Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2001.04.02NGAME ©� BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLI REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2001 PAGE 1 OF 2 ❖ Council/Civil Service Commission Joint Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of Marchl9, 2001 5. CEREMONIAL MATTERS a. Recognition of Burlingame High School 4.0 Seniors for 2001 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's Denial of a Parking Variance for Conversion of a Storage Room to a Studio Apartment at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, Zoned, R-4 7. 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. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduction of Commercial Design Review Ordinance b. Proposed Reorganization of Senior and Parks & Recreation Commissions c. Teenage Recreation Facility Needs Committee d. Informational Report on BFI Garbage/Recycling Rates 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION Rescinding Contract Award to Watertight Restoration, Inc. and Awarding Contract to Bamer Construction Company for Cleaning and Repairing Concrete Tanks: Hillside, Mills and Skyview Tanks and RESOLUTION Authorizing Transfer of Funds b. Special Encroachment Permit for a Stone Retaining Wall within the City's Right -of -Way at 1617 Forest View C. RESOLUTION Declaring Weeds and Rubbish a Nuisance and Scheduling a Public Hearing for May 21, 2001 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SUGGESTED ACTION 6:30 p.m., Conf. Room A 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers Approval Presentation Hearing/Action Introduce Discuss/Direct Accept Information Approval BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2001 PAGE 2 OF 2 d. Adopt RESOLUTION Affirming that Persons who Perform Voluntary Service without pay for the City of Burlingame shall be deemed Employees of the City for Purposes of the State Workers Compensation Laws e. RESOLUTION Authorizing Agreement with KPMG LLP for Audit Services f. RESOLUTION in Support of AB 855 to Equalize Salaries of Teachers at State Facilities with those of Public Schools 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, March 26, 2001; Senior, March 15, 2001; Parks & Recreation, March 8, 2001, Traffic, Safety and Parking, March 22, 2001 b. Department Reports: Police, February 2001 c. Appointment of Fourth Design Reviewer; Randy Grange AIA d. Letter from E. Robba regarding Teen Center e. Letter from Mr.& Mrs. Kahn, Helmut Altherp, Dr. & Mrs. R. Kelley, regarding the project at 1825 Castenada f. Letter from John Kelly, Sheter Network, regarding annual financial contribution from the City of Burlingame g. Letter from Mel Lipscomb, 1227 Cortez, regarding power and water shortage h. Letter from Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way, regarding Teen Center Committee i. Letter from James Williams, 118 Bancroft, regarding deaths on railroad tracks 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available 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.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING - April 16, 2001 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA March 19, 2001 The City Council and Beautification Committee met at 6:30 p.m. in Conference Room A. Discussions were on the Broadway/101 freeway entrance, responsibility for trash pick up on Burlingame Ave, Broadway, Airport Blvd. and Bayshore, the trees on California Drive and Commissioner input by phone to the council. 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 ALLEGIENCE TO THE FLAG Led by Dennis O'Brien. 3. ROLL CALL Council Present: Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony, Spinelli Council Absent: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony noted two corrections on page 6, to the names of Louis Nannini and Dave Supanich; Vice Mayor Spinelli noted a correction to New Business on page 5, "the Convention Bureau is not a member"; Mayor Galligan noted a correction on page 4, line three, should read "would like to see recommendation made to the Mayor prior to the regular Council Meeting on March 19, 2001 ". 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive, hoped the City Council would reconsider appointing Jerry Deal to the Planning Commission; addressed some issues of why he might not be reappointed; Mr. Deal has the most experience on the commission; feels his expertise will be invaluable with the large projects expected in the future. Urged the Council to pick a broad scope of individuals with diverse opinions for the teen center committee, and suggested every committee member be a resident of Burlingame. Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands Avenue, stressed the importance of the process regarding the teen center be open to the public; the park belongs to everyone in Burlingame, as well as those outside of Burlingame. Would like those who are not on the committee be allowed to have a voice in the process; would also like a member of the Beautification and Planning Commission appointed to the committee. Burlingame City Council 1 March 19, 2001 Unapproved Minutes 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSULTANT PRESENTATION — BURLINGAME LANDFILL SLOPES AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD BIKE PATH IMPROVEMENT Director of Public Works Bagdon noted staff has been developing plans for the final phase of the landfill improvements. Prior to completing the plans and specifications, would like to get Council's direction on both the scope and budget for the project. The original project included the landscape improvements and bike path along the slope adjacent to Airport Boulevard, at an estimate of $450,000. During the last year, three other areas have been considered for landscape improvements, which total an additional $190,000. These three areas are: Airport Boulevard (Bayside) and Dog Park Entrance Enhancements, Anza Boulevard Golf/Soccer Center Entrance, and the slope facing the DoubleTree hotel. Peter Callander and Ben Woodside from Callander and Associates presented the Council with a slide presentation of the plans and proposed plant material. Council directed staff to budget $700,000 to complete all the work outlined in the staff report. Mayor Galligan presented Council with an award that he accepted on behalf of the City of Burlingame for "First Place Excellence" for the beautification of the former landfill. He noted what an accomplishment this was and thanked the employees and Council from past years for envisioning this recreational facility; the award was a tribute to staff and he was very proud to accept it on behalf of the City. Councilwoman O'Mahony thanked Mr. Callander for his great work on all the projects at the landfill; she also noted many people from the past have helped with this project over the years. b. REQUEST FOR A DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN FOR AN INCREASE IN DENSITY FOR A POTENTIAL HOTEL PROJECT SUBJECT TO THE BAYFRONT/ANZA SPECIFIC AREA PLAN City Planner Monroe noted the Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan is the statement of the city's development policy for the portion of Burlingame east of US 101. This plan established the holding capacity of land in this area based on the traffic carrying capacity of the internal roadway system. The premise of using trip generation to dictate land use was to guarantee both the existing development and new development in the area adequate vehicular access. To implement this access policy, the city developed a traffic model (the Traffic Analyzer) which based the land use densities for future development in the area on the number of evening peak hour trips generated by an acre of land in each use. On the request from 620 Airport, the applicant is asking for direction that was outside the intent of the traffic allocation; also provided some data and determined from data that more information was needed before coming to a conclusion on what that data might explain about densities in the Bayfront. CP Monroe recommended that the applicant be directed to proceed with filing a planning application for March 19, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes their proposed new hotel; when the appropriate reviews needed are determined, they will be completed as expeditiously as possible. Not sure if an EIR or a negative declaration will be required; EIR's in the Bayfront area are focused EIR's; some issues are not a problem such as sewer capacity and available water; noted an EIR was done on this property in the 1980's; a convention center study was done in the early 1990's which identified that there was a demand in the local area for meeting space. Coleman Connelly of the Sheraton Gateway Hotel addressed the Council; he noted there is a substantial amount of business being turned away; approximately six out of 10 requests for convention requests are turned away monthly. Currently there are two convention hotels in Burlingame, the Marriott Hotel and the Hyatt Hotel. The Marriott uses 25% of its space for convention business, 75% transient. The Hyatt does 50% convention, 50% transient. Sheraton feels comfortable with 30,000 square feet, 500 rooms and that groups would utilize that type of space. Noted the new gating on their parking lot is very safe and has alleviated the problem of people parking there and taking the Sheraton's shuttle to the airport. Stated most of the convention business being turned away goes to San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sacramento. Anticipates the hotels will keep parking separated; CP Monroe noted that commonly off site -parking is not considered in an EIR. Mr. Conneelly stated their Architect is ready to draft plans for the new hotel; comfortable working with the City on a traffic mitigation plan to shuttle guests to and from BART. Ann LeClair, President of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitor's Bureau noted they turn away a large amount of convention business, on average four to six large groups per month. Mayor Galligan noted with the addition of BART, the City may have a need to review traffic numbers and that it's possible that a focused EIR will be required; CP Monroe will need to review the plans before those determinations can be made. c. COMMISSIONER TERM EXPIRATIONS (Planning Commission Mayor Galligan noted he asked that this decision be delayed until he could speak with Commissioner's Deal and Boujes; both understand that it is the normal course of business to accept applications when a term is up; would like to set a time frame for when applications can be returned. Vice Mayor Spinelli noted the City will be facing very large projects such as the Specific Area Plan and the Safeway project in the near future. Mr. Deal has been on the Commission for three terms; five out of the seven commissions are in their first term, and as the City moves into a very important piece of development, need somebody with a history of where we've been in the planning process. Without Mr. Deal in that position, we have no one who can come forward and give us a perspective that we need. It's very important that the City have someone who has been through the process to look at the General Area Plans and Specific Area Plans around the BART station and Rollins Road; would hate to lose his historical perspective. In the past, the Planning Commission has relied very heavily on Mr. Deal; he is a very competent building designer, was a part of the FAR process, design review, a number of zoning changes. Councilwoman Janney stated that opening up the process doesn't mean the current commissioners would not be reappointed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to appoint Joe Boujes and Jerry Deal to the Planning Commission; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, motion failed by voice vote of 2-3, Mayor Galligan, Councilman Coffey, and Councilwoman Janney dissenting. Burlingame -City Council 3 March 19, 2001 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Galligan set a deadline for applications for Tuesday, April 17th; the interview team will be Mayor Galligan and Councilman Coffey. Prior to the meeting of May 7th, a recommendation to the Council will be made. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION #27-2001 ACCEPTING BAYSIDE PARK PHASE 1 Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended approval of RESOLUTION #27-2001 accepting Bayside Park, Phase 1 improvements in the amount of $2,045,561.20 by Goodland Landscape Construction, Inc. b. ADOPT RESOLUTION 924-2001 AMENDING RESOLUTION #6-1999 AGREEMENT WITH DEFERRED COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATOR ICMA (INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION) RETIREMENT CORPORATION Director of Finance Becker recommended approval of RESOLUTION #24-2001 authorizing revision to deferred compensation program for employees by adding the option of Vantage Broker. c. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL, FEBRUARY, 2001 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 74746-75252 (excluding library check numbers 75212-75252), duly audited, in the amount of $2,401,832.28, Payroll checks 134608-135450 in the amount of $1,380,903.89, and EFT's in the amount of $343,718.62 for the month of February, 2001. d. TRANSMITTAL OF 1999-2000 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT, AND PROCEDURES AUDIT FOR THE BURLINGAME SWIM CENTER AND BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER Finance Director Becker recommended acceptance of 1999-2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and Procedures Audit for the Burlingame Swim Center and Burlingame Golf Center. e. RESOLUTION 25-2001 AWARDING CONTRACT TO WATERTIGHT RESTORATION FOR CLEANING AND REPARIING WATER TANKS AND RESOLUTION #26-2001 AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended approval of RESOLUTION #25-2001 awarding contract for cleaning and repairing water tanks and RESOLUTION #26-2001 Authorizing a Transfer of Funds. f. APPROVAL OF GOLF CENTER PROMOTIONAL POLICY Director of Parks and Recreation Williams recommended approval of Promotional Event Policy for Burlingame Golf Center. March 19, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes g. APPROVAL OF SCHEMATIC PLANS FOR TRENTON PLAYGROUND Director of Parks and Recreation Williams recommended approval of Schematic Plans for the Rehabilitation of Trenton Park Playground. h. OUT OF TOWN TRAVEL FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONER City Planner requested Council decide if the City should assume part of the cost for a Planning Commissioner to travel out of state for educational purposes, related to the work of the Commission. i. CREATION OF A PERMENANT PART TIME POSITION IN RECREATION DIVISION Director of Parks and Recreation recommended that the Council authorize the creation of one (1) new permanent part time position (75%) assigned to the Recreation Division Aquatic Center Staff, effective May 1, 2001 and funded with existing part time staff budget. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Spinelli attended an Airport Roundtable Meeting. Councilwoman Janney attended the School Liaison Committee meeting, Coffee and Commerce, a Convention and Visitor's Bureau mixer at Crystal Springs, Poplar ReCare's St. Patrick's Dinner, Arbor Day Ceremony at Washington Park, Celebrity Waiter luncheon training for American Heart Association, SamTrans Board of Director's Meeting, a Poplar ReCare/Family Services meeting regarding the child care center at 301 Airport, and the Lion's Club St. Patrick's Day Dinner. Councilwoman O'Mahony attended Hibernian Societies luncheon, opening ceremony for Girl's Softball, Our Lady of Angel's St. Patrick's Day Celebration, met with the Executive Director of C/CAG and Senator Jackie Speir to encourage funding for the auxiliary lane project in Burlingame, groundbreaking for the auxiliary lanes between Hillsdale and Ralston, C/CAG meeting, and the Lion's Club St. Patrick's Day Dinner. Councilman Coffey attended the birth of his granddaughter on March 6 and the Lion's Club St. Patrick's Day Dinner. Mayor Galligan attended Commerce and Coffee, Arbor Day Ceremony at Washington Park, a City School Liaison meeting, an event at Mercy High School, the Convention and Visitor's Bureau mixer at Crystal Springs, Poplar ReCare's St. Patrick's Day Dinner, the opening ceremony for Girl's Softball, Our Lady of Angel's St. Patrick's Day Celebration, read a "State of the City" address to a Realtor's group, attended the Chamber of Commerce Board of Director's meeting, a ribbon cutting at 1461 Burlingame Avenue for Kathy Fox, author of "The Secret Garden", made a presentation for the Marriott for S.W. Colt, which are teachers of foreign languages, and attended the presentation in Sacramento to accept the "First Place Excellence" award for the beautification of the former landfill. All Council Members attended Retired City Manager Dennis Argyres' retirement party. 