DEPARTMENT Finance Director/Treasurer Deputy Treasurer Billing & Collections Supervisor FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief Assistant Fire Chief ' Fire Marshal Deputy Fire Marshal Information Technology Liaison (designated captain or officer) HUMAN RESOURCES Human Resources Director LIBRARY City Librarian Library Services Manager Circulation Supervisor Librarian III*** Library Assistant II - Acquisitions Disclosure Category I I I I II II II II II II *** — Employees designated for "purchasing only" PARKS & RECREATION DEP'T Parks & Recreation Director Parks Supenntendent Recreation Superintendent City Arborist PLANNING DEPARTMENT City Planner Senior Planner Planner Senior Landscape Inspector POLICE DEPARTMENT Chief of Police Commander PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Director of Public Works Assistant Director of Public Works City Engineer Senior Civil Engineer Traffic Engineer Public Works Superintendent Assistant Streets and Sewers Superintendent Assistant Water Superintendent Shop Supervisor Chief Building Inspector Facilities Maintenance Supervisor Building Inspector Public Works Inspector A-1 Disclosure Category I I I I I I I DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES: I — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category I shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; b) Income; and c) Interests in real property within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. De#eud employees in Category I shall complete Schedules A through F II — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category II shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; and b) Income within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. DsigMd employees in Category II shall complete Schedules A, C through F. A-2 j BURtIrvOAME I ' i f c � e��c ua° BUR L I N G A M E R U B L I C LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes January 16, 2001. RE1EIVED FEB 22 2001 Ci I r LU<K'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME I. Call to Order The meeting of January 16, 2001 was called to order by President Cecile Coar at 4:30 pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Jeff Berger, Cecile Coar, Jane Dunbar, Andrew Gurthet, Mary Herman Staff Present: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder City Hall: Larry Anderson, City Attorney Public: Joe Baylock III Warrants & Special Fund The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants as presented. M/S/C (Herman/Dunbar) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2000 meeting. M/S/C (Herman/Berger) V. Correspondence Correspondence mailed in the packet:; was reviewed. 1. January Children's Programs - "Trunk full of Poems" is the theme for the Childrens' January poetry month. A happy elephant with a very large trunk is cleverly pictured on the information flyer and January events calendar. The Trustees expressed their appreciation to the Children's staff for producing such a creative flyer. VI. From the Floor (Public Comments) Drone 4 8 0 P r i m r o s e R o a d. B u r l i n c a m e. CA 9 4 0 1 0- 4 0 8 3 Phone (650) 342-1038•Fax (650) 342-1948.www.PIs .lib.ca. us/pls/pls.html VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report The City Librarian reviewed his report highlighting the following issues. 1. 2001 Work Plan - Goals and Objectives - A draft of goals developed by the staff including a work plan for Library operations in 2001 has been submitted to the City Manager. These goals will be reviewed by the City- Council at the annual goal setting session to be held on January 27, 2001. 2. Easton Library Project Status - Kathy Page has nearly completed her Easton Library report. The City Librarian will review her report with staff and Ms. Page will address the Trustees on her findings at a future Trustee meeting. 3. Building Issues Updates- The new City Facilities Maintenance Supervisor, Rob Mallick, is assisting the Library in accomplishing maintenance goals such as: gutter cleaning, window washing, window repair and power washing portions of the building. 4. Gifts to the Library - The Marshall Trust has given the Library an additional gift of approximately $25,000. The family of a deceased Library user wishes to establish a childrens author series for `i years, as well as an endowment for music purchase. S. Personnel - Interviews for the Librarian II position are now completed and the position will be filled within a few weeks. B. Foundation Report - 1. Election of Officers - Officers elected at the annual meeting on January 11th to serve for the year 2001 are as follows: Don Roberts - President, Jane Dunbar - First Vice President, David Carr - Second Vice President, Carol Rossi - Secretary, Carol Mink - Treasurer. 2. New Board Members - Colman Conneely, Debbie Grewal, Ralph Lane and Lauren Rosen were welcomed as new members to the Foundation Board. Library Board of Trustee Minutes January 16, 2001 3. Reception - a reception will be given February 4th to thank Patti Bergsing, Loretta Blevins, Sheri Galvin and Dale Perkins for their years of service to the Foundation Board and to welcome the new Board members. 4. Elegant Affair 2001 - Jane Dunbar will Chair the event with Stephanie Lucas as Co -Chair. The date of the event is October 20th. VIII. Unfinished Business A. Posting - The Trustees approved the revised Posting and Distribution of Materials Policy with the minor corrections noted by Trustees Berger and Coar. M/S/C (Herrnan/Dunbar) IX. New Business - A. CALTAC Memberships - Trustees memberships have been renewed. CALTAC is holding the Northern California workshop at the San Carlos Library February 24, 2001 The theme is "CALIFORNIA LIBRARIES - HONORING OUR PAST AND BUILDING OUR FUTURE. Dr. Kevin Starr, California State Librarian will give the keynote presentation entitled "We've Only Just Begun". Trustees Coar, Dunbar, Gurthet and Herman will attend the workshop. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:30pm. M/S/C (Dunbar/ Herman) Respectfully Submitted a%4W1V G7 Alfred H. Escofiier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 January 16, 2001 BURLINGAME SENIOR COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting Thursday, February 15, 2001 Burlingame City Hall, Conference Room "A" The regular meeting of the Burlingame Senior Commission was called to order at 9:45 a.m. by Commissioner Plyer. ROLL CALL Present: Members: Douglas Anderson, Clara Crook, Harrison Holland, David Plyer Staff: Randy Schwartz, Recreation Superintendent Lynn Mutto, Recreation Supervisor Arlene Castro, Recreation Coordinator Guests: None Absent: Members: Mara Kahn, Herman Katz, Catherine McCormack MINUTES Commissioner Anderson moved to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2001 meeting as presented. Commissioner Crook seconded the motion, which passed 4-0. COMMUNICATIONS / ANNOUNCEMENTS Commissioner Plyer reminded the commissioners that the City's annual Commissioner's Dinner is scheduled for March 23rd. OLD BUSINESS A. Emeritus Forum Lectures Coordinator Castro announced that she is still loo{ing for speakers for the Emeritus Forum Lectures and that Commissioner Crook will be the guest speaker in July. Crook and Castro encouraged the commissioners to attend the lecture series on the first Wednesday of each month at the Recreation Center from 10:30 to 12:00 noon. Commissioners Anderson and Plyer each gave Castro suggestions for future speakers. B. California Senior Legislature (C.S.L.) Update Commissioner Plyer announced that five of the Top 10 priority proposals from the California Senior Legislature have sponsors in the State Legislature, including one presented by Helen Carr of Pacifica which would require financial institutions to report suspected cases of elder abuse. That proposal is now Assembly Bill 109 (Alquist). C. Senior Wing of the Recreation Center Superintendent Schwartz reminded the commissioners that the Parks & Recreation Commission will be conducting a meeting tonight to discuss possible recreation facilities. Part of that discussion includes a drop-in area for senior citizens. D. Briefing to the City Council This item was tabled until the March meeting. Senior Commission Minutes February 15, 2001 - Page 2 NEW BUSINESS A. Older American's Month Activity After a discussion on the activity level of senior citizens in Burlingame, the commissioner's decided that it was not necessary for the Commission to sponsor, or for the commissioners to conduct, an Older American's Month activity this year. REPORTS A. Chair Commissioner Plyer reported that his term of appointment expires at the end of March and, for family reasons, will not be "re -enlisting". B. Commissioners Commissioner Holland asked staff about the overcrowded bicycle path situation he brought up last month. Superintendent Schwartz reported that bike paths in Burlingame are under the jurisdiction of the Public Works Department. The appropriate person will be contacted and staff will report back to the commissioners in March. C. Staff Schwartz recognized Commissioner Crook's upcoming 91 st birthday. Supervisor Mutto distributed copies of the Senior Discount Report for the Fall 2000 session and explained the statistics to those present. D. Attendance at Other Meetings Commissioner Plyer reported he attended the San Mateo County Commission on Aging meeting on Monday. Highlights of the meeting included: (1) a representative from the Health Insurance Counseling & Advocacy Program of San Mateo County was the featured speaker; (2) the Commission has appointed a new member and is now looking to fill three more seats; (3) results from the County's Senior Nutrition Program survey and (4) the San Mateo County Veterans Service Office has moved. Their new address is 550 Quarry Road, San Carlos, CA 94070 and the telephone number is (650) 802-6598. FROM THE FLOOR None NEXT MEETING The next regular Senior Commission meeting will be held in Conference Room "B', on Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 9:30 a.m., at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road. With no further business pending, the meeting was adjourned at 10:29 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz Recreation Superintendent CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 26, 2001 Study Meeting - 6:30 P.M. Regular Meeting — 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 26, 2001, study meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 6:30 p.m. All Commissioners were present with the exception of Cers. Boju6s and Keighran. CP Monroe introduced Steve Porter, City Arborist, noting that he had come at the Commission's request to discuss the role of the City Arborist in protecting the City's trees and in administrating the City's reforestation ordinance. He noted that the primary objective is to ensure a reasonable effort from the resident to consider other alternatives to tree removal in his evaluation he does not take into consideration aesthetics because different people have different perspectives, cannot grant removal of a tree because someone doesn't like the species. Primary considerations include health and condition of existing trees, if it has a sound structure, and if it is causing property damage. In regards to health, can require an outside arborist's report to evaluate removal, health issues included structural defects, multiple trunks and branches, embedded bark, leaning and uneven trunks. His determinations are based on field observations only, no testing procedures are done (boring or cutting tree for lab samples). It does consider structural damage includes damage caused to a foundation, house, roof or accessory structure but not damage to flatwork, walkways, gutters and leaf clutter. Commission discussion: Commission asked how excavation for a basement might affect the decision for a tree removal. Arborist Porter noted that the health of the tree considered replacement requirement is one- for-one, must be a landscape tree. Commission noted that a 24 -inch box size tree is not an appropriate replacement for a 60' tall tree. What is the condition of the Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive between Vancouver Avenue and El Camino Real, do not want to see them removed. Arborist Porter noted that they are old trees but appear to be healthy, need to be maintained, are on a 4 year pruning cycle, have already done a serious crown reduction, have been there for 80-100 years and have a life expectancy of another 80- 100 years. Is there a tree list for private development; none available at this time, only have a street tree list. Commission expressed a concern about removed trees not being replaced on Easton Drive as on El Camino Real. Should consider ways to reinforce existing trees along Easton to keep Easton corridor, like the idea of reforestation before removal. Concerned with arborist's reports submitted, some reports indicate that a tree is in decline, problem is that it may be in decline for 80 years, arborist's reports may not be conservative enough. Porter noted that arborist's must be certified and that it is up to the professionals to decide how much the tree is in decline, an arborist's report is required if a reason is not given for the decline. Concerned that a private tree list is not available for private development, also concerned with the type of trees being replaced on El Camino Real, will they eventually create a canopy over El Camino; Porter noted that he worked with Caltrans to arrive at a list of trees, determination was based on maintenance, Caltrans has control; do not want to see lollypop trees as replacement trees. Porter noted that there is no follow-up on the survival of replaced trees, in regards to street trees the type of root is taken into consideration. C. Boju6s arrived at 7:05 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 26, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 pm. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minartes February 26, 2001 Il. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues (7:05) Deal, Dreiling, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioner Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 12, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were amended as follows: "ase -Butes, Stanley Vistica, Acting Secretary". IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant at 1219 Vancouver Avenue has requested his Item #3 be continued to the March 12, 2001 agenda. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2812 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CREEK ENCLOSURE PERMIT TO EXTEND AN EXISTING CONCRETE CULVERT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A DRIVEWAY TURN -AROUND (BASIL N. MUFARREH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: is the 875 SF of AC paving shown on the plans only the new paving, add existing paving area to total number on plans; applicant should explain why such a large turn -around space is needed, could the paving be reduced and more landscaping added; this is a drawback from street; should consider more permeable paving surface, turf block as an example rather than asphalt; will there be any treatment in the drain to the catch basin such as a "pillow". There were no further questions and the item was set for action on March 12, 2001, providing all the information can be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2A. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Febnmaq 26, 2001 ADDITION (AMY HALL, GORDON HALL & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUSTIN AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW PROPERTY OWNERS._ 2B. 735 ACACIA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEITH AND BETH TAYLOR PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the acts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chair called for avoice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised.. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAMIN AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY ARCHITECT) At the applicant's request this item was continued to the March 12, 2001, meeting to the regular action calendar. 4. 120 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE BASEMENT LEVEL, MAIN FLOOR AND A NEW UPPER FLOOR (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER• TRACY AND TROY OTUS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. City Planner presented the report; reviewed criteria and comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what is the maximum FAR on this lot, because of the size of the covered porch at the front the covered porch at the rear of the house should have been included in the FAR calculation total; Commission commented that the original application proposed a 3200 SF house with an FAR variance for 1402 SF, applicant then reduced the above ground living area by 300 SF and added it to the basement, FAR variance still required for 1405 SF, with the covered porch FAR variance should actually be for 1505 SF; a similar situation in a house on Chapin Avenue is discussed in the staff report. Commission had no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, architect, represented the project and noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission noted that there is a concern with the amount of square footage proposed, original plan proposed 3200 SF (not including lower floor or basement area), current application proposes 3931 SF, got bigger, support the issues, concerned with bulk and calculations on plans, have to include all of basement in FAR, bulk is increased by fact basement raised 4' out of ground, toned down addition by removing 300 SF off the upper Moor, now 3635 SF of living space proposed including the lower level. Architect noted that the intent was to take scpxe footage off the upper floor and place it in the lower floor, applicant's first choice was not to have livid space in the basement. Troy and Tracy Otus, property owners, noted that they are; doing their best to compromise, like to have larger common areas, to accommodate farnifics visiting, bedrooams am smaller, didn't realize basement 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26. 2001 would be a problem when purchasing the house, existing house looks big but only contains two bedrooms, have neighborhood support, this is a unique situation, they are keeping the existing dining room, entry and bedroom on the main floor, construction is at rear, front of house will not change. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this is an existing house, applicant is attempting to save the existing house, not replace it, architect attempted to reduce the bulk, is a small house now but with proposed second story addition will appear large, proposed house is not small, allowing 700 SF more living area than the maximum FAR allowed on this size lot. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 2, 2001 Sheet 1, and Sheets 3-8, and Sheet 2 date stamped February 15, 2001; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's December 18, 2000 memos shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the basement portion of the area/lower level of the house with a 7'-0" ceiling height shall never be finished or converted to living area of any type. The unimproved area shall be walled off from the habitable basement area and shall be accessed through a door no larger than 5' X 3' whose design meets all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes for separation between two occupancies, living and storage; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: worked hard on this project, concerned with granting this large of a variance, project on Chapin Avenue when from 0.51 FAR to 0.71 FAR, this project is increasing from 0.47 FAR to 0.68 FAR, this is not a normal process, want to make it clear that a FAR variance is very difficult to get approved, process is here for unique situations like this one. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:36 p.m. 6. 1145 OXFORD ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION ( BRUCE MCLEOD, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CRAIG AND KRISTIN DONATO PROPERTY OWNERS) - Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked when does a front setback become a side setback on a lot with a curved corner, staff noted that there was no standard way of determining that, is determined on a case by case basis. Commission had no further questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Bruce McLeod, designer, provided an overhead transparency showing the site plan, how they agreed with staff to measure the front setback and how the 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 addition is affected by the setback requirement, a line parallel to the radius of the property line was used, this is a unique lot with an unusually large side and front setback, do not want to encroach into an already small rear yard, siting of the existing house is a problem. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: don't see any issues with this project, proposed addition will not impact the street, hardship exists due to the shape of the lot. C. Dreiling moved to approve the application by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 16, 2001, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations; and 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:47 p.m 7. 1110 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF USE (KAREN SCHEIKOWITZ, APPLICANT; LOUISA AND LORENZ KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments. City Planner presented the report and Planning Department comments. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jay and Karen Scheikowitz, applicants, noted that the business has been located on Burlingame Avenue for 2'/z years, distressed about they letter they received from the city requiring this business to vacate the premises, wife was raised in Burlingame, husband has been a physician in Burlingame for 25 years, city needs to recognize this, received a business license for retail sales at this location, now told that the business license is actually only a receipt for the business tax paid, as property owner it is reasonable to assume that one can operate a business after being issued a business license, in addition landlord approved the lease for the business so they thought business was legal: business is located in the basement of the building, no display on the front of the building, invested time and $50,000 into improving the site, have happy clientele, sustained major damage in the basement of the building from a ruptured city sewer line, located in a building; with offices and a psychic reader above, only use left of previous retail uses is the nail salon, no pedestrian traffic, business plan is to sell equipment through one-on-one training, there are some semi -private classes with a maximum of 12 clients, also do some stone massage, equipment is for home use, occupying four suites in this building, difficult to define this business, applicant feels that business is a personal service, not a health care provider or a gym, is a boutique spa, maximum number of clients in a class is 12, most often is less than that, Donnelly Square had more than 20 students per class and played loud music, this business plays new age music and Mozart, have had no complaints, there are not a large number of people at this site, if Pilates Studio left there would be four retail business which would generate more customers, hoping that the Commission can grandfather this use in as a personal service in good faith if not by exact cede, classes are incidental to primary personal service, feels this business has been an asset to the community, applicant submitted signed petitions in G City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 support of the business. Commission expressed a concern with the applicant's request to be allowed to locate at another location in Subarea A if the current location cannot be leased in the future; applicant retracted that request, want to be grandfathered at current location in basement, realize that the intent of the city is not to have this type of business on the street level between the Gap and Banana Republic. Applicant noted that personal training always brings in more money. Commissioner noted that he had visited the site and noticed a person exercising on a machine on their own; applicant noted that trainers at times work on their own. What percent of the clients are guided by a personal trainers and are on their own; 99% are guided by a trainer, have 13 trainers, trainers may use the equipment when not with clients, currently max'd out with class size, only one room will accommodate 12 people at a time. How long do the training sessions last; training sessions are one-half hour and one hour long, training sessions vary from one-on-one to one -on -three, classes vary in size from 3-12 clients, two classes are held in the morning and evening Monday — Thursday, Saturday classes are held at 8, 9, and I0 a.m., will have 3-10 clients in the morning, 8-12 clients in the evening, there are two types of classes, one on reformers (machines) and other on mats (floor exercises). Mike Sulpizio, accountant for the business, 911 Toyon Drive, Dina Cernobori, 1127 Capuchino Avenue #4, Sheri Phoenix, 1229 Floribunda Avenue, Bill Caplan, owner of Topper Jewelers, 1614 Granada Drive, Nicole Mendez, assistant property manager, 348 Santa Paula, and Patti Weinstein, 2051 Ralston Avenue, spoke in support of the business. Verified that $50,000 was spent on improvements, applicant is an employer, will be an unfortunate situation for the employees if the business is not allowed to operate at this location, has been attending for 6 months, this is a personal service, is very pleased with the service, also belong to a gym, had a personal trainer there but was not able to address specific needs, Pilates provides an individualized service, equipment adjusts to her personal frame, this is different than a gym, Pilates Studio offers one-on-one training, is female -based, provides strengthening by elongating muscles, different than running on a treadmill, is more like yoga, has been attending for one year, walks to this location, has helped her with neck problems, a good business to have in the neighborhood, concerned with parking downtown in general but don't see parking impacted with this use, belong to PrimeTime Athletic Club which has large classes and lots of equipment, this use does not attract large numbers of people, this is an excellent tenant, brings in clients to other businesses in the area, don't see a parking problem, this use brings her down to the downtown shopping area, parking has always been a problem downtown, area may be zoned retail but a retail business can't survive in a basement, Burlingame has two malls, retails don't survive there either, small unique shops are disappearing. Further discussion: commercial application indicates that there will be 100 clients at the site on weekends after 5 p.m., seems like a lot; applicant notes that she had a difficult time filling out the application form, 100 is a mistake, on an average weekend they see 10 clients within an hour in each of the four rooms, suite 105 contains an administrative sales area, suite 106 contains reformers (equipment) with a maximum of 6 clients, suite 107 is a massage room with a maximum of 5 clients per day, suite 102 is a mat room (floor exercise) with a maximum of 12 clients which must pre -register, a more reasonable number on weekdays would be 20-30 clients during the day and 25 clients after 5 p.m., 30 clients on the Saturday, close at 2 p.m. on Saturday, not open on Sunday, clients are encouraged to buy equipment. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: seems to be a prohibited use, errors are made, asked CA Anderson if this use can be approved with a sunset clause; CA noted that the use must be defined first, if this use is determined to be a personal service, then it is a permitted use and can locate anywhere in the C-1 zone, cannot include a GI City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 sunset clause on a permitted use, can only include a sunset clause if the use is determined to be a conditional use as a class associated with retail, another alternative is to amend the zoning code to allow this use as an conditional use, can act control through a conditional use permit by setting operating hours outside of retail hours; would like to see staff return with proposals and what the complications would be, needs to be defined narrowly so that other similar types of businesses could not apply, small use in basement seems appropriate, asked if a class use is prohibited; yes unless clearly incidental to allowed use. This is a good use for Burlingame Avenue, would like to make it a conditional use, can a conditional use permit can have a time limit; yes, can a condition be included so that it comes back for review by the Commission? Is a personal service limited to a certain floor; can be located on any floor, this use with the correct number of clients on weekends is significantly different, is different than a gym, compatible with uses in the area, concerned with defining it as a permitted use because it will allow similar uses, would like to see this use defined and come back as a conditional use, like the diversity in uses, nothing here to indicate that this is different than a gym, direct staff to review. C. Dreiling moved to continue the application for a period of up to six (6) months while staff addresses how it can be addressed in the code. C. Bojues seconded the motion to continue. Discussion on the motion: applicant may continue to operate the business, but cannot expand the maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue amended to note that this business may continue at this location but may not expand until this issue is resolved. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 5. 341 DWIGHT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATIOv FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DORON KLEIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK SOLINGER PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, February 26, 2001, with attachments„ City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Doron Klein, applicant and designer, noted that he revised the plans as suggested by the Commission. Commission noted that these revisions are a disappointment, applicant did not follow the directions given at the last meeting, only added 2 x 6 boards on the side of the building, why didn't it go further, suggested breaking up the: planes, unpainted cedar shingle wood siding does not fit into the neighborhood, roof into the patio was not resolved, tall rake at rear, addressed the eaves, odd looking windows on front elevation do not fit, liked previous trim better, concerned with flatboard stuck on the sides. Applicant noted that at the last meeting the Commission suggested revising the windows and adding surface detail to the north facade, tried to put those two ideas together, windows were organized more clearly, articulated the fagade, Commission seemed to agree with the massing at the last meeting, roof was designed to keep the massing away from the neighbors towards the center of the house, did not want to cast a shadow on the neighbors, tried to make it more craftsman style with no blank walls. Commission commented that they expect professionals to use Commission's comments to solve problems, can't just stick elements on a fagade to address comments, relative scale on front elevation is a problem, scale is not consistent between the fist and second floors, don't see substantial progress, may need to go to design Al City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Febmary 26, 2001 review, this is an unsuccessful response to the comments and suggestions, just added trim to the second floor, upper and lower floors do not relate well, see trim only on two facades, this is a good start, need to articulate the second floor, may loose square footage on the second floor to accomplish this. Mark Hunter, Hunter Construction, noted that he didn't want to overshadow the neighbors, when the Commission suggested proposing a second story for this project the direction only seemed to address the facades seen from the street, more roof will be seen if a hip roof is used, Commission originally suggested removing the dormers, now adding more dormers is being suggested, the goal is to get going on this project Commission noted that they cannot design the house, good designs are submitted all of the time, can't give the applicant a list of notes and have him redraw the plans, the first floor has many ins and outs, second floor only has 6 surfaces, second floor needs to be replicated similar to the first floor with articulation. Carol Fanucchi, 305 Dwight Road, noted that she has lived in this house for more than 40 years, this is a pie -shaped block, this is the first section of block seen when driving towards Trenton Road, if this project is approved it has to be more than a shoebox stacked on top of the first floor is cornerstone of block, has seen the deterioration in the neighborhood with large houses built, will loose view of trees, would prefer a single story house, needs to fit into the neighborhood if it's going to be a two-story house, appreciates the Commission's comments. There were no other comments from the floor and C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Luzuriaga moved to refer this application to a design review consultant. C. Osterling seconded the motion. Commission discussion: second floor space does not reflect what is on the first floor, adding trim does not work, needs more articulation on second floor similar to the first floor, will require changing the floor plan (second floor) and may mean less square footage. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:08 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 2627 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (MARTIN DREILING, CSS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TRICIA GODOWSKI, PROPERTY OWNER) (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 12 2001 MEETING) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. C. Dreiling noted that he would abstain from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant, he stepped down from the dins. Commission asked that the staff report indicates a total of five bedrooms, but only sees four. Staff noted that the proposed office off the master bedroom qualifies as a potential bedroom because of the hallway access. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Richard Terrones, CSS Architecture, was present to answer questions, noted delayed action from last meeting to simplify the application, eliminated the problem with the egress windows in the basement level, existing windows can be replaced with egress qualified windows within the same size opening; office is the fifth bedroom, do not agree with staff determination but City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 will accept and asked for parking variance, will be difficult to use the office as a bedroom and keep the privacy for the master bedroom, would like to provide the office as an auxilary space to the bedroom; side setback variance is to extend an existing nonconforming wall; there is potential mitigation in the future for the side setback, property owner has applied to transfer 5' wide; strip of property along left side property line, could take up to one year to complete the transfer, this area houses sewer and water lines but was never deeded to the City. Commission asked the applicant if there is any way to open up the wall in the office by more than 50% so that it does not qualify as a bedroom, suggested switching the location of the office and bathroom; the applicant noted that it was considered but that it would complicate the floor plan, would make the office too open, and the bathroom would have an odd configuration and size. Commissioners noted: the FAR is being decreased with this remodel, there is an inconsistency in the roof and floor plans, roof plan shows a new projecting bay along the left side of the house. Applicant agreed and will revise the roof plan so that it reflects the floor plan. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission noted that this is an excellent project, the side setback variance is warranted since it is only a 7' extension of an existing wall, there will be no openings in the extension; the parking variance is moot since one has to walk through the master bedroom to get into the office, only see 4 bedrooms, someone could convert this office into a bedroom in the future, but that would be illegal. C. Deal moved to place this item on the consent calendar for the meeting of March 12, 2001. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on motion: should add condition that doors shall never be added in the master bedroom to form a hall which would create two separate bedrooms. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amendment. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to place this item on the March 12, 2001, consent calendar with the suggested conditions. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Dreiling abstaining and C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. The Commission took a break at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:40 p.m. 9. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN, . --_ _. . 1r . X Tr. r%, 0,r&-KTCD . "ICA XT e ATI) T TR cT TT. A WTT .T J AMq_ PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Daniel Biermann, designer, represented the project and noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission asked if the applicant had considered increasing the height of the roof to a peak so that the flat roof could be eliminated. The applicant noted that he would prefer a peak, would required a special permit to exceed the 30' height limit by 2' as outlined on building elevations. Commission noted that this is a nice design, but does not fit in with the neighborhood, project will stand out, concerned with compatibility, oval window on second floor looks awkward. The two pieces over the garage door and entry are awkward, is not different enough, front dining area and garage compete with each other, they are the same size, garage rafters are lower on the right side, looks lop -sided. 0 City of Barlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 Commission asked if the idea is to build a tudor style house, there should be a difference between the first and second floors, 2' wall height exposed on the side elevations, is not typical of a tudor style. Further comment: if the roof is extended over the porch, taller windows might be added in the dining room, need to keep human interest of entrances; don't see too many additions which completely change the character of the existing house, nothing left of previous style, this is one of the few styles which could be interjected into a different neighborhood; may want to add dormers along right side elevation to reduce the sense of height, suggest integrating porch and dining room roof into one element, very difficult to add to an existing house which does not architecturally support a second story, should consider adding windows to the 2' exposed wall, windows can be added in the closets, good job with placement of mass, suggest increasing the height in the dining room, not asking for the maximum FAR, prefer to see special permit for height rather than a flat roof. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the suggestion that the applicant consider the comments made in order to fine tune the project. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 10. 1701 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (DUC M. TRAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY AND MONICA OWENS PROPERTY OWNERS) Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if a building permit had been issued for this project; no, project is currently in the building permit process. City Council approved project in August, 2000, and an application for a building permit was submitted in January, 2001. Commission asked CA Anderson if this amendment allows review of the FAR variance; no, the FAR variance stands, only an amendment to the mass and bulk would allow review of FAR; staff noted that the proposed dormer does not increase the FAR, lot coverage, or affect height and setback requirements. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Due Tran, architect, represented the project, noted that the dormer provides articulation on the west elevation, adds balance to the left side, does not want to have a post in the middle of the living room so need to cover up beam projecting through roof, dormer does not affect the neighbors or zoning requirements. Commissioners discussed: can't understand why this project is here, beam is only spanning 14', can be partially supported and drop into the ceiling, beam could be clipped, adding a dormer is not acceptable, does not work with this design, there are many other possibilities to solve this problem, can use a double cantilever to pick up the load, can build truss into roof plane, could use bent steel tubes, problem is with structural engineer. There were no other comments from the floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. CA Anderson noted that this request cannot be denied tonight, can direct that it has to come back to an action calendar or refer the project to a design reviewer. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Conunission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 C. Dreiling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the direction that a solution be found that would not require a dormer or beam to extend beyond any roof. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:16 p.m. 11. 1338 COLUMBUS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MIKE GAUL, A nnT Th A ATT A Anl TYP QM( KMR - R nRRR T ANn CAROLYN GAUL. PROPERTY_ OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. C. Osterling noted that he lives within a 500' radius of the project and would abstain from the item, he stepped down from the dias. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Mike Gaul, applicant and designer, represented the project and noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission asked what is the reason for demolishing the existing house; applicant noted that the project first began as a remodel, ran into problems with the basement counting towards the FAR, 6'-7' ceiling height throughout the existing basement, finished floor is 3' above grade at front and 7' at rear, tried to work within the parameters but found it difficult to do, easier to start over with a new structure, existing house share; a common driveway with the property to the right, existing porch is 8' from the side property line, wanted to get away from having a wide driveway, would have to remove a portion of the existing house to accommodate a driveway. Commission expressed a concern about the massing, asked if cedar shingles will be stained; yes, tall wall on left side elevation along driveway needs more variation, windows are too small on this elevation and do not fit in with the rest of the house: contains two small awkward dormers, windows in dormers are too big and need to be reduced, need to address scale of dormers on the left side, 2" x 6" fascia boards need to be drawn to scale; like the porch, relationship between the round columns and the spacing is off, there is no flow, base of columns need to be more substantial, concerned with the size of the second floor in relationship to the first floor, too much massing, is a big box with shingles, raked roof at rear doesn't seem to match, needs to be integrated better, belly -band will not solve the problem; this property and adjacent properties lack landscaping Commission also noted a concern with the tall deck at the rear of the house, when standing on the deck you will be 4' higher than the surrounding fences, neighboring deck has similar situation. Further discussion: cedar -shingle house is not typical in with the neighborhood, did not see any others on this block; structure is boxy and needs articulation, using only one type of window, may not be appropriate, suggests using paned windows and mullions, glass block is modern, don't want to see a modern look on this house, like the front porch, need to look at eave details and the use of corbels, shed roof at rear should be reduced, 9' plate heights on both floors; can't support this application, has too many problems, project needs a serious evolution, existing house has character, can use the existing basement, proposed house has massive two-story walls, problems with scale of windows, suggest using true divided light windows, not a well- designed front porch, gable on front porch has no substance, large gable on front elevation, no precedent for the shed roof at the rear, very massive as related to the street:, looms over neighboring houses, needs a total redesign, needs to go to a design reviewer, want to make sure that the applicant understands that the project needs a lot of work, not just fixing a couple of little things, can use existing architectural style to build a new house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 C. Dreiling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the concerns and direction clearly given. If the house is to be demolished, the neighborhood should receive something with the same or greater value in return, need to preserve the value of the neighborhood, architectural style should be realized and made clear in all details throughout the entire house, needs to go the distance, needs to be designed for the site, should study the placement of windows, articulation, exterior can't be dictated by the interior floor plan. This motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on motion: need to have very explicit direction for the design reviewer, suggest giving the design reviewer a copy of the meeting tapes, should add landscaping on property line between the double driveways. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the concerns and direction clearly given. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 12. 164 PEPPER AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT GREGG AND KRIS HURLEY PROPERTY OWNERS) Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, represented the project, noted that classic shingle style forms are being proposed, there are similar houses in the neighborhood. Commission discussion: size of windows were increased and became flat compared to previous project, overall like the project, front porch is great, stone chimneys are massive, rear windows are not appropriate to the rear fagade, do not have the same feel as the other windows. Commission asked if opaque stained cedar shingles will be an earth tone color; applicant responded that the stain has not been chosen yet but will be compatible. Commission noted that the front window on the second floor is too big; applicant noted that he did not want to copy historic architecture, wanted to find common shapes, window is a departure from classic but is fun; can't find anything wrong with the project, garage is large and takes more FAR out of the house, like the amount of roof, applicant is taking an eclectic style and having fun with it, good Iooking house, front window is o.k., rear windows are at the ground floor, mass in chimneys should be reduced, can be carried to the top and end simply with a spark arrestor as required by the building code. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar for the meeting of March 12, 2001 with the revisions suggested. This motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Comment on the motion: trust that the applicant will do all that is necessary to protect the redwood tree at the rear of the lot; windows at the rear of the house appear large, but will not be seen from the street, should leave change up to the applicant's discretion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the March 12, 2001, consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:57 p.m. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 13. 713 WALNUT AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (PHILIP HYLAND, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OLIVER AND DEBRA BROWN PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Phil Hyland, designer, represented the project, noted that they considered the neighbor's privacy and the present house is a maintenance problem, would like to replace the wood siding with a stucco exterior. Commission asked if the fireplace is prefabricated; applicant noted that it is a direct vent gas fireplace. This is a layer -cake house, cover over entry doesn't work, front element is tall, concrete balustrade does not fit into the neighborhood, precast columns on the second floor are not appropriate, need to work on the massing, windows along the left side elevation are random and lack harmony, too many window sizes, this is a stucco box with a 5:12 pitch roof, need to look at the neighborhood, second floor porch does not fit with the scale of this smaller house. Oliver Brown, property owner, 609 Howard Avenue, noted that that the neighborhood has many different styles. Commission expressed a concern with the proposed style of house, tends to emulate a modern -style tract house, what design review wants to avoid in older neighborhoods. Commission was glad to hear owner thinking about Spanish mediterranean, great place to start, Spanish style won't have a heavy balustrade, large horizontal windows, hip roofs and overhangs, need to research Spanish style, will require alterations to the floor plans, need to work from outside in, needs semi -circular windows recessed into the wall, can provide applicant with a list of examples in Burlingame. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: project needs a complete rework, project is appropriate for a design reviewer, applicant needs to pick a style and think hard about it. C. Luzuriaga made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Comment on motion: suggested that the meeting tapes be sent to the design reviewer. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the direction given by the Commission. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:15 p.m. 14. 808 PARK AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JUANCHO C. ISIDORO, JR., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ERIC AND ELIZABETH STARKS PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Juancho Isidoro, applicant and designer, represented the project and noted that he would be available to answer questions. Commission noted that the comments for this project are very similar to the previous project presented tonight, asked if the s -shaped chimney shown on the plans can be built; this house has a layer -cake problem, concerned with horizontal line around roof 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 26, 2001 and one on second floor, needs variation, cave details are inconsistent, some concave others convex, eave changes from first to second floor, started out well on the south elevation, stepped back second floor, wall above the front entrance is blank, 3' overhang looks odd, rest of house falls apart after south elevation, has a tract -house look, need to work on massing, rooflines and eaves, s -shaped chimney looks awkward, should be straight, need to study the way elements relate to each other. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with direction given by the Commission, suggested that the meeting tapes be given to the design reviewer along with the plans. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on motion: would like to note that the garage should be compatible with the design of the house. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the direction given by the Commission. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:25 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS REVIEW OF City Council regular meeting of February 20, 2001 and the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, Saturday, February 24, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed the planning related actions at each meeting. REVIEW OPEN Space Element of the General Plan. The Commission deferred the discussion of the Open Space Element to their next meeting. REVIEW OF Proposed Second Unit Amnesty ordinance. 2°d Unit Amnesty — Cers. Deal and Vistica abstained from the PC discussion on the proposed ordinance discussion because of a conflict of interest. PC discussed the proposed ordinance as recommended by the subcommittee. Commission directed the CP to set this item for public hearing at the end of March if noticing could be completed in time. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 12:03 p.m. UNAPPROV EDMINUTES2.26 14 Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Acting Secretary CITY OF BURLINGAME MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY FEBRUARY, 2001 BUILDING INSPECTION 3/01/01 8:45:20 SAME MONTH THIS YEAR LAST YEAR FISCAL YEAR THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TO DATE TO DATE TO DATE Permit type # Valuation # Valuation # Valuation # Valuation # Valuation # Valuation New Single Family 1 $300,000 1 $272,150 1 $139,157 2 $572,150 5 $1,136,057 15 $4,333,010 New Multi -Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $1,859,369 New Commercial 1 $85,000 1 $2,000,000 1 $10,000 2 $2,085,000 2 $510,000 2 $2,085,000 Alterations -Res 21 $1,250,753 21 $544,900 19 $622,045 42 $1,795,653 45 $1,462,441 178 $6,370,172 Alterations-NonRes 4 $91,000 11 $1,523,250 10 $466,800 15 $1,614,250 19 $922,300 64 $9,210,795 Demolition 2 $0 3 $12,000 4 $0 5 $12,000 7 $4,000 29 $22,000 swimming Pool 1 $22,538 0 $0 1 $20,000 1 $22,538 1 $20,000 2 $30,038 Sign Permits 2 $10,200 5 $16,053 4 $8,400 7 $26,253 9 $35,800 25 $131,998 Fences 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $2,500 Reroofing 18 $171,860 11 $106,209 13 $81,945 29 $278,069 26 $234,945 176 $1,875,773 Repairs 0 $u 3 $12,800 2 $13,000 3 $12,800 5 $33,800 21 $141,895 Window Repl 2 $19,130 4 $38,999 4 $7,741 6 $58,129 8 $21,246 26 $232,659 Miscellaneous 9 $141,415 15 $223,494 5 $51,450 24 $364,909 13 $123,250 47 $686,387 TOTALS...... 