10. OLD BUSINESS CP Monroe noted she has contacted the airport to set up an Airport Noise Workshop; the Airport is more than happy to provide a workshop; would like direction from Council on where and when they would like to conduct this workshop. Councilman Spinelli suggested the workshop be opened up to include the general public so they can also understand what the issues are and to include San Mateo and Hillsborough. Burlingame City Council 5 March 19, 2001 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Galligan noted that David Barruto of Assemblyman Papan's office, presented him with a note that said a bill has been reintroduced in Sacramento regarding hands free usage of cell phones. 11. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Galligan announced the launch of the new City website to be Thursday, March 22, 2001. Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she did not feel listing the Teenage Recreational Facility Needs Committee under acknowledgements was appropriate. Council discussed the committee members and meetings regarding the teen center. Mayor Galligan requested if any Council members have input on who to appoint to the committee, to please contact him. The item will be brought back at the April 2, 2001 Council meeting. Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she has received complaints about the audio of the Council meetings that is viewed live. Would like to invest the funds to remedy the situation or eliminate viewing the meetings live. 12. ACKNOWLEGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, March 12, 2001; Parks & Recreation, February 15, 2001; Beautification, March 5, 2001; Traffic, Safety and Parking, March 8, 2001 b. Department Reports: Finance, February 28, 2001 C. Letter from Gordon and Caryl Hughan, 272 La Cruz Avenue, regarding patrons behavior at new soccer field; Response from Director of Parks and Recreation, John Williams d. Letters from L. Serenella Leoni, 101 Bancroft, Ruth Gupta, Parca Board Member, Sam Malouf, D & L Rogers, 442 Chatham, Brian Harvey and Hope Barrett, 605 Vernon Way regarding Washington Park e. Letter from Reverent Paul G. Watermulder, First Presbyterian Church, regarding the success of the Interfaith Hospitality Network f. Letter from Gerald R. Maxwell, 877 Hacienda Way, Millbrae, regarding Bay Trail g. Letters from George R. Corey, Attorney, and Douglas and Arlene Holt, 1365 Columbus, regarding abatement of a nuisance at 2217 Hillside Drive h. Letter from Donna Lema-Cerna, 1457 Balboa, regarding the Cortez entrance to Ray Park Letter from Paul Constantino, 433 Airport Blvd., requesting a position on the committee to review ideas and proposals for possible new recreation center Teenage Recreational Facility Needs Committee March 19, 2001 6 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes k. Informational Report on Energy Conservation Measures within City Facilities 1. Letter from Bill and Nancy Reilly, 1912 Devereaux Drive, requesting Council's support of AB 855. M. Letter from John Parish, 1548 Vancouver, requesting a commissioner from the Beautification Commission be included on the Youth Center Committee n. Letter from Jennifer and Juergen Pfaff regarding proposed Safeway Plans 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. in memory of Ramona Schwartz, wife of Doug Schwartz, past Civil Service Commissioner, and Larry Alvarez, a past public works employee. Ann T. Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council 7 March 19, 2001 Unapproved Minutes :.a NAME `? i ��r1� \y 1N anC:. GR-ADE�_DATE ► 1 G l Class Rank_ Class Size , Earliest College Deadline Nov. ?C:> SAT I: Verbal Math SAT II: English -1 ( V Math -NO Other (CSL Adv. Place. Tests: (Subjects & Scores) Amen CCw) H1 �1'oti'l ti (J� , J GPA: (no extra points for honors courses) 4-, (p Adv. Placement courses completed or in progress t1 P LAS S f) J -`+ S !��' P hv�s►cS = -- -. Ccs M/)/) S P� c-- �Fr-1 �v��e��t ¢) c czi c� 1 S Activities The Arts: (Literary, art, drama, dance)'ou ' Athletics: Sport/Rally Recreational/Intramur, 'F& ' Yl(Gr, q 1 V V2r �bA T-Pnn')S 1 AMN) f cckv-�01 ,1 Honorary/Academic Awards: Clubs: arsity 9 10 11 12 Leadership/Awards ynco) f o r <.: C-eow Music: (Private and/or class, organization, recitals, contests) Y -A yn CA Newspaper/Yearbook: Service Projects: (School or community)'` L fir' ) _ ('. J Student Government: (Include offices held and year) Ct-C)I QCT , C \k V-) CF's v f- tnVU Other Interests: Employment During School Year Position Dates Hours per Week During Rummer Academic and Career Interests In which field(s) of stud have you been most interested and ? r y Y �� �i•(r-;—�Cf('14�Ct oCCrN In what are youmost likely to major and why? Personal strengths (brAg here)/weaknesses (areas for growth): 11 _ i"► 1 1MIMIX116STi iJa 1� Three adjectives which best describe you: 1. Y) ip'lCS- Ir 2.�LE`1CA\71P, 3. V'1C.(VV\. If there are special circumstances which have affected your school work and/or your goals, please explain (i.e. illness, death of parent, divorce, unemployment, etc.) List colleges to which you have applied or intend to First choice: Names of teachers writing your Letters of Recommendation: M y, i�- V1 1 cenzi Please attach: 1. Copyof any college essay. We learn a great rdeal � about you from your writing. 2. Typed, stamped addressed envelope for each request. (two (2) stamps will be required for counselor recommendation.) sup—aKwcm J Kimberly C. Wong What does it mean to live a fulfilled life? When I was younger I thought I knew, but then something happened that forever changed my view of the world and life itself. I had always lived a protected suburban childhood -- free from the evils of society, free from poverty, free of unhappiness, having everything and anything I could ever ask for. I was living in a bubble, oblivious of the reality that surrounded me. Then one day reality hit, and it hit hard. I will always remember that day in June when I was in elementary school. My friends and I were at the Performing Arts Center rehearsing for our annual dance recital, when one of my closest friends, Tiffany, found a lump on her lower leg. I was too young at the time to even understand why the parents were so concerned, but I soon Teamed. I found out later that week that Tiffany had cancer, and even though I was young, I knew cancer was very bad. Tiffany's journey through her illness affected and expanded my outlook on life and what it meant to me. From Tiffany's experience, I learned to be strong, and realized that needed a purpose to live a fulfilled life. From day one, death never entered my mind. I believed Tiffany would get better and fight her illness. After all, she was young, and death was only for old people. She began her chemotherapy treatments and lost her hair but was still able to maintain a somewhat "normal" life. Unknown to me at the time, was that her tumor was growing, not shrinking; she never told me. As I look back to this time, I admire Tiffany in this respect. How was she able to be so strong? Although she was only ten years old, she was more mature and courageous than many adults. She did not want to worry anyone with her problems or for anybody to pity her. From Tiffany's strength, I also became strong. I realized that I had to rely on my inner strength and be courageous in facing what life gives to me. When the doctors knew that the chemotherapy was not going to work, they told Tiffany that they had to amputate the lower half of her leg; there were no other alternatives. Furthermore, they would have to cut a small hole in her chest to inject her medicine. It just did not seem fair. "But who cares how I look? It's the person inside that matters," she told me. And she was right. This made me think about how I took my life for granted -- being able to go to school, to socialize with friends, even to have the ability to walk; they could all be taken away in an instant. Tiffany was not getting any better, and she never would; she knew it, I knew it, everyone knew it. A few weeks before she died, she said, "This is the way God wanted it, and I accept that. I have no regrets." I had always gotten everything I had wanted, but I knew this time I was not going to get the one thing I wanted most. Tiffany was not coming back, and there was nothing I could do about it. At her funeral, I cried for her, and the feelings inside me were as intense as I had ever felt or felt since. That day, I knew that I needed to do something to help fight the battle against cancer. Last year, I began volunteering at the American Cancer Society Discovery Shop, a resale store benefiting cancer research. Although this was just a small step in a long journey to finding a cure, I hope I have helped in some way. Tiffany left me a stronger, more realistic person. I have become a more independent person who can withstand what life throws my way. And because of her battle, I have become aware of what cancer patients, as well as their friends and family must go through. So, how am I going to live a fulfilled life? Although I worked at the American Cancer Society, it was only a small step towards my goal; my wish is that one day in the future, I can perhaps accomplish my goal, by enhancing the lives of cancer patients or by helping to find that cure. I am going to seize my life and help others seize theirs as well. Student Profil . Sheet NAME GRADE€= ATE Class Rank Class Size Earliest College Deadline �JOV. I aL`0C SAT I: Verbal (0% Math &- (o SAT II E g 0; Mathk (0%the' IS �-��V -7 ' G Adv. Place. Tests: (Subjects & Scores) US 14iStUP14-- 4 r t lulciG9U 3 GPA: (no extra points for honors courses) 4, 0 Adv. Placement courses completed or in progress .E U16II�Sh AP Cc c11 ILL .{gyp /Ji'l i Sh1 QP u S CGVrY'I/IMFf1fi, AP t�YIC ISS Activities The Arts: (Literary, art, drama, dance) Athletics: po y Recreationa /Intramural/Varsity 1� ) Leadership/Awards Pi -IS 'T T�'OM 4th PICC 1 ' � Cl '>. G1l �I w I a .h w�c tawt r j1.�t ,C#, Strv��tSl�tiV�— Honorary/Academic Awards: � n I -I-) V— � n GIrI — F6SWY C I hal I ,li/UI A C`V410V Clubs: I YARTY1 CkAb Music: (Private and/or class, organization, *recitals, contests) TU Y10 (n iyitc s)Y s) :WA 90(11 ih Chu((4A UICIV Newspaper/Yearbook: Service Projects: (School or community) Prw(p comm)SSi0�t- ASSIGSt�Yit Stc 1� �� Other X cwr t -6( - Employment _. a Year ■.Ti�'�/,C�Za'�G�`l�vLi1�11 .�. • / Amy, • Position Dates r CI IC? � - pvr-vP�l f Hours per Week w Student Profil . Sheet NAME GRADE€= ATE Class Rank Class Size Earliest College Deadline �JOV. I aL`0C SAT I: Verbal (0% Math &- (o SAT II E g 0; Mathk (0%the' IS �-��V -7 ' G Adv. Place. Tests: (Subjects & Scores) US 14iStUP14-- 4 r t lulciG9U 3 GPA: (no extra points for honors courses) 4, 0 Adv. Placement courses completed or in progress .E U16II�Sh AP Cc c11 ILL .{gyp /Ji'l i Sh1 QP u S CGVrY'I/IMFf1fi, AP t�YIC ISS Activities The Arts: (Literary, art, drama, dance) Athletics: po y Recreationa /Intramural/Varsity 1� ) Leadership/Awards Pi -IS 'T T�'OM 4th PICC 1 ' � Cl '>. G1l �I w I a .h w�c tawt r j1.�t ,C#, Strv��tSl�tiV�— Honorary/Academic Awards: � n I -I-) V— � n GIrI — F6SWY C I hal I ,li/UI A C`V410V Clubs: I YARTY1 CkAb Music: (Private and/or class, organization, *recitals, contests) TU Y10 (n iyitc s)Y s) :WA 90(11 ih Chu((4A UICIV Newspaper/Yearbook: Service Projects: (School or community) Prw(p comm)SSi0�t- ASSIGSt�Yit Stc 1� �� Other X cwr t -6( - Employment _. a Year ■.Ti�'�/,C�Za'�G�`l�vLi1�11 .�. • / Amy, • Position Dates r CI IC? � - pvr-vP�l f Hours per Week Academic and Career Interests In which field(s) of study have you been most interested and Mly? In what are you most likely to major and whys What are your goals and dreams?: 1.(r'1.:(`' '-c ir' 'r l2i`�. rI'1(: cr \(-� , Personal strengths (bra here)/weaknesses (areas for growth): ` 1'('�'I C.'YC��Y�1 �F � '�1,'►1Ct�,.j�f 1`!'l �Ci(i;il�i,a5 Viu��(=�_��: �Jr'1 <.!Y11A =Y1 l i �) `i r 1 ill. I A01 l 4St Three adjectives which best describe you: 1. �' !Y4Y0"\101.-► T �' 2. 3. If there are special circumstances which have affected your school work and/or your goals, please explain (i.e. illness, death of parent, divorce, unemployment, etc.) List colleges to which you have ap lied or intend to apply: t,l is LAA 12C, D. i,I(�,_1.4�``� i>����f First choice: M tr/k Names of teachers writing your Letters of Recommendation: Please attach: 1. Copy of any college essay. We learn a great deal about you from your writing. 2. Typed, stamped, addressed envelope for each request. (two (2) stamps will be required for counselor recommendation.) ampro:BK/clb Kristina Cydzik 343 Bluefish Court Foster City, CA 94404 (650) 349-5911 e-mail: Tcydzik@aol.com Education: I plan to attend a four year university, and major in international relations. Leadership Experience: • 1/00 —present— Union of Associated Student Bodies (UASB) Representative for Burlingame High School. As a group we discuss and review issues that pertain to all students throughout the district. (Monthly meetings 2 hours each, student council meetings) • 1/00 — present— Burlingame High School Service Commissioner — Assistant Squad Leader - The Service Commission is a group of students who help make school days and school events run smoothly. During lunch, service commissioners maintain order in their respective locations around the school campus. At school events, we help visitors to the school find their way around the school, and also make sure that the school is safe by reporting any un-safe activities to the administration. (5 hours/week) • 7/00— Camp Counselor at St. George's Pathfinders summer camp. Responsible for the organization, care, and safety of fourteen girls ages seven to eleven. Responsibilities included and not limited to managing games, craft activities, lessons on pocketknife safety, daily tent inspections, and maintaining order during meal times. (10 days) • 4/00— UASB Leadership Conference — Helped run a workshop on diversity • 9/98 — 7/99— Member of Foster City's Youth Advisory Committee (YAC), working as a representative of Foster City's youth and the issues that pertain to teens in the city. Successfully completed a ropes course designed to improve teamwork skills (8 hours). Chaired, organized, and led a carwash fundraiser for the hurricane victims of Central America, raising in excess of three hundred dollars (6 hours). YAC persuaded the Foster City Council to approve plans for opening a teen center (1 hour). Participated in a meeting of YACs from around the Bay Area (8 hours). Actively involved in planning meetings for the design of the teen center, painting, decorating, and publicizing The Vibe's (teen center) grand opening (22 hours). • 2/99— Attended a Youth Service Conference (4 hours) Extracurricular Athletic Activities: • 8/00- 11/00— Member of the Burlingame High School Varsity Tennis Team played number three doubles 06 hours/week) Organized the varsity team sweatshirt order. (15-1 team record) • 8/99-11/99— Member of the Burlingame High School Varsity Tennis Team played number one exhibition doubles (14-0 team record) (16 hours/week) • 6/99-8/99— Burlingame High School/ USTA Nor. Cal summer tennis league 00 hours/week) • 11/98 - Peninsula Athletic League — Bay Division Individual Tournament — won fourth place (16 hours) • 9/98-11/98— Member of the Burlingame High School Frosh/Soph Tennis team (13-1 team record) played number two doubles (14 hours/week) • 8/98— Attended Nike Tennis Camp at Stanford (6 days) • 6/98-8/98— Burlingame High School/ USTA Nor.Cal summer tennis league (10 hours/week) • 8/97— 11/97— Member of the Burlingame High School Frosh/Soph Tennis Team (14-0 record) played number three doubles (14 hours/week) • 8/97— Oakmont Community Golf Lessons and Tournament (15 hours) • 6/97 — 8/97— Burlingame High School/ United States Tennis Association of Northern California summer tennis league, participated in a regional tournament 00 hours/week) • 6/97— Attended Legarza basketball camp (20 hours) Employment: • 6/97 present—Child Care Provider for five families, children aging from three months to twelve years of age. • 8/98-6/99 worked as an algebra tutor • 6/98-8/98 worked at Hills Industries (packaging of products) Volunteer Experience: • 1/01-2/01— Cabin Leader at San Francisco YMCA Camp at Jones Gulch, La Honda, CA 0 Spring 1997-Summer 1999— Attended and participated in the San Mateo Board of Supervisors' Hearings on the debate to allow building permits for Our Lady of Vladimir Monastery (30 hours) Kristina Cydzik 343 Bluefish Court Foster City, CA 94404 (650) 349-5911 e-mail: Tcydzik@aol.com • 7/99 -Helped set up camp and cook at St. George's Pathfinders summer camp (5 days) 5/99 — Helped with Bowditch Middle School car wash (benefiting graduating class) (2 hours) • 9/99— Helped sell flowers during Bowditch Middle School musical (1 hour) • 10/98— Helped with Bowditch Middle School car wash (benefiting graduating class) (5 hours) • 7/98 -Helped set up camp and cook at St. George's Pathfinders summer camp (2 days) • 6198 -present — Delivered food to the Russian American Senior Center • 7/97- Helped set up camp and cook at St. George's Pathfinders summer camp (4 days) School -Related Extracurricular Activities: • 9/97 present— Member of Interact Club (30 minutes/week) • 4/00— Burlingame High School Clean-up day (4 hours) • Spring 2000— Member of Model United Nations Club • 9/99— Helped with Sophomore class candy sale • 9/99— Burlingame High School Clean-up day (4 hours) • 10/98-11/98- Helped design and construct Sophomore Class Homecoming float (12 hours) • 10/98— Burlingame High School Clean-up day (4 hours) • 9/98- Burlingame High School Clean-up day (4 hours) Extracurricular Educational Activities: • 7/00- Three day workshop on PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) and Bioinformatics at Applied Biosystems • 6/00-7/00— Eighteen day trip to Europe through American Council for International Study (ACIS) — a tour of five countries England, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland • 11/99-6/00— Meetings to prepare for trip to Europe (9 hours) • 4/00— BMW Teen Driver Education Course — Won best performance in the skid control lesson (4 Hours) • 3/99- BMW Teen Driver Education Course (4 hours) Awards: • California Scholarship Federation Member (Fall 1997- present) • Second Place Foster City Library Teen Creative Writing Contest (Short Story "My Trip to Academia") (2000) • Awarded Palm Leaf Award for excellence in volunteering by St. George's Pathfinders (7/00) • Golden State Award US History (High Honors) (2000) • Golden State Award in Written Composition (Honors) (2000) • Golden State Award in High School Mathematics (Recognition) (2000) • Golden State Award in Chemistry (Honors) (1999) • Peninsula Athletic League Bay Division Champions (BHS Varsity Tennis Team) (11/99) • Fourth Place in Peninsula Athletic League Individual Tennis Tournament (11/98) • Golden State Award in Geometry (Honors) (Fall 1998) • Golden State Award in Algebra (Honors) (Fall 1997) • Second Place in Oakmont Golf Tournament (8/97) Interests• • Paper making • Cooking • Camping • Reading • Board Games • International Travel • Spending time with family and friends • Writing letters to pen pals (national and international, nine years of communication) • Automotive Mechanics Kristina Cydzik 343 Bluefish Court Foster City, CA 94404 (650) 349-5911 e-mail: Tcydzik@aol.com Skills: • Fluent in Russian • Spanish (five years of classroom experience) • Piano Playing (over eight years of weekly private lessons and practice) • Singing in church choir (over eight years of experience) • Proficient in using the following computer programs: Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Power Point, Microsoft Explorer, HyperStudio Kristina Cydzik UC Personal Statement My involvement in athletics, music, scouting, and the community has allowed me to grow to be the person I am today, but nothing has affected me in a more profound way than travel. All of these activities complement each other. My interest in the world led me to want to travel. My wish was fulfilled this summer, when 1 traveled by myself on a group tour organized by the American Council for International Study. The trip is a monumental piece in my life because it gave me an opportunity to determine some of my strongest convictions. Traveling has allowed me to see eye to eye with people all over the world. I understand the perspectives of individuals after I have walked the streets they walk, shopped in their stores, and read their newspapers. I visited different places, absorbing the atmosphere with all of my senses. I interpreted the surroundings from my own point of view, without depending on someone else's opinions or judgments. Until I spend time in a place, an incomplete comprehension of the regional culture exists in my mind. Traveling has provided detailed evidence to complete the abstract I have created for myself. Consequently, I feel stronger about taking the time to see why people act the way they do. In addition, I have seen how people share commonalities and differences. We can build bonds between our similarities, and we can build understanding using our differences as foundations. I have come to the conclusion that I do not have room in my life for ethnocentrisms or other forms of prejudice because they act as barriers, preventing me from seeing the world for what it is. I find that I have become a better citizen of the world because of the trip I took. While in Europe this summer, I wore a pair of sandals. These shoes are now perfectly molded to my feet. The worn- in nature of my sandals parallels with the weight of everything I saw, and everything I carried home with me. In Germany, I visited Dachau, a Nazi concentration camp. As I explored the memorials, living quarters, and crematorium, the sides and soles of the sandals became covered with a white dust created by the chalky gravel filling all the external pathways of the camp. I found it difficult to walk because of the way I sank in the gravel while making my way to the next point of observation. Prisoners once walked along the same paths I was now covering. I knew that I would only spend a couple of hours on the grounds, but the prisoners spent years trapped inside. My visit to Dachau allowed me to build a feeling of compassion and empathy for the victims of the war. My shoes allowed me to travel a road to a deeper understanding of people's suffering. From this experience, I understand how important it is to never give in when an idea strikes me as unjust. I Kristina Cydzik UC Personal Statement feel strongly that I must apply the lessons of mistakes in history to improve the chances of ensuring the errors do not occur again. I will not be able to consciously stand by and watch people being treated disrespectfully or in discriminatory fashions. Traveling helps me learn about people. This education uncovers what is really important in my life. No other activity has more directly isolated my beliefs than travel. Visiting a new place causes me to broaden the scope of my thoughts, aiding in the expansion of the breadth of my knowledge. In turn, I can carry over the things I learn into the other areas I am involved in; the applications are endless. I never want to stop exploring the world. 2 NAME Ckuck Lu GRADE 1-24DATE 3/ 14/ ZJD0 Class Rank_ Class Size__Zg-7_ Earliest College Deadline Nw 3n 'ooD Ic SAT I: Verbal 550 Math 0o SAT II: English 60o Math0 OtherU.-MQ. r�c60 Adv. Place. Tests: (Subjects & Scores) Coku�us =4- B'101 r)w = 2 - GPA: GPA: (no extra points for honors courses) 4. o . Adv. Plac ment courses completed or in progress AP PTirs Atp Rono� roc^ Ap Govern ment AF 52a Activities The Arts: (Literary, art, drama, dance) C:h;KeCe Nox+hfil Put lyn n_�Pq Qggq—Z000) Athletics: Sport/Rally RecreationaUIntramuraUVarsity 9 10 11 12 Leadership/Awards 9--1°- rne- R c Adl f l .lz Tmm Qpt-r` in -%P MDYP y r CSF (G Honorary/Academic Clubs: rniA Music: (P!t and/or class, organization, recitals, contests) �� •-- ViO�i n r�r Newspaper/Yearbook: Service Projects: (School or<65iurvt ■6 i'-..., _.w.lownieaffrurai SeMM fSICl S M1 -4D1) tcrnpas�i�n ;nr�-h lqq ZjSDD) Student Government: (Include offices held and year) Employment During School Year Position Dates Hours per Week During Summer Academic and Career Interests In which field(s) of study have you been most interested and )y4? T r �y� t �r'fi�Y�cf�n it ►ti�n� � �Y��}_ ;`+�f�,G: I r�� fir. r"Cr - v� t�l, Y1�A1'Y`�C��--� In what are you most likely to major and why? _ r �' -- - _,-4. ,r .,� What are your goals and dreams?: ��Pr Personal strengths (brag here)/weaknesses (areas for growth): .7i r . _ _ s] _ _ _ A of -A vrr 'n v YP1 Ye Three adjectives which best describe you 2.m L DeOl<< 3. � c: ,• If there are special circumstances which have affected your school work and/or your goals, please explain (i.e. illness, death of parent, divorce, unemployment, etc.) I nj List colleges to which you have applied or intend to apply: Pf;,,K tbn Unite i siht ►v� COJ horn To, 1)n'yexsry t1r+YP,1SrV �� LA, I First choice: '' SaD; b . wt -i r Names of teachers writing your Letters of Recommendation: Keen l�e�son ��on/CoY.i � �s3 C t)Ivcq) m me-cr;rd (Ya 1)... Please attach: 1. Copy of any college essay. We learn a great deal about you from your writing. 2. Typed, scam ", addressed envelope for each request. (two (2) stamps will be required for m ncelor recommendation.) Chuck Ou 617-58-6346 Personal Statement It was two o'clock in the morning. Everyone in the family had gone to sleep; the entire house was dark and quiet, but the lights of my room were still on. Sitting in front of my desk, I was trying to finish reading a book for my Honors English class. This is a fair description of the many sleepless nights in my junior year. Now that I am enrolled in Advanced Placement English class in my senior year, reading books and writing essays have become a daily routine. I am now able to handle the demanding requirements with much ease. This I attribute to the one crucial decision that I made -- insisting on taking Honors English class in my junior year. Three and a half years ago, I came to the United States for my education. As a newly arrived freshman at Burlingame High School, I barely spoke English. Consequently, I was placed in the English as a Second Language class. With students of various nationalities speaking limited English, I did not feel pressured or challenged because class work was fairly easy. However, after ESL, everything changed. Most people spoke English fluently, and I had a difficult time understanding and being understood. I realized that I had to work extra hard and take more challenging classes in order to fit into the mainstream curriculum as soon as possible. In my sophomore year, I was accepted in the College Prep English Class. After a year of consistent hard work, I received straight A's, and I felt confident to move on to the next level. My desire to improve my English speaking and writing skills motivated me to take even more difficult and challenging classes. I decided not to stay in the comfort zone because I knew that taking the easy way out would never help me to excel academically. Determined to t-" Honors English in my junior year, I talked to my counselor and wrote a letter tr• of the English Department expressing my intention as well as my determi- Chuck Ou 617-58-6346 Personal Statement Taking Honors English class was difficult but crucial. At the beginning of the year, I struggled to keep up with the assignments at this advanced level and the students who could more easily elicit meaning from the reading. In addition, they always surpassed me in both quantity and quality in in -class essays. My parents took pride in my motivation to do well but were worried about the tremendous pressure that I was under. They were concerned because I was being too harsh on myself, therefore, they suggested that I return to CP English class. Nevertheless, I realized that, as long as I worked my hardest, the final grade was not that important. I would rather get a `B" or even a "C" in a more difficult class in which I learned more than take easier classes simply to maintain a 4.0 GPA. I knew that the Honors English class was an enormous challenge, but taking that class was the best way to improve my English. As the year went on, my effort was rewarded. I earned a superior grade and was accepted in Advanced Placement English in my senior year. Getting straight A's in CP and Honors English classes was no easy task. Not only did I spend an incredible amount of time and make unbelievable effort on English assignments, but I also sacrificed much of my social life. I have always believed that life is about making choices. We often have to face dilemmas throughout our lives. In my case, no matter how difficult the situations are, I am always determined to find a way to help myself so that I will bring out my potential. My experience in progressing from ESL to CP, Honors, and AP English classes proves that, with my dedication and persistence, I will always be able to meet the challenges that I encounter for the rest of my life. 2 Y NAME GRADE Z DATE A Z-ct\ Class Rank_1_ Class Size Zrl b Earliest College Deadline SAT I: Verbal Math f� SAT II: English_12,:Q Math 7:3 Other Adv. Place. Tests: (Subjects & Scores) , U4,U l - –5 GPA: (no extra points for honors courses 4,0 Adv. Placement urses complete J ibl►ci� tMti:,; or in progress 1:-.,1 1(1 l)S �is�t:�il, 'moi Ul ti) 5PCU, `S h LLcr�Gj1,v Activities J The Arts: (Literary, art, drama, dance) (V1 i15i CLQ s (`� l 0`1 '` S \t : A n .r, ......,u .-6 U n'-, -, Athletics: Sport/Rally Recreational/Intramural/Varsity 9 10 11 12 Leadership/Awards Honorary/Academic Awards: KOAirmaA Me.6� clZmye,lr.1ea <C[Aoi:A r' APSC'how Clubs BJ)S FKi&n C. AAAO ' �1ArxtAl Re 1-6is nm S�1 T i�c 1. I P 'I cx:S XS Music: (Private and/or class, organization, recitals, contests) 6 ;S QCT , aAS `Ctx, el—d- q:"OWS (N OCOA sOlOS) Newspaper/Yearbook: , ckb ' f W'6ydex- W aC: I� 0 LJ Service Projects: (School or community) Student Government: (Include offices held and year) Q.`tic eicr1, i,,c�A nn ih kir i.r r t Other Interests: Employment During School Year Position Dates Hours per Week ✓ 'iuMx- 1O 9q - (10.1 Op 2 - During During Summer a Academic and Career Interests In which field(s) of study have you been most interested and ) hy? In what are you most likely to major and why? Z we tdd 4-1-1 i - wt�jI7 - 't C-.1 {}.iX'S k >�'l 1 k t C I -M U 'I V-1 n-) % A v r—i hl�ra . TY10., —i—U e f1S►Cve 5` Ct r, mm cV Poli ti ca-� -Scc E4 )ce . Personal strengths (brag here)/weaknesses (areas for growth): 11► is '{ ; V . ti17C ccn lL+rtG ►��c�re 1CLv1S<rC� c- 4� Vs n -ti Three �jectives which best describe you: I. �D(� �t✓j 2. PO OF\ SSicy,,) t- 3. SCf-ASiTIV'l-, If there are special circumstances which have affected your school work and/or your goals, please explain (i.e. illness, death of parent, divorce, unemployment, etc.) ,,^a A tl -741- n_i r4^ i i - f 10x.1 v� List colleges to which you have applied or intend to apply:aryL rd Sfiu�ftifi`zrc__1 _ Pf" ncf''? \l ase C C -- i i i_m hi 0 , Q C. aef keift. - �l� r -Tu [,CLrLj2 First choice: Names of teachers writing your Letters of Recommendation: Please attach: 1. Copy of any college essay. We learn a great deal about you from your writing. 2. Typed, stamped, addressed envelope for each request. (two (2) stamps will be required for counselor recommendation.) stupm:BK/clb Debra Teh-lei Mao DOB: 08/31/83 "And in 5... 4... 3... 