61 $2,091,696 75 $4,749,855 64 $1,420,538 136 $6,841,751 140 $4,503,841 587 $26,981,616 3/01/01 8:45:20 ROBERT I. REISFELD. JR. M.D. 724 LEXINGTON WAY BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010 In February 20, 2001 Mrs. Rosalie Mahoney City Council Member ^r r' P101 Burlingame City Council Nr'41A17 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mrs. Mahoney, I am writing to you regarding the proposed Tee ,i Center in Burlingame. My wife, daughters (12 and 15) and I live in Burlingables on Lexington Way. We have lived on Lexington Way for almost sixteen years. My wife attended the meeting of the Burlingame, Park and Recreation Department held at the Rec Center on Thursday, February 15th. I urge you and your fellow City Council members to do further careful study about this proposed Teen Center. Based on the information from my wife and 1:rom other neighbors, it seems that the Teen Center is an idea that is not substantiated. It's hard to understand the genesis of such an idea, the plans for programming, the staffing, and the cost to run the proposed Teen Center. What sort of programming already goes on at the current Rec Center? What sort of activities are already available through BHS or through BIS? Why should our tax dollars support a building that you cannot even outline the need for? How can our City Council justify the expense of construction, running a program, staffing a facility AND justify the destruction of the peace and greenery of Washington Park and increased traffic around Washington Park, the neighborhood and Burlingame Avenue? If our Parks and Rec Department or our City Council has such important plans that involve a decision as large as this proposed Tee'i Center, I strongly suggest you offer proper notification. My wife and I found out only two days prior to this important meeting and I understand that two other meeting hac taken place prior to the meeting on February 15th. Will this matter come before City Council? Will you notify ALL Burlingame residents? I feel strongly that ALL of Burlingame should have a say so in a decision to permanently alter the character of our Washington Park and our neighborhood. I am OPPOSED TO THE TEEN CENTER and the destruction of a quaint park and quiet neighborhood to allow such a massive building. I know our City Council is a representative government, and I urge you and the cther council members to carefully consider this decision. Please be certain that the potential benefits of this building are at least as great as the clear costs to the community should you decide to proceed. Thank you for your careful consideration. Sincerely, Dear Mayor Galligan, I am writing to you regarding the proposed Teen Center in Burlingame. I have lived in Burlingame for almost sixteen years. I am also the parent of two girls, age 15 and age 12. My husband, daughters and I live in Burlingables on Lexington Way. I attended the meeting of the Burlingame Park and Recreation Department held at the Rec Center on Thursday, February 15th. I went to the meeting w th an open mind as a parent of teenagers and as a neighbor of Washington Park concernec about the impact such a building might have on our city, park and neighborhood. I listened carefully to the presentations made by the Commission and by the professionals involved. I listened even more carefully to the remarks by fellow Burlingame citizens. I urge you and your fellow City Council members to do further careful study about this proposed Teen Center. There was no information given about studies for the use of such a building, information on programming, need, staffing. There was no information given about current programs at the Rec Center or on the campus of BHS or BIS). The Teen Center idea was presented as a "done deal" and "where do you all want to build it?". A decision as large as this should be the will of the people, whose tax dollars are involved. A decision as large as this should show a clear need -- programs, staffing, marketing, needs analysis, cost to run, etc., etc. I also want to express my disappointment that ALL of Burlingame was not notified about this meeting on Thursday, February 15th. Washington Park is important to everyone in Burlingame -- be they homeowners in Burlingables or homeowners on the West Side or be they renters. Why weren't we notified about the other two meetings? Why weren't we given plenty of advance notice about this meeting? Why didn't the west side residents get rotified? If our Parks and Rec Department or our City Council has such important plans th<<t involve a decision as large as this proposed Teen Center, I strongly suggest you offer proper notification. In closing, let me give you my opinion. I attended this meeting with an open mind. I left the meeting OPPOSED TO THE TEEN CENTER until you can justify the need, the use, and the destruction of a quaint park and quiet neighborhood to allow such a massive building. If our City Council is a representative government, then you and the other council members will have gotten the message loud and clear -- we aren't ready to destroy Washington Park for an ill conceived Teen Center. Thank you. Sincerely, 100 February 20, 2001 _f 4.' Mayor Joseph Galligan Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Galligan, I am writing to you regarding the proposed Teen Center in Burlingame. I have lived in Burlingame for almost sixteen years. I am also the parent of two girls, age 15 and age 12. My husband, daughters and I live in Burlingables on Lexington Way. I attended the meeting of the Burlingame Park and Recreation Department held at the Rec Center on Thursday, February 15th. I went to the meeting w th an open mind as a parent of teenagers and as a neighbor of Washington Park concernec about the impact such a building might have on our city, park and neighborhood. I listened carefully to the presentations made by the Commission and by the professionals involved. I listened even more carefully to the remarks by fellow Burlingame citizens. I urge you and your fellow City Council members to do further careful study about this proposed Teen Center. There was no information given about studies for the use of such a building, information on programming, need, staffing. There was no information given about current programs at the Rec Center or on the campus of BHS or BIS). The Teen Center idea was presented as a "done deal" and "where do you all want to build it?". A decision as large as this should be the will of the people, whose tax dollars are involved. A decision as large as this should show a clear need -- programs, staffing, marketing, needs analysis, cost to run, etc., etc. I also want to express my disappointment that ALL of Burlingame was not notified about this meeting on Thursday, February 15th. Washington Park is important to everyone in Burlingame -- be they homeowners in Burlingables or homeowners on the West Side or be they renters. Why weren't we notified about the other two meetings? Why weren't we given plenty of advance notice about this meeting? Why didn't the west side residents get rotified? If our Parks and Rec Department or our City Council has such important plans th<<t involve a decision as large as this proposed Teen Center, I strongly suggest you offer proper notification. In closing, let me give you my opinion. I attended this meeting with an open mind. I left the meeting OPPOSED TO THE TEEN CENTER until you can justify the need, the use, and the destruction of a quaint park and quiet neighborhood to allow such a massive building. If our City Council is a representative government, then you and the other council members will have gotten the message loud and clear -- we aren't ready to destroy Washington Park for an ill conceived Teen Center. Thank you. Sincerely, 801 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 February 2, 2001 Councilperson Rosalie Mahoney 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Rosalie Mahoney: if' Ot JOU �INGQF We strongly oppose the proposed location of a new Teen Center in Washington Park. We believe, as do our neighbors, that Washington Park is one of the most valuable areas — if not the most valuable area —of open space, greenery and solitude in Burlingame. Adding the Teen Center to Washington Park will forever spoil this precious value and its appeal to all the citizens of Burlingame. In addition, the impact of noise and traffic will significantly, adversely and unfairly impact the residential areas located near the Teen Center. The Recreation Center already brings too much traffic and congestion to what should be expected of a residential area. We have a child and support facilities for teens. But we feel that Washington Park is one of the last places in Burlingame which should be used to house such a facility. We strongly encourage the town to find a more appropriate location. Sincerely, Alex Herrera NanctHe ra 0r CIA k" , SAVE WASHINGTON PARK EDITOR CC CM D1R- A Burlingame resident over 45 years, I have read your paper since Gene Malotte founded it. What a meeting we experienced Thursday night:! Over 200 citizens of Burlingame let it be known loud and clear, Keep our open space in beautiful Washington Park. The citizens don't want one tree removed, they want the childrens playground to stay where it is, they want. the outdoor basketball court to stay and they want to preserve the historic Burlingame Lions Hall. Council person Rosalie O'Mahony was present along with former council members Gloria Barton, Vic Mangini and Bud Harrison. I only wish the rest of the current council could have seen and heard the emotions of the citizens. The Park & Rec. Commission surely received the same message and should be looking elsewhere for teen center sites. The citizens in the audience were upset that no Burlingame city mailers had informed them of the previous two meetings or of this meeting. The excellent attendance was only because of a group of concerned citizens sent mailers to Burlingable residents, whose houses bordered Washington Park. Citizens were also concerned that no traffic study had been done for the increase of traffic on Burlingame Avenue. On an aLverage evening, the present traffic around the Burlingame Rec. Center is difficult. We have enough monster houses in Burlingame, we do not need a monster teen center in our beautiful Washington Park! The next meeting is March 8th at 7:00 p.m. Let us all be there. 'neprely, Jb n Benson 1401 Paloma Avenue Burlingame, Ca. 94010 650-342-5481 r. r RECEIVED i FEB 21 zoos CITY CLERK'S OFRCF �ITY OF R1 [?I.VGWE If you don't want to lose the tranquility and open space of Washington park then please read this. February 8, 2001 ' V ED Dear Burlingame Neighbors, FEB h; Washington Park is at high risk of losing its open space and tranquil nature! j7v r� k,st The Burlingame Park and Recreation Department at the direction the Burlingame --1T' r -)--4t City Council has been asked to find a location in Burlingame for a 25,000 plus square foot building to house a TEEN CENTER. Washington Park is the most recommend location by the study group. Two of three public meetings regarding this site have already taken place and the last meeting beore going before City Council with its recommendations is being held on THURSDAY FEBURARY 15th, 2001 at 7:00 PM at the recreation center. Your attendance is pzTamount in order to show opposition and assist with alternative proposals. What is in the plan? 1. Build a 25,000 plus square foot building between the Lions club and the current community center. Effect: A massive structure interfering with the current playground for children and their parents, less green space, more traffic congestion, substantial increase in use of park deterring the current activities of the people using the park such as strollers, birdwatchers, parents with children, do€; walking, picnicking, book reading, Frisbee throwing, studying, sunbathing, meditating and on. It will turn out to be a predominant teen hangout, chasing others from the park 2. Raise or move the current tennis courts and put a underground parking structure in this space. Effect: parking building anchoring the park, more concrete, less green space, and increased traffic congestion. Unsafe parking conditions for any persons due to the nature of underground parking (especially at night.) 3. Remove the Lions Club Building in order to increase parking, or make room for the moving of the tennis courts. Effect: more concrete, less green space, loss of zmother historical building that serves the community, 4. Devaluation of surrounding property. One of the values of living on this side of the tracks is Washington Park. Turning the balanix of the park into a Teen and Recreation center and adding a parking structure will deter fixture home owners from purchasing homes on this side of Burlingame. Property values on this side of Burlingame will be adversely affected. The charm and the quaintness will be lost forever. Sam and Gloria Malouf 712 Vernon Way Burlingame, CA 94010 650.342.9234 Home 650.647.2191 Work sam@maloufs.com 5.Alternate proposals: 1.Use the funds to assist local schools buildings to be used after school hours. 2. Locate the teen center in another location even thought it may not have all that Washington Park location offers. It is not about the teen centers needs but the park and its users needs that should have priority. 3.If Washington Park, then look at the entire park and arrange in a way that adds substantial green space and require that all buildings built be located toward the rear of the train station away from the park. Do not allow any parking structures to be built on the park property. 4. Require that the current community center be torn down and rebuilt so that it is more conducive to the surrounding neighborhoods ,-,haracter. Move the location closer to the train station and relocate the tennis courts end play ground to this space. 5.17ind another location for the Parks maintenance department and turn the parking lot and the building area back to green space. 6. Your ideas? Bring them to the meeting WHAT CAN YOU DO? 1. Attend the meeting on Feb 15`h Thursday at 7:00 pm at the Recreation Center. 2. Write or call your City councilpersons: Mayor Joseph Galligan, Vice Mayor Mike Spinnelli, Councilpersons: Rosalie Mahoney, Mary Janney, Mike Coffey 501 Primrose Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Sign the petition by the Washington Park Society. 4. SPEAK UP!!!!!! It is your park. 5. DON'T OPPOSE THE TEEN CENTER; OPPOSE ITS LOCATION TO WASHINGTON PARK. You are welcome to email your responses to sam (maloufs.com I will read them at the meeting with your written permission or voice your concerns as a whole. Sam and Gloria Malouf 712 Vernon Way Burlingame, CA 94010 cc CLW=Musso, Ann From: Sam Malouf [sam@maloufs.com] (1� Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 4:15 AM D/ To: COUNCIL-Galligan, Joe Subject: Washington Park Joe, I appreciate your call back and listening to my and in turn others concerns regarding the location of the Teen center now turned Community/Teen Center project. There is a definite concern that the public was not given adequate notice and there appears that their.was an purposeful negligence in notifying the public. Regardless of the truth, was is perceived has more relevance. What may have seem to be adequate notice on the committee's part was not. I did not receive a notice. In addition the notice that was sent merely said, Recreational Facility Workshop" with no mention of the project its stage in the game, the intent. This is and was VERY misleading. They should be ashamed of themselves. I know the city has spent a lot of money getting to th:_s point. Money and time spent does not necessarily mean that the project has to be implemented, There are many unanswered questions and concerns on the publics part. Most feel that this is just the beginning. They have just become aware. I urge you to reconsider and take a very close look at the impact the project is going to have on the Park. For no other reason than an environmental impact on the park as well as the increase traffic and congestion from additional use. The park in itself needs work and more needs to be taken out. In addition the current center is poorly designed in how it fits into the neighborhood. Joe, Less is more. It couldn't apply any better here. You know I am a fan of progress and building toward the future. But there has to be a balance. We are a small city much like a village, and we have to maintain this feel. It is much harder in art and in progress to say no , stop here, this is enough. It is much like creating a painting it is always easier to add more. The most difficult decision is when to stop. I will be happy to hear your comments , concerns and rE�asons you feel 1 it i` necessary. Regards, Sam FLLMAN BuRKE HOFFMAN & JOHNSON ONE ECKER, SUITE 200 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 February 20, 2001 Mayor Joseph Galligan CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposed Development of Washington Park Dear Mayor Galligan: N CIA 01Z_ TELEPHONE: (415) 777-2727 FACSIMILE: (415) 495-7587 RE C E 1, VE[) FEB 2 ! 