2..." One. "Good morning, you're watching BTV News this January 1, 2001. I'm Debra Mao." With razor sharp precision, I part the Red Sea of floating bits of thought in my mind, and for a few minutes, focus entirely on the script before me. With no teleprompters here, the delicate act of glancing downward becomes key to flawless delivery. Nonetheless, if things don't go precisely as planned, the BTV News Team remains poised and ready for action. Since the fall semester of my junior year, I have been in the video production class at Burlingame, the focus of which is the production of a daily broadcast of school announcements, BTV News. At the time, the anchors were the student body officers, who had traditionally done the job over the PA system. As a nonmember of student government that year, I began as a sports anchor for BTV, taking it upon my own shoulders to collect from every coach or captain the latest statistics on their teams. From there, I steadily made my way up the ranks to the main anchors' desk. Before long, student government had relinquished the job of delivering the important matters of the day to a few of us in the video class. Life before the camera lens has been invigorating, sometimes mortifying, and always, to say the least, interesting. Before every broadcast, I sit down with the producers to determine the content and style of the show. From there, I begin to script the announcements together with the appropriate transitions and so forth, and finally I spend the remainder of the period rehearsing every line to the point where I become as independent of my written notes as possible. The whole process takes place in a matter of forty-five minutes or so, but it is precisely this race against the clock that gets my adrenaline pumping every morning. Since scripting is the exclusive responsibility of the anchor, it is also my favorite part of pre -show preparation. Writing is one of my passions, whether it's in my journal or for AP English class, but writing for the air is decidedly different. When I'm scripting, I am striving to be as clear and concise as possible while sounding as if I were telling a story to a friend. To this end, I must play with a variety of ways to tell the same story to see what arrangement of words flows the best for me. This is always a fun task, for it seems that every day I learn to appreciate the nuances of language a little more. However, nothing is more amusing, to me and to the others who are unfortunate enough to be nearby, than running through the script using different vocal inflections on different words. It always seems to me that the perfect, most professional sounding delivery for every line is out there for me to hit upon. Luckily, it's one of those things that is easy to recognize when discovered. And when I pick up on a new word or phrase that I like on the six o'clock news, I never hesitate to use it in the next day's broadcast (and on many broadcasts thereafter, if I really like it). Amusements aside, BTV News is a tremendously important and fulfilling part of my life. The support I've received from my peers and my teachers for my work on television has led me to believe this to be something I have a knack for, and that it might be something worth pursuing in the future. All I know is that I love this little niche that I've created for myself. Not only have I learned much about poise and focus from being on the air, I've had to learn how to set and achieve goals, from putting together a story to vying for airtime. Last year, I began working on a story to submit to CNN's Student Bureau, and just a few weeks ago, Burlingame High became a certified member of the organization. Soon, we will begin to cover stories that will be aired as part of the nationally broadcasted CNN Newsroom. In my experience with broadcasting, the exhilaration that follows a successful story or segment is incomparable, but I've also gained some insights on what the journalist's role in society is. It seems to me that there is a limit to what people can learn about the world on their own in a lifetime. Part of a journalist's job, and the part that appeals to me, is seeking out and bringing to light those important details of life that could easily fade away amidst our daily rhetoric. In my opinion, few other professions could be as enlightening or as enjoyable. It's about helping people see the world through fresh perspectives, if not a clearer eye. Now, I can only imagine what things will. be like in college where I will have more freedom, creative and intellectual, to tell the whole story. As far as I know, broadcast journalism will be in my future. But that will certainly do it for this segment of my life. Join me next time on the six o'clock news. NAME i ,Ecsn,l Mel 140e" GRADE I DATE 3 ! c� -L 1 k Class Ran_ Class Size 7,8 U Earliest College Deadline V 2t �) iC SAT I: Verbal (nZ "? Math ( SAT II: English (jr 0 Math (A0 Other (O' `l0 l ac: GS(,U S kA"Skr .i Adv. Place. Tests: (Subjects & Scores) U•> Nts .� �l (4). . GPA: (no extra points for honors courses) y • lj Adv. Placement courses completed or in progress U . S }' (-Z • MnA4 A? EngLsb 11P. Ca LAS Rh ECarw��-„cs F��� 60� rnv�a��4 ►�P Acdvides The Arts: (Literary, art, drama, dance) Co( ll an Do, ncQ 0103 (UO(Uolko.r) Athletics: Sport/Rally Recreational/Intramural/Varsity 9 11 12 Leadership/Awards Zrdl4'(m in iyv bomb NSrien �ear(rYR1^,��SSou cnif)� , a- Cep (1 ca c4 o\i l0 �ur�n./dvror<�. Honorary/Academic Awards: Clubs: Music: (Private and/or class, organization, recitals, contests) F3gS Me rCij;h9 CnncQ A- « rn\ PIe3 . o ;VaEe C�O f1hQ{ 1D.9$L'hS Newspaper/Yearbook: yeocboo)-- �:i�� \1GiraG{Qdylw. I Service Projects: (School or community) Student Government: (Include offices held and year) AS i3 S•Iv&4c Moi hn TZ lSev\oc T cam) Other Interests: S Governer nr l� U cUc �;alaa,2,,_lvtou-e E-ployrnent During School Year Position Dates Hours per Week 6QIns Is I l, r7 C a y 1If�W Fr;n�la&4S7�lrau SatIfS T\I\i9'- (GenYulni rf,r;l' Wnpi+ ) ckI/3 During Summer E \"1249 Z '�__ H [ U b S' W1 v5 F ' i°n.e; euwd bc�y�sl, GSE3 CSF vtc�ac3v� Vice C \�ACIw� Acaden do and Career Interests In which field(s) of study have you been most interested and why? In what are you most likely to major and why? What are your goals and dreams?: 2 ala r, (1v, to ra 0) Fctit- Personal strengths (brag here)/weaknesses (areas for growth): _ r -kzw' V>tikA av'j VV -f �_S'eAea i4- V'Q kc) gVvk+ -6 O\'Q Three adjectives which best describe you: 1. T.1 2. L as.�.l 3. Se l d_¢.4a°LT_t If there are special circumstances which have affected your school work and/or goals, please explain (i.e. illness, death of parent, divorce, unemployment, etc.) List colleges to which you have applied or intend to apply: SJO nye rA , SGL n � U(Xco Names of teachers writing your Letters of Recommendation: M r-.1Deu , nC? n z , . M fs Rual e y, r, -r lids. mcctcti"%J Please attach: Ol Copy of any college essay. We learn a great deal about you from your writing. 2. Typed, stamped, addressed envelope for each request. (two (2) stamps will be required for Counselor recommendation.) mq�:exkrb made sure to set aside a certain amount of time for homework, band, volunteering, and babysitting. My academic life is extremely important to me; there was nothing that I wouldn't have done to make sure that my study habits weren't adversely affected by my new schedule. By having this regularity in my life, I stayed more focused and comfortable with what was happening. Although my mom was very open about discussing her illness with my sister and me, I only told my best friend, Debra. She was so supportive and it was wonderful having someone with whom I was able to share everything instead of keeping it locked up inside of me. Debra's concern and inquiries about my mom made me feel like someone cared and that people were thinking of her. Our friendship reached a new level during this period because the more I shared about my personal experience, the more Debra opened up to me about her past. I felt that she understood what I was going through and her genuine advice inspired me to stay strong. Towards the end of my junior year, teachers and friends noticed a positive change in me, which I had not even been aware of myself. A male classmate of mine wrote in my yearbook, "I think you have become much more realistic and much more personal in the last six months or so. I don't know what changed in your life, but it seems life has become closer to you and more real, and it shows." When I read that, I realized that I had changed. I had become much more of a risk -taker, trying new things. Even something as simple as running for a position on the Associated Student Body was something that I never would have considered; however, I was determined to be the next ASB Student Manager and I made it happen. The new responsibility for my family at home gave me the courage to take on this new role at school. Changes in a person are so difficult to see unless one observes from afar over a period of time. Neither my family nor I knew what cancer would bring. I didn't know from day to day what was going to happen or just how bad my mother's illness was, but I had faith and hope. Not willing to let something as serious as my mother's illness and the new demands on my time ruin my long-standing academic success, I learned to deal with the conflicting realities of cancer and my personal goals and made a positive change in my life. Small, insignificant things used to annoy me to the point where I would become completely frustrated. I can finally see that life is complex and that acceptance of its complexity is an important skill one learns in difficult times. Tiffany Allen Personal Statement Although most of my life can be compared to a calm lake, the past year has been nothing but the wildest ocean imaginable. I have never been the most vivacious girl in my class nor the shyest, but there has always been something very reserved and serious in MY disposition. Recent situations have shaped and led me to take a different path in my life. At the beginning of the path, there was that one moment, that one word, that one unforgettable silence. Last September my mom was diagnosed with breast cancer. I never believed that anything so serious could ever happen to my family; nevertheless it definitely wasn't a dream. On top of dealing with a life threatening family crisis, it didn't help to also be faced with junior year, known to be the most demanding and stressful year in high school. While dealing with the difficulty and homework of all AP and honors classes at school, I came home every day to be the surrogate mother to my little sister. A typical evening dealt with completing my homework, helping my sister with hers, making dinner, and taking care of the other necessary chores around the house while my dad was at work. Furthermore, after a long night, I would then go to school every morning at 7:00 a.m. for band. I have always enjoyed being a part of my school band because of its lively spirit and its congenial atmosphere. Making music with the members of the band every morning was an important therapeutic experience. Unfortunately my mother went through four surgeries, one, a double mastectomy. Some of the most difficult times in my life occurred during those surgeries when my mom was gone for weeks at a time. The house was so quiet and the new feeling of responsibility scared me at first. There were many rights when all I could do was cry myself to sleep praying to God that the next day would be a little easier. Through all of the difficult times, I kept myself focused and together, remaining at the top of my class. I came to many realizations during that year, leaving me with a more open- minded outlook on life. To have one's life change in just a matter of seconds is like a movie plot, but it actually happened to me. Needless to say, at such a difficult time in my life, there were moments when I felt overwhelmed to the point where I almost lost all hope. Keeping my life as normal as possible became a daily challenge. Every day I NAME M % G/) U► i`. � W V\LQA E y GRADE 11 DATE ���� L Class Rank Class Size 3 y(� iEarliest College Deadline -5-t SAT I: Verbal (0 HU Math (C)q0 SAT II: English 1,;10 Math 00 Other (oL40 . Adv. Place. Tests: (Subjects & Scores) ()S I� i GPA: (no extra points for honors courses) or in progress fq Q C,nueP-v,m-eAJ 4 A � Activities The Arts: (Literary, art, drama, dance) Placement courses completed I �' Issh Lr fe,e�fce Athletics: Sport/Rally Recreational/Intramural/Varrsity 9 IO 1 12 Leadership/Awards ( 11 I Ota �L T -in 1: lr - f, nor, iH ( 1 1i,+ /`7 c4A"Aiun tAIP�P Honorary/Academic Awards: CA Cao We., Lie: -14a)aizAs onrat>, ; Bin loci , U5 Music: (Private and/or class, organization, recitals, contests) Newspaper/Yearbook: Service Projects: (School or community) Government: (Include offices held and year) Other Interests: Employment During School Year Position Dates Hours per Week :.a N Academic and Career Interests In which field(s) of study have you been most interested and thy? 14 I , 5� i r�Dm i c5, 4— icy In what are you most likely to Jmajor and why? ; ht o va 1 Ck -r �c;ded ��M lecx Vi ✓LG M\/ Uf)f OY1S Ono�n n.�. What are your goals and dreams?: Personal strengths (brag here)/weaknesses (areas for growth): I G2VYI DO+ c•J.••a h-t•Ce S �1n,c e.�ICy\Uw CJ'q q a�vc� cv�,iv�, M.�� �►i, Three adjectives which best describe you: �� 3. f) ' 1. e tin 1 4P 1 2. card �.varKinu u " rl If there are special circumstances which have affected your school work and/or your goals, please explain (i.e. illness, death of parent, divorce, unemployment, etc.) NO L List colleges to which you have applied or intend to apply:r ' 1 v I� First choic Names of teachers writing your Letters of Recommendation: Mi & M vhulc, Mr. va49y1' � �eVo. Please attach: 1. Copy of any college essay. We learn a great deal about you from your writing. 2. Typed, Mampa addressed envelope for each request. (two (2) stamps will be required for muncelor recommendation.) snq—BK/clb Michael Whooley 2781 Crestmoor Drive San Bruno. California 94066 (650)873-4629 Education and Career Goals: • Gain a bachelor of arts for teaching or journalism from a 4 -year college. • Obtain masters for teaching or journalism from a graduate school. • Enter teaching profession or become sports writer or take necessary steps to become sports agent. School Activities: • Service Commission President (2000- present) • Varsity Track and Field (1999- present) • Varsity Basketball (1999- present) • Varsity Cross Country (1999- present) • Student Impact Team (1999- present) • Sojourn to the Past: Educational Trip (2000) • Service Commission Member (2000) • Frosh-Soph Track and Field (1997- 1998) • Frosh-Soph Basketball (1997- 1998) • Frosh- Soph Cross Country (1997- 1998) Outside Activities: • Teen Club Member at Saint Robert's Church (1997- present) • Skyline Summer Basketball League (1997- present) • San Bruno Summer Slam (1997- present) Awards: • CSF (1998- present) • Frosh-Soph Outstanding Track and Field Athlete (1999) • Who's Who Among American High School Students (1998- 1999) • Who's Who in Sports (1998- 1999) • Valedictorian (1997) • General Excellence Award (1997) • President's Education Awards Program: Outstanding Academic Achievement (1997) Employment • Burlingame Park and Rec Basketball Camp Counselor (2000) • Jamba Juice Employee (1999) Volunteer Work • Teen Club Youth Group: dinners for the homeless, lunches for AIDS victims, etc. (1997- present) • Working with the St. Vincent DePaul Society (1997- present) Michael Whooley Who am I? Well, I have never climbed Mount Everest. I have never hit a game winning home run in game seven of the World Series. I have never traveled around the world in eighty days. Nor have I rescued a child from a burning house. Who am I? Well, I have never swum across the Atlantic. I have never won a marathon. I have never thrown or caught the game winning touchdown pass of the Super Bowl. I have never bungee jumped. Nor have I written my own book. Who am I? Well, I have never won the Nobel Prize. I didn't invent the Internet. I have never won the Lotto. I have never dunked a basketball. Nor, have I recorded a number one song. Who am I? Well, I have never lived alone in the woods for a year to learn the meaning of life. I have never been in contact with an alien species. I didn't write the Declaration of Independence. I have never won Time's Man of the Year. Nor have I gotten the Purple Heart. Who am I? Well, I am me. I am a high school student who wanted to do his best. I am a person, who applied himself. I am a person who took high school as a time to work, but also as a time to have fun. I am a person who was himself and didn't change that for anyone. Who am I? Well, I am a four-year high school athlete, who participated in cross- country, basketball, and track. I have been captain of my varsity cross-country team. I have worked hard to maintain a 4.0 grade point average throughout high school. I have made friends that will last a lifetime. I have met teachers who are now good friends of mine. I have never quit at anything no matter how hard it was or how bad it got. I have been president of the Service Commission, a group dedicated to the betterment of my school. Who am I? Well, I am the person who can make you laugh no matter how bad you feel. I am that goofy kid that brightens up your day. I am that shoulder you can lean on. I am that person who can just listen, or just talk. I am that person who will always be honest with you. I am that person who won't make you change your beliefs just because they differ from mine. I am that kid who goes to the 49ers' game with his grandma every Sunday. So, though I haven't climbed Mount Everest, won a Noble Prize, or hit that game winning home run in game seven of the World Series, I still feel I have accomplished much in my life. Yet, I know there is more ahead. I am only 17, so I have much to look forward to. I still have college, a career, and a family in my future. Which leads me now to ask, "Who will I become?" CITY STAFF REPORT AGENDA guRI.INGAME ITEM # 6 a m MTG. 0 9° DATE 04.02.01 °NRTm JUNE 6• TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEDBY r DATE: MARCH 26 2001 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BYBJ SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DE?L OF A PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF A STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO APARTMENT AT 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Action should be taken by resolution; two resolutions are included for your reference. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Action alternatives and the criteria for a variance are included at the end of the staff report for your reference. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on February 12, 2001, the Commission voted 4-0-1-2 (C. Vistica abstaining, Cers. Boudio Keighran absent) to deny the request for a parking variance in order to convert a storage room into a studio apartment at 1209 Bellevue Avenue. In their comments the Commissioners noted: currently the site is nonconforming in parking (provides one space per unit), this burden on the neighborhood should not be increased, photos and site visit show that there is currently frequent double parking the driveway because of the parking problems in the area; might consider converting this area to living space if tenant had no car and the rent were affordable ($600 a month), tools to enforce this are not presently in place, also it was noted that there is some limitation on rent control from past voter initiative. Conditions of Approval Recommended by the Planning Commission 1, that demolition permits shall be obtained from the Burlingame Building Department to remove the toilet, shower, sink and all plumbing and gas connections from the storage unit; 2. that these demolition permits shall be applied for within 15 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled by the Chief Building Official within 30 days of the issuing of a permit; 3. that the storage units hall only be used for storage purposes for tenants on site, defined as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository; California Building Code limits the occupancy of the storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the unit for longer than one hour while engaged in the task of retrieving articles from the unit or storing articles in the room; 4. that to ensure future compliance and disclosure a certified copy of the resolution denying creation of an additional studio apartment unit from the 547 SF storage room at the rear of the site shall be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF A STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO APARTMENT AT 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4. April 2, 2001 BACKGROUND: History In June 2000, the Code Enforcement Officer received a complaint about an illegal dwelling unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4. There had been past code enforcement issues regarding illegal occupation of a storage unit at this site involving the current property owner. A site visit revealed that the existing storage room located at grade at the rear of the property contained illegal plumbing, gas, and electrical connections and was being occupied as a living unit (see attached Planning Commission Staff Report). The property owner and property manager were notified that they had the option of removing the illegal work within the storage unit or applying for a parking variance to convert the storage unit to a studio unit. At the time of this notification they were informed that it was illegal to occupy the storage unit at any time. After expressing the desire to seek a parking variance, the property owner and manager were granted four extensions of code enforcement deadlines before they submitted their application to the Planning Department. During this time the City continued to receive complaints that the storage unit was being occupied and this was confirmed on a site visit on November 20, 2000. An application was submitted to the Planning Department on December 1, 2000, the Planning Commission acted on the item on February 12, 2001, and the applicant asked for an appeal to City Council and a further delay for the public hearing to April 2, 2001. The Request The applicant, Tom Lunkley, is requesting a parking variance for two parking spaces in order to convert a storage room into a studio apartment at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, Zoned R-4. The increase in dwelling units from 10 toll would require the addition of 2 more on-site parking spaces. The existing apartment complex consists of ten apartment units, 9 studio and 1 one -bedroom, a storage room (which was once a laundry room) and ten covered parking spaces (one per unit). Under the current code the on-site parking requirement for this complex is 15 parking spaces, with 10 parking spaces provided the project is nonconforming in parking. Of the ten parking spaces currently provided on site, 6 of the interior spaces located in the carport are 8'-9" wide where 9"-0" is required and the two parking spaces, one on each end, are 8'-9" wide where 10'-0" is required. So 8 of the 10 parking spaces provided are also nonconforming in terms of dimension. All parking spaces meet the 20 foot depth required and a 24 foot back up aisle is provided. The storage area proposed for conversion to a studio apartment is located at the rear of the site, off a hallway which opens to the rear of the site. The room is 547 SF and contains illegal plumbing, gas, and electrical connections in the bathroom and the kitchen area. If a parking variance is granted for the conversion of this storage area to a living unit, building permits will be required to bring the facility into compliance with current building and fire code standards. Planning staff would note that under the current zoning code (CS 25.70.010) when an existing multiple family building is changed by addition of dwelling units which intensifies the use, parking to current code must be provided for the additional unit. The existing nonconforming parking situation may continue for the existing units, but the parking for the new unit must comply with current parking requirements. In this case a studio requires 1.5 or 2 on-site parking spaces. So 2 is added to the existing 10 provided on site, for a parking requirement of 12. If the project with the additional unit were to comply with current code requirements there would need to be 17 on-site parking spaces (15 for the existing 10 units plus 2 for the additional unit). If a parking variance is not granted to this applicant then all the facilities installed without permits must be permanently removed. The 547 SF area may be used only as storage for tenants on site. It may not be leased 2 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A PARKING VARIANCE FOR CONVERSION OF A STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO APARTMENT AT 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4. April 2, 2001 to others off the site for storage purposes. Storage use is defined as the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository and the California Building Code limits occupancy of such a storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the storage area for longer than an hour while engaging in the task of storing or retrieving articles in the room. If the variance cannot be granted then Council should deny the application by resolution (attached) so that it can be recorded with the deed to the property to document the limitations on the use of the 547 SF storage room. The applicant should be given 30 days to remove or permanently incapacitate the illegal facilities now in the storage room and to have the area inspected for the removal by the City's Building Department. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Requirements for Findings for a Variance Thomas Lunkley and Estee Coldwell, February 16, 2001, letter to City Clerk, requesting appeal set for April 2, 2001. Monroe letter March 26, 2001, to Tom Lunkley, setting appeal hearing, April 2, 2001, this was corrected copy first letter sent February 23, 2001. Planning Commission Minutes, February 12, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report, February 12, 2001 Resolution Approving Categorical Exemption and Parking Variance Resolution Denying Categorical Exemption and Parking Variance Notice of Public Hearing Appeal, Mailed March 23, 2001 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. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. February 16, 2001 REALTY, INC .. . . .. . . COMPLETE REAL ESTATE SERVICE . . . •REALTORS SINCE 1944 1169 BROADWAY BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA... 94010 City Clerk Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Area Code 650, 342-2073 Fax 650. 342-0428 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PLEASE SET APPEAL HEARING FOR 1209 BELLEVUE APRIL 2ND PER OWNERS REQUEST. THANK YOU, ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK Regarding the action of the Burlingame Planning Commsion, denying the application for a parking variance at 1209 Bellevue ( Regular Action Item #7, February 12, 2001 meeting of the City of Burlingame Planning Commision), we wish to appeal this action to the Burlingame City Council. Our appeal fee of $250.00 is enclosed. We request that this item be placed on the City Council Calendar no earlier than April 2, 2001, as the owner will be unavailable due to medical surgery. You consideration of this matter is appreciated. Thank you, 164-t4 K.- 40--�r� Thomas G. Lunkley Property Manager AVR Realty, Inc. e'�� e�e� stee Coldwell Owner PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES HOMES RANCHES INSURANCE RENTALS CITY 0 BURLINGAME 6 19 0 AAT= JYN[ 6' The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790 CORRECTED COPY March 26, 2001 Tom Lunkley 1169 Broadway Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Mr. Lunkley, At the City Council meeting of February 20, 2001, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on the denial of your parking variance application. This application was to convert an existing storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4. A public hearing will be held on April 2, 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. iSincerely yours, ' ' l Marg et Monroe City Planner MM/s 1209BEL2.acc c: Estee Coldwell 219 Avila Road San Mateo CA 94402 City Clerk City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 entire community, not just home owner; rear garage ears to be intended to be used as a pool house with double french doors opening into the backyar chitecture of the house doesn't meet intention of design guidelines, can't support, have seen a lot.Q4,ouses at the maximum square footage that have responded to the neighborhood character and mad e structure look not so big. C. Vistica moved to deny thlication. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga cajd for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Osterling abstaining arff Cers. Boju6s, Keighran absent,). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:43 p.m. YA 9 BELLEVUE AVENUE - ZONED R-4 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO NVERT AN EXISTING STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO UNIT (TOM LUNKLEY, AVR REALTY, LICANT•WILLIAM VAN HOUSEN ARCHITECT ESTEE COLDWELL PROPERTY OWNER C. Vistica stated that he would be abstaining from this item since he owns property within 300 feet of 1209 Bellevue Avenue. Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner. presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. 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 Broadway represented the owner of the subject property and was available to answer questions. Commission asked if there is a kitchen in the room in question? Applicant stated that there is a gas line, faucet, and kitchen cabinets. Commission asked if there were appliances in place now. The applicant responded that that there are no appliances. The Commission asked what the rent for the existing units on the site is. The applicant stated that the studios rent for as low as $995 and the one bedroom rents for $1275. Commission asked when the property was built; applicant did not know. CP Monroe responded that at least as early as 1960, since it shows up on the Sanborn Map. The owner, Estee Coldwell addressed the Commission, stating that she has owned the property for the last 26 years and has never rented the space as a studio. The lady that was storing furniture there has her own unit on the property. She took out permit in 1983 for pluming and electrical, and to change the sliding glass door to a solid door in order to comply with the Fire Code in order to upgrade the laundry area. When she purchased the building it was a laundry room and already had a toilet and gas dryer. She has used the space in the past to store furniture and appliances for her other properties. It was only rented out as a storage unit recently. No one could even live in the space since there is no heat. Commission questioned why would you want to make it into a unit now when it was never rented before as a living unit? The owner responded that she doesn't need it for storage anymore and wants to provide low income housing to address the housing problems in the area. She could rent it to someone without a vehicle, perhaps an elderly person. She could document yearly to the City that it was a low-income unit, that was rented to someone without a car. She explained that she would promise to this. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: currently the site is non -conforming in regards 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 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 designed as storage, parking is a problem in this area, photo in the staff report and site visit shows that there is frequently double parking in the driveway, hardship is to the property not the City; unit could be made livable, but agrees if it was rented to a person without a car we could take advantage of spaces like this space, maybe we could include something like this in the amnesty program, would not grant a variance for this space for a $995 rent, but if $600 month rent with a maximum of a 2 % increase per year it could be a solution.; would like to see more people living downtown without cars, would like to look into this in the future. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to deny the application by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that demolition permits shall be obtained from the Burlingame Building Department to remove the toilet, shower, sink, and all plumbing and gas connections from the storage unit; 2) that these demolition permits shall be applied for within 15 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled by the CBO within 30 days of the issuing of a permit; 3) that the storage unit shall only be used for storage purposes for tenants on site, defined as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository; California Building Code limits the occupancy of the storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the unit for longer than one hour while engaged in the task of retrieving articles from the unit or storing articles in the room; 4) It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Vistica abstaining and Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:07 p.m. 8. 1205 HOWARD AVENUE ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AMENDMENT TO EXT THE DAYS OF OPERATION FOR AN EXISTING BUSINESS ROBERTA OSWALD LI AND PROPERTY OWNER Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with It,a and Planning Department comments. N how the weekday visitor number was 25 be no more than 35 people on-site at one will be operating while the retail store is depending on the retail activity. ents. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria editions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked the weekend visitor number was 40, but there are suppose to ? Planner Keylon and CP Monroe explained that the tea room i to shoppers, so the number of patrons in the store will vary Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Prope there would be special seating for tea at 11:00, 2:00, well. She wants the tea portion of the business open Commission asked what is served during tea time. sweets would be served, but that they close at 5:30 so no further comments from the floor and the public he owner and applicant Roberta Oswald stated that 4:00, with the shopping open at these times as idays and Mondays to keep the business going. owner explained that scones, sandwiches and ;y would not be serving full meals. There were aR was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resoluti with the following conditions: 1) that the food establishment on this premise shall conform to the plans bmitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 24, 1991, that the food establishment shall no xceed 475 SF including kitchen and seating area although the 320 SF seating area with eight tables may m within the retail area, the second floor Cit of Burlingame Item No. � City g Regular Action Parking Variance Address: 1209 Bellevue Avenue Meeting Date: 2/12/01 Request: Parking variance to convert an existing storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4. (C.S. 25.70.032) Applicant: Tom Lunkley, AVR Realty Inc. APN: 029-151-09C Property Owner: Estee Coldwell Architect: William Van Housen, A.I.A. Lot Area: 11,028 SF General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning: R-4 Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential, Office, and Retail CEQA status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (b), Apartments, duplexes, and similar structures, with no more than four dwelling units if not in conjunction with the building or conversion of two or more such structures. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to single apartments, duplexes, and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units if not constructed in conjunction with the building or conversion of two or more such structures. History: In June 2000, the City's Code Enforcement Officer received a complaint about an illegal unit located at 1209 Bellevue Avenue. Planning records for 1209 Bellevue Avenue indicated past code enforcement issues concerning the illegal occupation of a storage room and involving the present property owner, Estee Coldwell. A site visit revealed that the existing storage room located at grade at the rear of the property contained illegal plumbing, gas, and electrical connections and was being occupied as a living unit (see June 13, 2000, attachment). The property owner and property manager were notified by the Planning Department (see July 24, 2000, attachment) that they had the option to obtain a demolition permit to remove the illegal work within the storage unit, or to apply for a parking variance to convert the storage unit to a studio unit. They were informed that it was illegal for the storage unit to be occupied at any time. After expressing the desire to seek a parking variance, the property owner and property manager were granted a total of four extensions of code enforcement deadlines to submit their application to the Planning Department. The City continued to receive complaints that the storage unit was being occupied and an additional site visit, performed on November 20, 2000, confirmed this fact. The property owner and manager were notified for a second time that it was illegal for the storage unit to be occupied at any time (see November 22, 2000, attachment). An application for a parking variance was submitted to the Planning Department on December 1, 2000. Summary: The applicant, Tom Lunkley, is requesting a parking variance for two parking spaces to convert an existing storage room into a studio dwelling unit. The existing apartment complex at 1209 Bellevue Avenue consists of ten apartment units (9 studios and 1 one -bedroom), one storage room, and Parking Variance 1209 Bellevue Avenue ten covered parking spaces. The dimensions and total number of parking spaces currently provided on-site are existing and non -conforming conditions. There are 10 parking spaces provided on site for the 10 existing living units (15 parking spaces are required by the current code). Of the 10 existing parking spaces, 6 interior spaces located in the carport are dimensioned at 8'-9" x 20', where 9' x 20' is required by code, 2 end spaces located in the carport are dimensioned at 8'-9" x 20', where 10' x 20' is required by code, and 2 end spaces located in the garage at the rear of the property are dimensioned at 9' x 20', where 10' x 20' is required by the code. Backup area provided is 24'-0", where 24'-0" is required by the code. The conversion of the storage room requires an additional 1.5 (rounded to 2) on- site parking spaces. The storage room proposed for conversion is located off of a breezeway at the rear of the property. The room is 547 SF and contains illegal plumbing, gas, and electrical connections in the bathroom and the kitchen. If a parking variance is granted for conversion to a living unit, building permits will be required to bring the facility into compliance with current building and fire codes. Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that C.S. 25.70.010 states that when any building is changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, by a change in type of use, or by an intensification of use, additional parking facilities must be provided. Therefore a parking variance is necessary only for the 2 additional spaces required by the intensification of use in the storage room from storage to living quarters. See City Engineer's and Building Official's memos from 12/4/00 and Fire Marshal's memo from 12/3/00. Planning staff would note that if a parking variance is not granted for the conversion of this existing storage room to a dwelling unit, then the applicant must be required to permanently remove all the facilities added without permits. The 547 SF area may be used as storage for tenants on site. Storage use is defined as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository and the CBC limits occupancy of a storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the storage area for longer than an hour while engaging in the task of storing or retrieving articles in the room.. If a variance cannot be granted, the Commission should deny this application by resolution (see attached) which will be recorded with the property to document with the deed the limitations on the use of the 547 SF area. The applicant should be given 30 days to remove or incapacitate the illegal facilities now in the storage room and have an inspection by the CBO. Parking Variance PROPOSED CHANGES 1209 Bellevue Avenue Proposed Existing Allowed/Req'd. Use: 11 living units 10 living units, 1 storage unit apartment housing Parking: no change 10 total covered spaces * 2 parking spaces required to convert storage room to a studio room (the total number of required spaces for 6 of which are (8'-9" X 20'), 11 single bedroom living units under where (9' X 20') is required** current code regulations would be 17 spaces- see staff comments below) and 4 of which are (9' X 20'), where (10' x 20') is required** Area: no change 547 SF N/A * Existing, non -conforming number of spaces ** Existing, non -conforming dimensions for parking spaces This project meets all other zoning code requirements. Study Meeting: On January 22, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed this project for a parking variance (see 1/22/01 minutes). The Commission requested the following information from the applicant: • evidence of a hardship on the property and in particular, address questions a and b on the variance application form; • the length of time the storage area been used as a dwelling unit; • a plan to show how the applicant proposes to initially offer this dwelling unit at a below market rate and continue to offer it at a below market rate; and • how the currently required 17 parking spaces could be accommodated on site In response to these questions the applicant submitted on the written responses dated 2/2/01 (see attached). Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a -d): a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; 3 Parking Variance 1209 Bellevue Avenue c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings. Denial should also be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 5, 2001 sheet A1; 2. that any permits or work required to make the storage room meet all current Building and Fire codes for a dwelling unit shall be issued within 30 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled, including occupancy permit, by the CBO within 45 days of issuing a permit. The owner shall receive a final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Burlingame Building Department before the unit is occupied; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame Erika Lewit Zoning Technician c: Tom Lunkley, AVR Realty 4 ROUTING FORM DATE: December 3, 2000 TO: CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for conversion of a storage room to a one - bedroom unit in an existing four -unit apartment building at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4, APN: 025-169-250. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 3, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben 12-149100 Date of Comments ROUTING FORM DATE: December 3, 2000 TO: CITY ENGINEER _7CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for conversion of a storage room to a one - bedroom unit in an existing four -unit apartment building at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4, APN: 025-169-250. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 3, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben 2'Ll 6�Z�ate of Comments ����cT_-vc��aec� ROUTING FORM DATE: December 3, 2000 TO: _CITY ENGINEER �CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL " FIRE MARSHAL s' SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNERIPLANNER SUBJECT: Request for parking variance for conversion of a storage room to a one - bedroom unit in an existing four -unit apartment building at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4, APN: 025-169-250. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, December 3, 2000 THANKS, 1 Maureen/Erika/Ruben 12-- 3 Date of Comments 1. Wal � ad�o)'nkvl� �11,e� sal be, m�c_) --� i6ebk wct-LI VIA City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 22 2001 2. 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO UNIT (TOM LUNKLEY, AVR REALTY, APPLICANT; WILLIAM VAN HOUSEN ARCHITECT ESTEE COLDWELL PROPERTY OWNER CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commission asked: what are the unusual hardships on the property particularly variance items a and b, these should be addressed; how long has the storage area been used as a dwelling unit; applicant suggests that this unit be used as a below market rate dwelling unit, how do they propose to do this and to see that it continues permanently as a below market rate opportunity; would applicant show how the currently required parking could be accommodated on this site; a variance needs a hardship related to the physical characteristics of the site, this seems to be an issue of convenience/applicant needs, please submit rational for the variance based on the attributes of the property. ,The item was placed on the action calendar, for the February 12, 2001 meeting. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. VII. AC N ITEMS Consent Calend - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/o ction is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the mot n to adopt. There were no items on thy, consent calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION 3. 1228 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARI E FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES MICHELLE DELIA, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; Reference staff report 01.22.01, with attac .Xnents. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from voting on the project because of a business relationship w' the applicant; he stepped down from the dais. ZT Lewit presented the staff report. Commission asked sta he amount of floor area counted for the loft is only 8 SF; the majority of the oor area requiring the variance is t n the result of the raised ceiling height in the bedroom. Staff explained th although the ceiling height in the as from 3'-3" up to 5'-6", only spaces above 5'-0" are included in t total floor area, and this amounts 8 SF for the proposed loft. There were no further questions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the'�ublic hearing. Jim Delia, propert owner, was present to answer questions. He noted that the purpose of the loft Was to render the existing space un the roofline useable area. Ike would support a condition preventing the variance from being transferred to an ther area in the house. Applicant explained he believed there was some confusion in the interpretation of the ission's original comments; believes they did not want to see matching eaves on the garage, and instead wan 6to see the overhang at front of the structure increased in depth; does not want to lose any backyard space. e noted that he feels the redesigned garage matches the approved main dwelling. 02/01/2001 16:50 4153420428 AVR REALTY PAGE 03 i REALTY. INC. In reference to the request for a parking variance at 1209 Bellevue, Burlingame, due to hardship. The real issue of hardship here has less to do with the building or owner and more to do with the community. Burlingame is in the midst of a housing crisis, and greatly in need of affordable housing. I. 1209 Bellevue Burlingame consists of nine studio apartments, one, one bedroom apartment, and a room that is large enough to accommodate a studio apartment, with some modification. Given the crisis in housing in Burlingame, and the peninsula in general, an increasing demand coupled with a relatively fixed supply of dwelling units has driven rents to levels which are not accessible to lower income individuals and families. From The Independent, January 31, 2001, "For years, cities in San Mateo County have been dragging their feet over the housing crisis." Several weeks ago, The independent carried a front page story concerning The City of Burlingame plans to offer amnesty to two hundred illegal units in an attempt to meet state- mandated affordable housing quotas. Further, the article reported that an estimated 600 illegal units are being occupied and that the problem The City of Burlingame is identifying the units in order to offer them amnesty. We ask the planning commission to start with 1209 Bellevue. One "below" market rate dwelling would seem to be better than none. 2. The owner of 1209 Bellevue approached The City of Burlingame on February 1, 2000 (her property was then managed by Town & Country Realty) attempting to convert a storage area into a legal rental unit. Find enclosed a copy of the letter from The City Attorney, Larry Anderson, addressed to Town & Counter Realty, which commenced this process. According to our best information, as well as Town & Country Realty's records, this storage area was not, and is not, used as a residential unit, but as a storage unit as described in the terms of the rental agreement. As a matter of fact, when Burlingame code enforcement sent a letter dated November 22nd, 2000, the renter of the storage unit at issue had already leased an apartment in the same building "1209 Bellevue", as her residence. 3. Any Burlingame department which will assume jurisdiction to insure that this unit at issue remains an affordable housing unit is acceptable to the property owner. If approved, The City of Burlingame would be notified of any change of status, i.e. vacancy, terms of rental agreement, proposed rental amounts, etc. Code enforcement if willing, might be the logical course to enforce the term of any proposal acceptable to the City of Burlingame. Code enforcement could review and approve any leases, rent increases and other material changes in the status of the proposed studio unit.AVR Realty, Inc. will comply with any City of Burlingame guidelines on providing affordable housing, and will make this unit available to low income applicants, including II.U.D qualified renters. a. Moreover, if the owner is granted a parking variance, the additional studio space would only be rented to individuals who do not own vehicles. Proximity to public transportation both bus, and rail make this location an excellent one for a non -vehicle owner. RECEIVED FEB - 2 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 92/01/2001 16:50 4153420428 AVR REALTY PAGE 04 �= 1s1. Co ��ah, 1'IAu,ii 0Cjr aitu of Pitrltatvnw OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL — 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME• CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 February 7, 2000 Mr. David M. Constantino Town & Country Realty P.V. box 1999 Burlingame, CA 94011 Re: 1209 Bellevue Avenue, Burlingame Dear Mr. Constantino: TEL: (650)696-7207 FAX: (650) 342-8386 Thank you for your letter of January 25, 2000, which WAS Land -delivered last week. In order to allow use of the one -bedroom apartment on the ground floor as a living unit, a variance would be required from the Planning Coil mussioil - Your letter contained a number of interesting suggestions on how to structure conditions on such a variance, so you should make those suggestions a part of the planning application for the variance. At first look, I am not sure that the business license approach would work on annual regulation; a business license is a tax that is not normally assessed against a tenant, and business licenses are not imposed for regulatory purposes. However, your commitment to reduced rent might well be a means of seeking relief from the parking requirement for the unit. I recommend that you contact the Planning Department at 558-7250 and discuss the best way to present the avolication for review. Best regards, ARRANDERSON City Atorney RECEIVED FEB - 2 2001 CITY OF ,BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. JUL-10-2000 14:22 CITY OF BURLINGAME 550 342 83% P.02iO4 CITY OF BURLINGAME ,f APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Applieation:�Special Permi x x Variance Other Project Address: 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 029-151-090 APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name:AVR REALTY INC. c/o TOM LUNKLEYName: ESTEE COLDWELL Address: 1169 BROADWAY Address: 219 AVILA ROAD, SAN MATEO,CA_944 City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME , C A . 