20tV I have been a resident of Burlingame since the early 1960s. I now live at 728 Concord Way, right behind the existing recreation center at Washington Park. I have attended two of the three public meetings held by the Park and Recreation Committee on the proposal to build a 25,000 square foot teen/community center in Washington Park. I am opposed to any further construction in the Park. Washington Park is virtually the only open -space park in Burlingame. With the exception of the small Heritage Park located on Ralston, all other Burlingame parks are purpose built facilities for sports activities: soccer/football playing fields, baseball diamonds, basketball courts and playgrounds for small children. While the majority of Washington Park's area is also dedicated to sports activities, we have managed to preserve some open space where residents and visitors can enjoy the simple pleasures of a beautiful surrounding. In those areas people are free to picnic, read, sunbathe, stroll, walk their dogs, talk with their neighbors. In our hectic times, it is essential to protect this kind of natural setting to relieve the stresses of modern life. These open spaces also provide an area where Burlingame residents can get together with their neighbors for such community activities as Art in the Park and the wonderful music concerts during the month of July. These open spaces also contain the remains of'the Gunst arboretum, an horticul- tural treasure which needs to be cultivated and renewed, rather than paved over for new construction in the Park. The current proposal contemplates a scale of development similar to that of a Costco or Home Depot facility in the heart of the Park. It would block visual access to the Park from Burlingame Avenue and effectively divide the park's open spaces into two islands, one fronting on Carolan, and the other concealed behind a curtain of buildings on Burlingame Avenue. Mayor Joseph Galligan February 20, 2001 Page 2 That proposal is oblivious to the traffic problems it would generate on Burlingame Avenue between Bloomfield and Carolan (an already dangerously narrow street where both adults and children dart out from between parked cars), and the volume of traffic it would add to the already congested and dangerous railroad crossings. I understand that the proposed "solution" for these problems is a turnout and two-story underground garage to be built under the existing tennis courts. This solution does nothing to deal with increased traffic and it potentially creates a haven for illicit conduct and a magnet for the homeless to set up housekeeping in the park.. Several years ago during the warmer months of the year there were a number of people sleeping in flee bushes in the park. It was necessary to "branch -up" all of the planting areas in the park to eliminate that condition. The construction of underground parking will open the door both to the homeless looking for shelter and to dangerous criminal activity such as drug dealing, car thefts, muggings, etc. I do not oppose the construction of a teen/community center with tax funds. I believe that our community should provide additional amenities which are properly sited and scaled to meet the perceived needs of the community. After attending two public meetings on the current proposal, however, I am left with the clear impression that it reflects nothing more than a "wish -list" which has not been subjected to any cost/benefit analysis. Although the proposal is wrapped in the "Let's do it for the kids" banner, it is apparent that the size and complexity of the proposed center has much less to do with t:he actual needs and wishes of the kids, than with the grandiose plans of the Recreation Department staff. This wish list approach is justified by the statement that effective utilization of the facility requires that it serve all conceivable needs, including wedding receptions, banquets, meetings and conferences. These functions can already be served by the existing Rec Center and the Lions' Club building, however, and do not justify the scale of the proposed development: Given the size of the proposed facility, it should be sited in a commercial area. One prime alternate site is the parking lot on Park Road which housed the temporary library while the new library was under construction. That site is accessible from both Lorton and Park, reducing the traffic congestion caused by the operation of the new facility. The existing parking can be replaced and expanded by the proposed underground parking structure. Due to its closer proximity to commercial activities on Howard and Burlingame Avenue, increased commercial traffic and police surveillance could reduce the likelihood of homeless encampments or criminal activity in that structure, although it would not eliminate those risks. The foregoing ideas, as well as the arguments in favor of the proposed development deserve full and fair hearing. Unfortunately, The Recreation Department and the Committee made no effort to inform the public, including re{3idents in the Washington Park area, of the several "public" meetings which the Committee held on this proposal. Consequently, the Mayor Joseph Galligan February 20, 2001 Page 3 only people who attended those meetings were those who received informal notice from their neighbors. That kind of notice does not pass due process requirements for a project of this size_ The public statements made at the February 15, 2001 meeting were virtually unanimous in their opposition to the proposal. Even the several teens who spoke in favor of a teen center expressed the view that what they wanted or needed was much smaller than the present proposal. I understand that the public response has been, dismissed as the "NIMBY" reaction of the surrounding neighborhoods. I believe that conclusion to be incorrect. The only way to test who is right is to conduct a series of meetings after making a good faith effort to notify the residents of Burlingame of the scope and purpose of the proposal. The Council will then be in a position to determine whether the voters are willing to sacrifice a large part of the remaining open space in Washington Park. Once the character of Washington Park is altered, it cannot be restored. The trees cut down to make room for the project would take 50 to 100 years to replace. The Council's decision on this proposal will outlive all of us. It deserves serious deliberation rather than the rush to approve the project before residents are informed and. can make their views known to the Council. I respectfully urge the Council to take the time necessary to make the correct decision on this issue which is critical to the quality of life in our community. Very truly yours, omas Paine TP/hs cc: Vice Mayor Mike Spinnelli Councilperson Rosalie Mahoney Councilperson Mary Janney Councilperson Mike Coffey CLK-Musso, Ann CC From: robefto guerciolini [clarasensi@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 4:39 PM To: COUNCIL-Galligan, Joe Subject: washington park Dear Mayor Galligan: please consider this not.e as letter of protest against the plan of transforming Washington Park in a urban development. This way, the City of Burlingame will loose one of the few recreation areas dedicated to young children. Such a loss will affect also contiguous community as mine in Hillsborough. Thanks you in advance for the consideration you will be willing to give to the content of this letter. Best regards, Roberto Guerciolini, MD. - 380 Robinwood Lane Hillsborough, CA 94010 Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ 1 Bruce and Cindy Kaldor 704 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 February 24, 2001 Mayor Joseph Galligan Dear Major Galligan: ICr�'! FEB 2 8 2001 15 We are writing to express our strong opposition to the construction of a Teen/Community Center in Washington Park. At a neeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission on February 15, 2001, we learned for the first time that the commission has been planning a large building project including parking for up to 200 cars in the park. While we arE., not opposed to the concept of a Teen/Community center in Burlingame, we believe Washington Park is the wrong location. Traffic Those of us who live on Burlingame Avenue near the Recreation Center already suffer under the press of heavy traffic. Has the City conducted a traffic flow study to determine the current traffic pattern on Burlingame Avenue and the impact this Center would have on local residents? We already experience gridlock and neighborhood parking problems on evenings when there are social functions at the Recreation Center or the Lions Club. Preserve Washington Park Washington Park is a very special place that is cherished by Burlingame residents. Destruction of a historical building, removal of ancient trees and the erection of a parking structure in the park are antithetical to the preservation of Burlingame's heritage. In 1990 the City announced the demolition of our historic 1931 library building. After citizens expressed their sadness, the library's unique character was maintained. I am hopeful that the Cil -.y leaders will have the same vision for Burlingame, the "City of Trees", and keep Washington Park the wonderful place it is for young and old. Thank you for you consideration. Sincerely, Bruce T. Kaldor, M.D. Cind . Kaldor CM0 BORDEGARAY 1236 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Feb. 28, 2001 Mayor Joseph Galligan RECEIVED City of Burlingame City Hall FEB 2 8 2001 501 Primrose Road CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF Qt)RLINGAME Subject: PROPOSED Teen/Community Center Dear Mayor: I have been a resident of Burlingame for 30 years and therefore have a vested interest in the quality of life in our community. The purpose of this letter is to voice my strong opposition to the development of the teen/community center project which was proposed at the meeting on Feb. 15, 2001. It is unfortunate that the City of Burlingame has proceeded as far as it has on this project without having notified the tax -paying Burlingame residents of its intention to undertake such a significant project. My concerns are: 1. TRAFFIC ON BURLINGAME AVE. - The traffic on Burlingame Ave., east of Carolan, is already hazardous. The cars and trucks travel at Excessive speeds and there has has been no serious effort on the City's part to provide Police monitoring/ticketing or traffic control devices such as speed bumps. The proposed project would generate additional traffic on this street which would worsen an already dangerous traffic situation. WHAT PROVISIONS HAVE YOU MADE OR WILL YOU MAKE TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF BURLINGAME AVE. ? 2. COMMUNICATIONS - The City of Burlingame made no attempt to advise the residents of its intention to pursue such a project. Most residents in attendance at the Feb. 15 meeting found out about the meeting by "word-of-mouth" from other concerned residents. As a public body, supported by the tax -paying residents, it is the City's obligation to inform its entire communii.y (both east and west of the EI Camino Real) of projects that affect the use of land and the use of tax money. HOW DO YOU INTEND TO KEEP THE BURLINGAME RESIDENTS INFORMED OF THE ACTIONS BEING TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THIS PROJECT AND OF THE NUMEROUS MEETINGS WHICH TAKE PLACE REGARDING THE NEED AND 'VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT ? SINCE THIS PROJECT IS SO CONTROVERSIAL, AND SINCE IT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE RESIDENTS AROUND IT, WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO DEVELOP AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) AND OBTAIN COMMUNITY INPUT ? vo kja 0111PAS varlsEgAN lt'i�ila'J c2ao"Tots . lcqjcwe i0yal 1SIC M 09,1% toy v' A-9 ki Ejj&j We lay OE of to `�anqluo or' MY -V; -i9)tlqz);MLIM9W, �O tiLl"111W MiJ101 e''Cjl "z "ll ei" r"o4nalili A -r oc.: all to Ass ovA no 0*fll'�I!�)M-f - �,L' t' 0. "";'16 ; ,7 aqe !6 9"'I'T ed! nc rob, nucal: & r9rd swil 90 mud tOST c a ft -i2 As f. OVV 't-lur�iviv rioirfw' �'?13 N' W� n vi -E Now rka& ylfivu'71-00: tons no lmoh� -Sl fc. e -j o`S ("'wil < c3 { MaRs Isis arls 'Sp, 0 t.715136i As&- 115TY C*T fv `1-4 UOY 'ji-i 141 IARAI 10-�P;, i.SVIC)FfOi� '],;- i �' -'O 0-3)kff�sn It"! -0) YRAWN 3H-�' r-;AGf-iidD3Fi 2"N' QW&A PTV`:}rTP33i-�, Y-,-?VlTA%A OT VATW7 %ATC-+f!Vo] VIA VA -M JATOR z 1121TH .i .,-rx) 01% (FIQ 7 7510- Page 2 3. DESIGN - It appears that what started out to be a simple teen center has evolved into a multi -functional complex that would be designed to include a basketball court, wedding and reception facilities, multi-level public parking structure, etc., etc., etc. Perhaps your design consultant has lost sight of the community's needs and is being allowed to develop a shrine in its own honor. It is time to pull in the reins and reevaluate the needs of the community. WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO DEVELOP A NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT WHICH CAN BE REVIEWED AND COMMENTED ON BY THE BURLINGAME TAX PAYERS ? 4. RESIDENTIAL NUISANCE - The proposed complex may contribute significantly to an already existing nuisance for the residents who live close to the project area. Many residents close to Washington Park voiced emotional concerns over the nuisance element which already exists adjacent to the Park. Your proposal would certainly worsen this problem and could also create a hostile division of use where parents of very young children would have to stop bringing their young ones around for fear of being influenced by delinquent teens. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PLAN TO ELIMINATE SUCH ELEMENTS AS ALCOHOL, DRUGS, VANDALISM, TOBACCO, ETC. ? SINCE SOME OF THESE ELEMENTS ALREADY EXIST IN WASHINGTON PARK, WHAT SUPERVISION AND/OR POLICING DO YOU PLAN ON ENACTING ? 5. FUNDING - The proposed project would require sizable funding. If all or some of this funding would be coming from property taxes, it would be politically prudent to obtain input from Burlingame tax payers as to the priority upon which they would like to see their tax dollars being spent by their elected officials. HOW DO YOU PLAN ON OBTAINING TAX PAYER CONCURRENCE WITH YOUR INTENT TO FUND THE PROPOSED PROJECT ? SINCE THE SIDEWALKS OF BURLINGAME ARE IN SUCH DISREPAIR, PERHAPS THE BURLINGAME TAX PAYERS SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRIORITIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF THEIR TAX DOLLARS. DO YOU PLAN ON GIVING THEM SUCH A CHOICE ? I think the idea of having a Teen Center is a good one. But, I also think that such a facility should be sized to meet the needs of a teen center and should be located in an area that does not negatively impact its surrounding neighbors. Part of your design consultant's duties should include a more in-depth study of alternative sites which are more land use compatible with the use of a Teen Center. S9 fq :i. u:".1._. ,.' r.,. -� tikaiYllc fd LJ :U.. byil&ic JStlw Jr,rltJ itas,p!2917 sd b100`v 1isf11 X,910 l" is UV '"1}i�5�(ila� SIS i9 3;9 911l4,;i_:'SE i.+1: `i9c AU 1EM)l`11tu1n ,o i 1;!:'Jf,l fl: •:; „91 btlf' O.t A/aJVYrI+:� (?19tj F.? GnE 3U:a9('! i •r r 8f=1 to Jfi;"<a J201 as 1n6:;U .v +oi? 2b0er wig: + 1`1P7 c'n, 2n19 7 nl Au" , . 317111 3+ `' .IONXI nm) 81' f` inn. ' 6 g0rta et y'N i .'1!ilti, :"1110 . r t " i 1;,. c moi!; pi:133N A qC)J2-V =''1 C (fir . !)`r' ()J v?3kSb'v 8fL1 JVil�N 8 3i i'" 8 V?O C;_ i 'JJ UV :J3'A V2H 38 VSA" H:iiHW ^�3YP.q Y �T OJ k t(t;'111f( :"t ;4di:J O " 91 ^•" :)92 4l i 9fiT 7.)I ..:r Vi 41 i/i J71 Vrf'F�ra^ i a1S �Oe 1-`."t� 6nt O1 `32G:. J 9Y/�; 4f IYV :;1n5pf1r:�1 ,?snt+E:I, )(! �WIIJ21Xc Jou-.' -il6 nS Ir.10110fne b9: Gk' 6'; told ;fi261'j 0: 5i"-�1;; 3n9Gt291 Ylf ;F: 7W 4iaucjolci J f tiE? " ` C "''3Dzpf 1F:ixe Y(C%z"3,+Fi lidY "tiP ;915 19' ✓'! 3" �� t0 `UI: JL �{:;7[ ei E),k 111> 0 3nS ME,;,J01q t0 10t bn4G',z; :91Y0 of u01( "9"1; pnlpnnci q.,m2 07 a) tf,.fl % jow {;-?v amit31 Jr191'ii;: ii!gr t%;d if gm9f.1 N,iJ? T, iAJc- '-IUUti' Ak V; ' .M21 JAGAAl .8 ? . JQ OO A AOT ✓;!t-�?f;`;V .',s l -.y= r 3}iu iii? '3 3r Js -{T 0 - ?� -1 1C viAJ'1 I,:r) f r;,U4 ,. C,; Al'iC✓,A 10i31'JI .7IUB TAI11,N .AHA9 00:7 DA03 h 'Al in srrx.e Y0 HE, if �niial :' ai0 s:a �,wps %„ , , �,q ��s' a• a ... - Vtl( Vti r� .� ni6ldrJ 0) JnH .,rc, i'� '1'IOq 1 i±>yJ':V 1s 29X61 ++ ' i;C i^.01T OnttriC:j yC biti,ovv gn ,3ni,t OP8 O1 G*! U1 J"i J VJ" xcl 9:1-1" Oi ?e 21®`(iC Kbi 9"KlbQn111U8 fil ,fl lifLjnl . ci,b9?09ie 1iet11 Vd 1osg2 pnfed m lob x> ' 1i9r11 3Ji11 rUaL'1i �,9?Y � `.Al�iVll%iI" TEC VO NA__'_ I " '41 t<--ici J4r, MP r'U iUc -iC 2,i_lAW3&E 3H — 018 2A3Y.Z.a, ',AT=ar^; J'MIJRIJ8 31-4T 2gAHfi3"i 3AUT!C7V=_'`=iX3 3Hl 31' f '�,01PI M YT!VIUTR`(;_ ' 3,010, :) A ,i7U2 i�!; iT uVtiVic 7C ;lf+J`? UC', i)u cH� 'jJQ :',:, 1 :U8 oil „ „0% u 2i :409. ^9i:' tsm .ap its rii %o, to 1I is i .cf iw ;, 7 "fi ::,r_ . r rlgV"15 9(1. ton 3 B ,19fir 91f f{ )i!SV. ,,=91i2 '.VII&r ;" '^'dbu: flq:sn t;: bluff :C iJIJ l rJlt 0'.c: 2G::i;' +91[t0"D n99T S a : eu 9fiJ ii11W Page 3 Since I will be unable to attend the next meeting on the proposed development (Mar. 8, 2001), please accept this letter as my comments on the issue and provide me with a response to the issues outlined above. Respectfully, (347-0685) oc: Vice Mayor Michael Spinelli Council Member Rosalie O'Mahony Council Member Mary Janney Council Member Michael Coffey B sh.'.'• fnemgoleveb bszogoiq erlf no Undeom ixen er11 bnsM of eldsnL od Iliv, soni2 s rlfiw srf eoivoiq bns sueei enl no zteemmoo ym 2s ieffel eirlf fgeooe erselc ("^os .evoos benilfuo zeuza exit of eznogzei yllubolugasR (8820 -CAE) illenig2 IesrioiM ioysM eoiV :jo ynodsM'O eilszoR isdmeM !ionuoO yennsL ynsM isdmeM IionuoO yettoO issfioiM. iedm9M IioriuoO Page 1 of 1 CLK-Musso, Ann From: Tommy Hawkins [thawkins@marketfirst.com] m Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:22 PM To: 'amusso@burlingame.org' Subject: Adeline/Cortez Stop sign Dear City Council Members, This letter outlines the position and observations of myself and my wife with regard to the consideration of a new stop sign at the corner of Adeline and Cortez. We have been nearby residents of this location for the past 10 years. While we understand the motivations of those who might propose an additional stop sign, the safety of students being picked up or dropped off at Lincoln School, let us start by saying that we feel a stop sign at this location is completely and wholly unnecessary for the following reasons: 1) Stop signs already exist at two adjacent Adeline intersections (Cabrillo and Balboa) which provide the exact same access to the school. Those desiring to cross at a stop sign have an extremely short walk, less than 1/10 of a mile in either direction. 2) Enforcement and obedience of the law at the existing stop signs would go farther toward improving safety than additional stop signs. Our observation is that drivers rarely come to a complete stop at the current stop signs at Cabrillo and Balboa and are thus unlikely to change this behavior at a third. It is our opinion and impression that one of the larger groups of violators in this regard are parents running late to drop their children off over at the school. Increased enforcement and education of drivers would be a better alternative and have greater impact than an additional stop sign. 3) A new stop sign at this intersection would be inconsistent with other areas of similar or greater traffic flow. In fact, during school drop off and pickup hours, the traffic flow at the most used drop off and pickup point for students, that being directly in front of Lincoln School at the painted crosswalk, has no stop sign. Additionally, the nearby intersection at the corner of Devereaux and Balboa has no stop sign. This intersection is not only closer to the school than the Adeline/Cortez intersection but again is also busier during school pick up and drop off hours. Similarly, where Cortez crosses Hillside, one long block away and far busier than any of the streets mentioned here so far there is no stop sign. Likely, because the traffic light at Hillside and Cabrillo offers an acceptable compromise between traffic and pedestrian flow. In conclusion, please note again that we are sensitive to the safety issues that have brought this matter to the council's attention and as such would propose that a reasonable alternative addressing those needs while maintaining a fair and reasonable coexistence between traffic and pedestrian flow does exist. That alternative would be to paint a standard "school crossing" yellow crosswalk at this intersection where one does not exist today. This would inform drivers that they need to take additional care and caution in proceeding through this intersection, We feel this is the most fair solution for all interests concerned. We thank you for your time on this matter. Unfortunately, we are unable to directly attend the council meeting of 2/20, however, we hope our written input is heard and should you have any questions concerning our comments or opinions we would be happy to discuss them directly with you at either 650-340-8084 or 650-691-6102. Sincerely, Tommy and Nancy Hawkins 1465 Cabrillo Ave Burlingame, Ca 94010 2/20/01 Feb 21 01 01:40p TurneraMulcare 6505731150 p.l February 21, 2001 Burlingame City Council Burlingame City Hall 500 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposed Closure of Cortez Entrance/Exit of Ray Park Dear Council: RECEIVED FEB 21 2001 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME I am a senior citizen and do not drive. I have been using the Cortez entrance to Ray Park for many, many years. Closure would cause me hardship, Please leave it as it is. Thank you. , Florence Ribero 1141 Cortez Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 February 20, 2001 Burlingame City Council City Hall: 501 Primrose Burlingame RE: Crosswalk & Stop Sign at Cortez & Adeline Parents living on Cortez with small children are understandably concerned about the safe crossing of their children at the corner of Cortez & Adeline to and from school and other activities. Because we have raised two young children living here, we are very aware of the danger which lurks at that corner with cars making fast turns from all directions. Since we are aware that so many children cross this corner, we proceed very cautiously when turning at this corner. We are sure that all Cortez neighbors share this concern and exercise the same caution. However, many drivers turning at this corner are not Corlez residents and do not share this view. We have seen people who turn so fast at this corner that even inside your car, you would not feel safe, let alone, you being a pedestrian. We fully support the option of installing stop signs and painting the cross walks to better ensure the safety of our neighborhood children walking to school daily. In addition, this process would also promote safer driving because Cortez is a very narrow street. When there are cars parked around that area, cars making a turn from Adeline onto Cortez often drive so fast that any cars on Cortez waiting to make a turn into Adeline are at danger of being hit, especially at night when visibility is impaired. Burlingame is a great city to raise our families; lets' make it better by ensuring the safety of our children. Sincerely Kingston Lee Doreen Lee 1425 Cortez Avenue Burlingame 650-348-5438 Dlee _Sanrio.com OE9—d 10/10'd 686-1 SM889099+ OA NVS—MH 1NdOE:V0 10—O1 -93d 2-17-2001 Burlingame, CA. 94010 Burlingame, Planning Commission 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Commissioners: RECElV 77 FEB 21 2P"{ CITY CLERK s -k E CITY OF BURUNIGAN t Since the large home, that was just approved on Castenada, may I please ask the commission to review the lot sizes of back hill Mills Estate lots with your F.A.R. or lot coverage ordinance? With the earth movement problems like in Millbrae and etc, could a buildable area be designated on many of these lots? The lots are large and with your F.A.R., a building the size of a apartment building can be built. Could I please have a response from the commission? Thank you. Sincerely, Ruth E. Jacobs, 2965 Arguello, Burlingame, CA 94010 650 697-7890 Mayor, City of South San Francisco City Hall, 315 Maple Street South San Francisco, CA 94080 Mayor, City of Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Cc C#A February 17, 2001 'D }, `) r., r`, r- _ E �: i '-`B 2 /ooE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY I -T BURL INGAN�,T: Dear Mr. Mayors, I wish to call your attention to the litter on your Bay trails. My wife and I walk the two trails regularly. It is our custom to carry plastic bags and pick up litter on trails to assist in keeping them clean, such as when we walk the Coyote Point trails, or the coastal State Park trails. When we want to be close to home, we like to walk your trails. The trail from Oyster Point South for 1/2 mile around the bay to the light industry has a great deal of litter both on the trail, along the banks of the trail, and very much in the canals. I assume that it is a mess is because the garbage cans are always full for weeks at a time due to their small size and not often picked up, and litter from walkers and people in industry taking lunch breaks. I may be wrong on the cause but I am right about the mess. The trail in Burlingame South from Merriot Hotel is always a mess, especially behind the restaurants, the theater, and south to the connecting trail to Coyote Point. It is so bad that we refuse to walk the trail any more and also refuse to patronize the restaurants in the area where we used to go when the area was clean. In my opinion, it is a disgrace to keep garbage dumps in your back yard. There are things that can be done to clean it and keep it clean. They are: 1 Earth Day Cleanups 2 San Mateo County- pisoners cleanup such as those used often by the State Park system and CALTrans highwati cleanup 3 larger garbage cans (There are none on the Burlingame trail and the ones at Oyster Point are small and not picked up!). Q garbage can pickup on a weeks basis S stens such as "CLEAN WILDLIFE RE4ER N LITTER ON THE TRAIL PLEASE", 6 taxing those business properties which may be closed in Burlingame and do not clean the propeM 7 asking businesses nearby to take on to keep the area clean such as is done on highway 101, and 8. even send out responsibility Your Public Works crew to pick up litter (heavens, must the city crew work too?) The litter is a disgrace to the community, the county, the state, and the USA, especially when we get so many visitors here from other countries who walk the trails. Burlingame and South San Francisco are very negligent in this duty. The garbage mess in Burlingame has been an on going problem now for ten years and South San Francisco is beginning to become just as bad. Do you really want litter in the canals and the trails? Do you care if your back yard is a garbage dump? I am asking you to please give this problem your immediate attention. At a future date, within two months, I shall begin a photographic essay for the local newspapers and you may be sure that you will get the attention then if the problem is not taken care of soon. Please give this your upmost attention as soon as possible. They were beautiful trails when they opened. It is a shame they have been neglected by your cities. Thank you sincerely, Gerald R. Maxwell 877 Hacienda Wp. r