94010 City/State/Zip: SAN MATE 0 Phone (w): 650-342-2073 Phone (w): WJ: 6y9 1^A 494 n�. 650-341 -7890 fax: 650 -342-0428 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: IM darn Address:�,8��5' C�ema�k 1e2o� City/State/Zip: �a� �A�% t� C -A 9 q `O2 Phone (w): v''t - — c -O 4— fax; 341— q,)52 fax: Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. * THOMAS G. LUNKLEY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CONVERT AN EXISTING STUDIO STORAGE SPACE TO A HABITABLE LOW COST HOUSING, STUDIO APARTMENT TO AN NEEDY INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT POSSESS AN AUTOMOBILE. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my kn wledge and belief. - JULY 7, 2000 Applicant's Sig ature Date THOMAS G. LUN Y I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Plannin Commission, ES EE COLDWE� � h DULY 7, 2000 Prope O er's Signature Date __----__------_.__._._. ---------- FOR OFFICE USE ONLY --..-------------- Date Filed: 12-1-00 Fee: -s 33 S. n o Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: IT1 OF :UFLING�,�JIE �/A�I/�NCE �FF'LIC�TIONS The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a -d). Your answers to the following questions will assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The subject property consists of 9 studio apartments, 1 -one bedroom apartment (each occupied by only one person) and a very large studio apartment with a private yard presently used as a storage space. The subject property has 10 2 -car tandem parking spaces and 1 uncovered parking space, for a total of 21 parking spaces. See photos. A condition of habitability of the large studio storage space would be at low cost to a needy individual such as a 0-sngr citizen who does not own or possess an automobile The subject property is walk, the City Library, City Hall and downtown shops, restaurants and most importantly, rail and bus transportation. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what' unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. It would have an equally financial benefit not only to the property owner but most importantly to the fortunate needy individual who would benefit from the low cost of inhabiting this apartment. Additionally, it would help to address low cost housing as mandated by the State of California. The denial of this application would be a direct loss to the otherwise fortunate individual who would benefit from the low cost of the proposed apartment and, more significantly, an opportunity lost to the City of Burlingame in addressing low cost housing. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The apartment unit has existed as an original fixture of the building. It was originally used by the first property owners as their personal entertainment room. It is not something we propose to construct, it has existed since the original con- struction of the existing building. d. 12192 var.frm It is presently used as a storage space and the person who uses it for storage comes and goes with use of an automobile. This would cease because we would agree that a condition of use of the property as a habitable apartment would be that its occupar cannot own or possess an automobile. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? As previously mentioned, this space has existed as an original space to the property. It will not have a negative affect on surrounding properties. If anything, it will have a positive effect on surrounding properties and traffic congestion because a condition of its use would require that it's occupant could not own or possess an automobile. November 22, 2000 City of Burlingame Office of the City Attorney Code Enforcement Bureau 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 558-7208, Fax: (650) 342-8386 Estee Coldwell Sent via certified mail 219 Avila Rd San Mateo, CA 94402 Re: 1209 Bellevue Ave, Burlingame Dear Ms. Coldwell: During the site visit to your property on July 19, 2000 by Mrs. Lewit of the Planning Dept. and myself you were informed that the storage room, in question, could not be used for any purpose other than storage. Mr. Tom Lunkley, your property manager and Ms. Suzanne Taylor, the tenant were also present. Additionally, in a letter to you dated July 24, 2000, you were informed again that the storage facility may not be rented as a living unit or occupied at any time. Since the site visit I have received a number of reports that the tenant has been occupying the premises in violation of our city ordinances and contrary to the two notifications given to you. On November 20, 2000 I received another report that the unit was being occupied. Accompanied by Mrs. Lewit of the Planning Dept. I made contact at the unit with Suzanne Soleil Taylor. Ms. Taylor was informed again that the storage area could not be used for any purpose other than storage. It is not be used as a living area and not be used as an office or recreation area. The use of the storage area for other purposes is a violation of our city ordinances as well as the California Building Code. It may be advisable to contact your insurance company and notify them of the current situation. You should be aware that this is a life safety issue and in the event of an incident or accident your insurance company may choose not to cover any monetary damages since the occupancy is illegal. In addition to liability on your part it may extend to the property rental agency if they were aware of the violations. The fact that you were given two notifications of the illegal occupancy and chose to ignore them will be noted in our records and consideration will be given to filing criminal charges. Sincerely, Alfred J. Palmer Code Enforcement Officer cc: City Attorney Planning Dept. - Erika Lewit Building Dept. - Fred Cullum Tenant - Suzanne Taylor Property Manager - Thomas Lunkley BURLINGAME The City ®f Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790 July 24, 2000 Estee Coldwell Owner, 1209 Bellevue Avenue 219 Avila Road San Mateo 94402 Dear Ms. Coldwell, This letter summarizes the site inspection conducted at 1209 Bellevue on July 19, 2000 by Erika Lewit (Planning Department), Fred Palmer (Code Enforcement) and Tom McGovern (Building Department) in the presence of you and Mr. Lunkley (property manager). The site inspection was conducted in response to reports that a storage room on site was being rented out as a living unit. The inspection revealed illegal plumbing fixtures for a toilet and shower and illegal gas connections for cooking facilities, as well as testimony from an associate of Ms. Coldwell's confirming that she had on occasion occupied the storage facility overnight. As explained to you and Mr. Lunkley at the site inspection, there are two options available regarding the illegal unit at 1209 Bellevue. If you would like to legalize the unit, you may apply to the Planning Commission for a parking variance. In the event that a parking variance is granted, you will be allowed to rent the unit only after obtaining permits for any illegal work and after performing any additional work required to bring the facility into compliance with current building codes. The second option available is to remove the illegal plumbing and gas connections and return the use of the facility to strictly storage. The storage facility may not be rented as a living unit or occupied at any time. Please contact the Planning Department within 30 days, by August 25, 2000 to notify us which option you have chosen to pursue. At that time we can either accept an application for a variance or make an appointment for another inspection to confirm that the illegal connections have been removed. If you have any questions or require additional information, call me at (650) 558-7252. Sincerely, Erika Lewit Zoning Technician c: Mr. Thomas Lunkley 1169 Broadway Burlingame CA 94010 Tom McGovern, Burlingame Building Department Fred Palmer, Burlingame Code Enforcement Type Illegal Unit CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT Address 1209 Bellevue Business Coldwell LN3me FName Estee Phone 342-2073 i Date 6/13/00 Case 200000503 RPLaName Hall ( RPFName Kathy RPAddres 1209 Bellevue #4 RPPhone _._ ----__--__........_..h 348-0871 How Phone to Planning ­ ­_._ .::.. ......v_—_..._ ­,__.. Ref 1 Remarks Dispo AVR, Realty manages the property Inspection l ONotified Clrr 4 � BIt1Ri1NGAME Out 1 RP reports an illegal living unit. The store room at the rear of the complex next to the parking area is being rented as unit #11. This is not a designated living unit. The unit has been rented since the early part of 1999. The city received a letter in February 2000 from the prior property Manager, Town and Country realty regarding the prohibition and the requirements to obtain a variance. Nothing further has been received. At this time AVR Realty is managing the property. Site visit, photos and letter. Tenants vehicle license # is 2ZQZ948. 6/26/00 request from Thomas Lunkley, AVR Reaty for a continuance to apply for a variance. Granted until July 10th. 7/10/00, nothing received -Called Tom Lunkley and after he promised to turn in the variance application by 7/11 /00 1 faxed him the forms and noted that it would cost $285.00 to file the app. 7/11/00 came to city hall with the completed application, but did not have the drawings and other submittals required by planning. I spoke to Mr. Lunkley and he then told me that the property owner did not want to spend the money for plans. I advised Mr. Lunkley that they would have to vacate the unit and remove the plumbing fixtures (Fill them with grout etc.) and remove the cooking facilities. He told me that he would get back to me tomorrow. 7/17/00 property owner has been in touch with MRs. Lewitt in the Planning dept. A site inspection is scheduled for 7/19/00. 7/19/00 Site inspection with Mrs. Lewit, Tom McGovern, Oroperty owner, Estee Coldwell, Tom Lunkley from AVR and the Tenant. Site inspection reveled illegal toilet conection, gas connections and shower. It appears that it was used as a living unit. Ms. Coldwell was told by Mrs. Lewit that she would give her 30 days to either remove the illegal connections or to file for a variance. Under no circumstances is anyone to live in the unit in the interim. A certified letter will be sent to the property owner and the DateDue Fw 8/20/00 Page 1 of 1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\MVC-005S.JPG 07/19/2000 Page 1 of 1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\MVC-006S.JPG 07/19/2000 Page 1 of 1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEW\MVC-002S.JPG 07/19/2000 Page 1 of 1 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\MVC-003 S.JPG 07/19/2000 June 13, 2000 City of Burlingame Office of the City Attorney Code Enforcement Bureau 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 558-7208, Fax: (650) 342-8386 Estee Coldwell PO Box 1999 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Property at 1209 Bellevue Ave, Burlingame Dear Ms. Coldwell: This office has received a complaint that you are renting an illegal unit in your building located at 1209 Bellevue Ave, in Burlingame. The unit in question is referred to as #11. Our information is that the tenant may possibly be a Suzanne Taylor. In February of this year the former property management firm, Town and Country, made an inquiry to the city about the use of this unit. The City y° 9 Attorney responded and informed them what they need to do to proceed. As of this date nothing further has been received by the city. Copies of both letters are attached for your reference. In order to avoid enforcement action on our part we are requesting that, prior to June 23, 2000, you do either of the following: 1. Take steps to have the unit vacated immediately. 2. Contact the city planner and make application for the appropriate variance. Your anticipated cooperation in this matter is appreciated. Sincerely, Alfred J. Palmer Code Enforcement Officer cc: City Attorney City Planner Ross Bruce, AVR Realty, 1179 Broadway Avenue Town & County Property Management 1120 Broadway •: P.O. Box 1999 Burlingame CA 94011-1999 (650)342-7000 Fax (650)342-9618 Since 1948 - People Serving People RECEIVED FEB 2 4 2000 February 24, 2000 CITY OF BURLFNGAME PLANNING DEPT. Meg Monroe Chief Planning Official City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010 Re: 1209 Bellevue Avenue, Burlingame CA 94010 — HAND DELIVERED Dear Meg, My real estate firm manages the above referenced property. The property consists of 9 studio apartments, 1 one -bedroom apartment and an additional ground floor very large studio apartment with a private enclosed yard. Additionally, the property has 10 tandem covered parking spaces and 1 uncovered parking space adjacent to the driveway. A maximum of 21 automobiles can be parked on-site at any given time. The ground floor studio apartment was built as part of the original construction and was used by the owners of the property as their private recreation/entertainment room. Today, it is being utilized as a storage space. The purpose of this correspondence is a request that the ground floor studio apartment be converted to a living unit with certain conditions attached to this use. The conditions that I am proposing are: 1. The apartment be lease to an individual that does not own or use a motor vehicle; 2. The apartment be leased at a price that would be 75% of its market value. (The current market value of an apartment in this location that includes a private, fenced yard is $1,195.00 per month. Therefore the unit would be rented for no more than $900.00 per month. I am currently getting as much as $950.00 per month for very much smaller studio apartments in the same building without a private yard or patio or balcony). This rental rate would surely appeal to an individual of limited income and/or a person receiving housing assistance such as a Section 8. 