e 4df1VQ 151 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TEL:(415) 696-7230 FAX: (415) 342-8386 Mr. Gerald Maxwell 877 Hacienda Way Millbrae CA 94030-1151 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 February 23, 2001 Re: Letter regarding Bayshore Trails maintenance Dear Mr. Maxwell, CORPORATION YARD TEL: (415) 696-7260 FAX: (415)696-1598 CP# 9643 Thank you for your recent letter regarding litter and trash along Burlingame bayshore trails. We have forwarded your complaint to the Parks and Recreation Department (650-558-7300) who maintains the city bayfront trails. Burlingame only has control over the public property portions of the trail such as along Airport Boulevard, at the landfill park, along Sanchez lagoon by the city parks, at Beach Road bridge, and at Bayside Park. Many of the other locations you mentioned are on private property and the city does not provide maintenance for the trial in these areas. As a result, we are sending this information to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) who manages public access and development around San Francisco Bay. They have maintenance permits with each private property owner and a code enforcement system to monitor trail violators. If you would like to discuss this directly with BCDC, I can refer you to Brad McCrea at (415) 557-0149 who knows the trails in Burlingame. The address for BCDC is: Bay Conservation and Development Commission 30 Van Ness Avenue Suite 2011 San Francisco, CA 94102 Email - http://ceres/ca/gov/bcdc For your information, the City sponsors a Bayfront Clean up Day which is typically a Saturday in the fall during Coastal Clean Up Day. The city displays a banner at Broadway and El Camino Real announcing the day and time, if you are interested in participating. Thank you for your interest in our city and please contact any of the above departments if you would like further information. If you have any other questions please feel free to visit the city web page at http://www.burlingame.org. Thank you, George Bagdon Public Works Director c: BCDC, City Council, City Manager, City Clerk, Parks and Recreation Director, Public Works Superintendent U:\Floppy Disks\1-1-01 to 3-31-01 written ProjectsWaxwellComplaint. LET. wpd - jcg KUBOTA & CONSTANTINO NOELL K. KUBOTA ATTORNEYS AT LAW PAUL J. CONSTANTINO 433 AIRPORT BOULEVARD SUITE 323 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 �11VIE D attorneys @ kubota-constantino.com TELEPHONE: (650) 579-7535 �) FAX: (650) 579-7445 ' February 21, 2001 Ic Joseph Galligan, Mayor City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Parking Problem Dear Mayor Galligan: I am taking a minute to write and express a concern. You may recall, I wrote you earlier last year about the need for more off-street parking. In my layman's opinion, things have gotten worse. I believe that the City of Burlingame should reconsider increasing off-street parking density for commercial buildings. It appears that the current code may be inadequate. I can't recall a week going by when a client hasn't remarked to me about the unavailability of parking spaces at this building on Airport Blvd. It isn't right for the amount that we are paying monthly on our commercial lease that clients remark about the unavailability of parking. No one likes parking restrictions/regulations, but something intelligent has to be done to increase the availability of parking at Burlingame's current and future commercial buildings. Accordingly, I hope that the City Council and/or Planning Commission is seriously studying the need for more off-street parking for commercial buildings and will take some immediate action. I believe that this is a quality of life issue. Very truly yours, Paul J. Constantino PJC-jo cc: Burlingame City Council Burlingame Planning Commission pc-perso\galligan.022101 M W 1 C!p Jennifer Cook 610 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 To whom it may concern: (10 RECEIVED FEB 2 � 2001 Oil r I;LERK'S OFFICE CITY OF RIJRI.!NGAME Considering the dog attacks that have been in the news, I was curious what measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the citizens of Burlingame. If you could send me any information I would really appreciate it. Thank You. Jennifer Cook February 18, 2001 Public Works Department 1361 North Carolan Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 To the Manager of Public Works, After two attempts by Rescue Router to clean our main pipeline unsuccessfully, we called the Public Works office to ask for some help. Rescue Router assured us they went the entire distance from our house to the main line and couldn't find anything, but when Jim Brown came to our house this morning he was able to find the problem in 15 minutes and was able to clear it in no time. Every homeowner or home renter should be so lucky to live in Burlingame and have a guy like Jim working for the city. In 2001, you almost expect the city to "pass the buck" to the private sector. This clearly did not happened. If anything, the private sector did the "passing of the buck." Jim provided me with a green comment card to mail in. I've done so, but felt it wasn't enough. I wanted to explain just a few of the things that have transpired over the last 24 hours. •. I calledthe non -emergency police number late Saturday night. Jim called me back in 15 minutes. He let me explain in my laymen's view of the world the problem I was having Then he explained in plain English why that theory did not have any merit. He did this without talking down to me or making me feel stupid.. (Axd perhaps he should of, cause I really didn't have any idea what I was talking about.) • I called the landlord, who called the city. If response time was contest, Jim could probably beat the police and fire department( • Jim found the problem in 15 minutes. Rescue Router took two weeks and $130.00 and couldn't find the problem. • Jim solved the problem. Something Rescue Router couldn't do. • Jim provided some very useful suggestions for how to more permanently address the problem, or at least make it easier to solve the next time. • To top it all off... before he left, Jim cleaned up the mess that was left from the water spilling over the clean out! Jim gave me his business card. On it is the slogan, "Quality Community Service." This is 100% true, if not a little understated. I cannot tell you how extremely grateful I am to Jim and the city for their professionalism. Please keep up the good work. f r� Dee Sincerely, David J. Vonderhaar 330 LEXINGTON WAY • BURMNGAME, CA • 94010 PHONE: 650-344-4724 Dear Mr. Mayor, Thank you for taking the time to read a letter from a constituent! Perhaps you are already aware of the parking congestion, which exists along Rollins Road in the area south of the Cadillac dealership as well as the connecting streets. The Burlingame Police Department has received many complaints and has taken the logical step of increasing parking enforcement in the area. As a resident in the affected area, the parking congestion was not news to my family. The news of the stepped up enforcement, however, came in the form of parking tickets. As a working family, we rely on a second auto as a back up in case the family car won't start before we leave for school and work, and this has been useful on several occasions. We park one car in our driveway and the other car on the street in front of our home. One of the tickets we received was for our car parked in the driveway, which was partially blocking the sidewalk. The other ticket was for parking our car on the street in front of our home between the hours of 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. What seemed unusual about the second ticket was that there were tickets on every car on our street, but there were not tickets any vehicles on the west side of the railroad tracks. The Burlingame Police Department was very helpful in responding to my inquiries regarding the tickets. They were very polite and courteous. I was informed that it is an infraction to have any part of the vehicle over the sidewalk even if the sidewalk cuts across a residential driveway. I was also informed that as one enters the city of Burlingame, there are signs at the city limits warning that it is illegal to park any vehicle on city streets between 2:00 AM and 6:OOPM without the proper permit. Again, I wonder, why there were so few tickets on vehicles parked illegally in other sections of Burlingame? The Burlingame Police Department also offered the helpful suggestion of applying for a permit to park my cars on the street near my house. They said that an officer will come to our home and determine if a permit is warranted. Please pass our thanks to the BPD for their helpful suggestions! cc CM Daniel P. Goldin RECEIVED G� 900 Larkspur Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 FEB 2 b 2001 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF RURLINGAME Joe Galligan — Burlingame Mayor 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 February 23, 2001 Dear Mr. Mayor, Thank you for taking the time to read a letter from a constituent! Perhaps you are already aware of the parking congestion, which exists along Rollins Road in the area south of the Cadillac dealership as well as the connecting streets. The Burlingame Police Department has received many complaints and has taken the logical step of increasing parking enforcement in the area. As a resident in the affected area, the parking congestion was not news to my family. The news of the stepped up enforcement, however, came in the form of parking tickets. As a working family, we rely on a second auto as a back up in case the family car won't start before we leave for school and work, and this has been useful on several occasions. We park one car in our driveway and the other car on the street in front of our home. One of the tickets we received was for our car parked in the driveway, which was partially blocking the sidewalk. The other ticket was for parking our car on the street in front of our home between the hours of 2:00 AM and 6:00 AM. What seemed unusual about the second ticket was that there were tickets on every car on our street, but there were not tickets any vehicles on the west side of the railroad tracks. The Burlingame Police Department was very helpful in responding to my inquiries regarding the tickets. They were very polite and courteous. I was informed that it is an infraction to have any part of the vehicle over the sidewalk even if the sidewalk cuts across a residential driveway. I was also informed that as one enters the city of Burlingame, there are signs at the city limits warning that it is illegal to park any vehicle on city streets between 2:00 AM and 6:OOPM without the proper permit. Again, I wonder, why there were so few tickets on vehicles parked illegally in other sections of Burlingame? The Burlingame Police Department also offered the helpful suggestion of applying for a permit to park my cars on the street near my house. They said that an officer will come to our home and determine if a permit is warranted. Please pass our thanks to the BPD for their helpful suggestions! The checks are in the mail, and we hope not to cause any more problems with our cars. The real purpose of this correspondence is a concern for the welfare of our neighbors. Many of the citizens of the Peninsula remember well the early nineties when real estate values dropped. Mortgages were greater than property values, and with the recession, many families had to struggle to make ends meet. Even in the midst of more recent prosperity, we have seen our wealth affected in one way or another by the gyrations of the values of the many Technology Companies in Silicon Valley. Real Estate property values are a result of nothing more sophisticated than supply and demand. We live in an area blessed with a wonderful climate and natural beauty, which is surrounded on three sides by water and North and South by major cities. Many families desire to live in Burlingame because of the perceived quality of life. If an exodus of families moved to other communities in the Bay Area or other communities in the Southwest States, the demand for the perceived quality of life in Burlingame could plummet. That mass exodus may have begun when the mayor of San Carlos, David Buckmaster, announced that he was leaving the Bay Area because his family couldn't afford a home here. Please warn your constituents not to plan their children's education or their retirement based solely on the equity of homes located in Burlingame. Again, thank you for taking the time to read a letter from your community. Sincerely, P� 9 --- Daniel P. Goldin Burlingame Resident cc: Burlingame Independent Newspaper via Facsimile RECEIVED FEB 2 ti 2001 Sheila A. Myers • 1400 Floribunda Ave. Apt. 109 . Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE er,-�7.1 r R G Office of City Manager Ed Everett February 16, 2001 Mr. Jim Nantell City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Jim: 1017 Middlefield Road Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 780-7301 Fax(650)780-7225 On Thursday, February 8, we learned that due to a dispute between our Internet Service Provider (ISP) and another telecommunications firm we had been disconnected from the Internet. As you might imagine, this posed tremendous problems for our organization, as we were unable to communicate via e-mail with parties outside our organization. Moreover, our Web site and Internet browsing capabilities were also eliminated. The estimated time for us to restore complete service through a new ISP would be seven to ten days and this would have created an almost intolerable situation for us. Fortunately, our staff was able to devise a temporary remedy, which relied upon connecting our network system to Burlingame's network system via an existing high-speed data line. Your staff s willingness to cooperate with our staff and share your systems averted what likely would have been a near disaster for us. I deeply appreciate your staffs willingness to "step outside the box" and allow us to use your system temporarily to help us avoid a very grave situation. Sinc verett /kr r