3. The annual rental increase could not be more that 5%; 4. The use be regulated through the annual business tax. A business use fee would be levied against this apartment unit (to be paid by the property owner) and the occupant and property owner would be required to sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the occupant of the property does not own/operate a motor vehicle. As you are aware, some years ago the State of California mandated that every city within the state address the affordable housing issue. My initial contact with the City of Burlingame was with Larry Anderson. His response to my proposal was a positive one considering our commitment to offering the studio at a reduced rent. I am sure you will agree that this proposal Page 2 of 2 is an excellent means towards addressing affordable housing in Burlingame. Additionally, the location of this property is very much suited for this purpose. The occupant of this apartment would not need a vehicle because the apartment is walking distance to downtown, the library, City Hall and most importantly, public transportation. Please call me after you have reviewed this correspondence so that I can began the application process. ly, David M. Constantino C: Property Owner Ztir (Mv of �urhnganw CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 696-7207 OFFICE OF THE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 342-8386 CITY ATTORNEY February 7, 2000 Mr. David M. Constantino Town & Country Realty P.U. liox 1999 Burlingame, CA 94011 Re: 1209 Bellevue Avenue, Burlingame Dear Mr. Constantino: Thank you for your letter of January 25, 2000, which was hand -delivered last week. In order to allow use of the one -bedroom apartment on the ground floor as a living unit, a variance would be required from the Planning Commission. Your letter contained a number of interesting suggestions oil how to structure conditions on such a variance, so you should make those suggestions a part of the planning application for the variance. At first look, I am not sure that the business license approach would work on annual regulation; a business license is a tax that is not normally assessed against a tenant, and business licenses are not imposed for regulatory purposes. However, your commitment to reduced rent might well be a means of seeking relief from the parking requirement for the unit. I recommend that you contact the Planning Department at 558-7250 and discuss the best way to present the nolication for review. Best r Bards, ARR C. AI�TDERSOI\ City ttorney =�F Z(jr Ck, of �!Ittrtbt�jzuttr SAN MATEO COUNTY - CITY MALL -901 PRIMROSE ROAO 14: A411 OURLING^Me. CALIFORNIA QAO10 August 16, 1985 David Caldwell P.O. Box 4402 Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: 1209 Bellevue Dear Mr. Caldwell: After discussions with the Fire Department I thought it appropriate that I write you regarding the use of a storage area on this property. As I understand it, there was recently a fire in this area and your son was occupying it. There was at least a bud and television set in the area thereby indicating that is is being used for sleeping purposes. This letter is to inform you that the area can only be used for storage purposes. At no time can it be used for sleaping or dwelling purposes. This presents a serious danger both to the occupant of that storage area and to the tenants of your building. Please see that this does not occur again. Additionally, I am informed that the building permit for the storage area was never finaled. Please see that the work is completed according to our building and that a final approval is obtained from the Building Inspector. Yours truly, JEROME F. COLEMAN City Attorney V JFC/b cc: Fire Dept. Attent'_on Keith Marshall, Building, Planning �I't CITY of CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD ., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE Application for parking variance to convert an existing storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4. PUBLIC HEARING (APN: 029-151-090) NOTICE 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) CITY OF BURLINGAME x"- Acopy of the application and dans fortiisproject,nay be reviewed prior to the meeting at the', Plar�mg DqAa Ment at-' 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. ,9 If you challengetheabjectphcatlu in.co rtou maybe limited to raisin onl ihose sues out omeon g Y� Yt se At the public hearing, described in ttfpsnplice orAn written corwspondenc xieliver d to the city at or prior to tli PYulii heag e ,, 4 Property overs ho._reeel is ti esponsi or informing their tenants abo t thi —ti-q'e.% �i information, please call (650) 558-7250. hank u ,, Margaret M`on off:° City Planner r ---"" {Aff ,• PUB LLCEARI_L-b1V,TICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION DENYING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE 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 parking variance for converting an existingstorage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue. zoned R-4, Estee Coldwell, property owner. APN: 029-151-090; 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 the categorical exemption and parking variance are denied and: 1. that demolition permits shall be obtained from the Burlingame Building Department to remove the toilet, shower, sink, and all plumbing and gas connections from the storage unit; 2. that these demolition permits shall be applied for within 15 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled by the CBO within 30 days of the issuing of a permit 3. that the storage unit shall only be used for storage purposes for tenants on site, defined as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository; California Building Code limits the occupancy of the storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the unit for longer than one hour while engaged in the task of retrieving articles from the unit or storing articles in the room. 4. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Joseph Bojues , 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 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made fora -Parking variance for converting an existing storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue. zoned R -4 - Estee Coldwell property owner. APN: 029-151-090; 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 parking variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such parking variance 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, Joseph Bojues , 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 for parking variance 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE effective FEBRUARY 20, 2001 Conditions of Approval: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 5, 2001 sheet A 1; 2. that any permits or work required to make the storage room meet all current Building and Fire codes for a dwelling unit shall be issued within 30 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled, including occupancy permit, by the CBO within 45 days of issuing a permit. The owner shall receive a final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Burlingame Building Department before the unit is occupied; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame 0a RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE 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 parking variance for converting an existing storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4, Estee Coldwell, property owner, APN: 029-151-090; 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 April 2, 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 parking variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such parking variance 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. 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 2nd day of April, 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for parking variance 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE effective APRIL 2, 2001 Conditions of Approval: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 5, 2001 sheet Al; 2. that any permits or work required to make the storage room meet all current Building and Fire codes for a dwelling unit shall be issued within 30 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled, including occupancy permit, by the CBO within 45 days of issuing a permit. The owner shall receive a final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Burlingame Building Department before the unit is occupied; 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. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE 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 parking variance for converting an existing storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue zoned R-4, Estee Coldwell, property owner, APN: 029-151-090; 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 April 2, 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 the categorical exemption and parking variance are denied and: 1. that demolition permits shall be obtained from the Burlingame Building Department to remove the toilet, shower, sink, and all plumbing and gas connections from the storage unit; 2. that these demolition permits shall be applied for within 15 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled by the CBO within 30 days of the issuing of a permit; 3. that the storage unit shall only be used for storage purposes for tenants on site, defined as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository; California Building Code limits the occupancy of the storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the unit for longer than one hour while engaged in the task of retrieving articles from the unit or storing articles in the room; 4. 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 2nd day of April, 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK OITV of CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLJNS,A N PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of an application for a parking variance to convert PUBLIC HEARING an existing storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4. NOTICE (APN: 029-151-090) The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Monday, April 2, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed March 23, 2001 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGA.111E A copy of the applicationTand plans' -for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the -Planning. Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California �- If you challenge the-subj&t application(s) in court. you mayabe limited to raising onlyhoessues�ou or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in t} est dice wntte� correspondence delivered to the city at or prior t<i th_'� bA6, ng w �a A { Property oN�ers" tW rec t e�tlus x,07 e.are responsible for f orming their tenants abort this. nott or aTiional information, please call (650) 558-7250.'hank )u. L Margaret M$ o o City Planner PUBL- I E RING�N.OTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE 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 parking variance for converting an existingstorage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue, zoned R-4, Estee Coldwell, property owner, APN: 029-151-090; 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 April 2, 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 parking variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such parking variance 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. 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 2nd day of April, 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for parking variance 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE effective APRIL 2, 2001 Conditions of Approval: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 5, 2001 sheet Al; 2. that any permits or work required to make the storage room meet all current Building and Fire codes for a dwelling unit shall be issued within 30 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and fnaled, including occupancy permit, by the CBO within 45 days of issuing a permit. The owner shall receive a final inspection and Certificate of Occupancy from the City of Burlingame Building Department before the unit is occupied; and 3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION DENYING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND PARKING VARIANCE 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 parking variance for _converting an existine storage room to a studio unit at 1209 Bellevue Avenue zoned R-4, Estee Coldwell roperty owner. APN• 029-151-090-) WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on _ FebruM 12 2001, at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Co 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the st, 3 d testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED categorical exemption and parking variance are denied a 1. that demolition permits shall be obtained remove the toilet, shower, sink, and all plumbing and go 2. that these demolition permits shall be ap- this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled b permit; 3. that the storage unit shall only be used f ie )f A as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository; California-Buitaing l,uuc occupancy of the storage room to infrequent usage. No person may occupy the unit for longer than one hour while engaged in the task of retrieving articles from the unit or storing articles in the room; 4. 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 2nd day of Aril, 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK ��� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT Bl1RLINGAME y�oq 900 $FAT 4w 6. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: MARCH 27,200 AGENDA ITEM # _ MTG. DATE 04.02101 8a APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY c SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should review the proposed ordinance establishing commercial design review in the C-1 and C-2 zoning district with fees and introduce the ordinance for public hearing and a second reading at the Council meeting of April 16, 2001. To introduce the ordinance Council should: 1. Request the City Clerk to read to title of the proposed ordinance. 2. Make a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance. 3. Make a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance. 4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 before the proposed adoption. The resolution for adopting fees should be considered at the second reading. It should be included in the public hearing and acted on after affirmative action on the ordinance. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on March 26, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised proposal for establishing commercial design review for new construction and some remodeling in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. Following the hearing and discussion the commission recommended the ordinance forward to the City Council for approval. In their discussion the commissioners noted that this ordinance had under gone a unique review process which allowed it, by cooperation among many professionals, to be responsive to the community's needs. This was supported by the fact that there was no testimony at the public hearing. Commission also noted that since some editing was need for the commerical design guidelines and they only require approval and not adoption by the Council and since they had not changed from the previous submittal in October 2000, they would be brought forward separately, and joined with the ordinance at public hearing. BACKGROUND: In May 2000 the Planning Commission began work, at Council suggestion, on developing commerical design review standards for Burlingame. In October, when Commission forwarded a proposed ordinance, Council directed it to a committee of local commercial property owners, managers and residents for review. This committee reported out to Council in December 2000, with several suggestions for adjustments to the proposed program. Council appointed an expanded committee made up of the original committee, three INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEWIN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS APRIL 2, 2001 Planning Commissioners and a Council member to revise the requirements. The attached ordinance is the consensus of this revision process. Major Tenets of the Proposed Commerical Design Review Ordinance The proposed ordinance would address commerical design review in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts in the following way: • Commerical design review will be required when: 1. Half of the existing walls are being removed in an existing building or a new building is being proposed. 2. When more than 50% of the front fagade of a building eligible for design review is proposed to be changed. 3. When more than 50 lineal feet of the wall of a building facing a public or private street or parking lot eligible for design review is being changed. • Commerical design review will not be required when: 1. The exteriors of tenant spaces or buildings that are 25 feet or less in length on public or private streets or parking lots are being changed. 2. For installation of new or replacement awnings (unless they are part of a project fagade which requires commercial design review). Five design criteria are established for commercial design review: 1. Support the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; 2. Respect and promote pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; 5. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commerical neighborhood. Commercial design review will use the same process which is used for single family residential design review. Design reviewers for commerical project review will have commerical design experience. The Commerical Design Guidebook To facilitate implementation of the Commerical Design Review Ordinance the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission also prepared a Commerical Design Guidebook. The Guidebook will provide verbal and pictorial explanations of the features of the commerical area that the five design review criteria are intended to encourage and protect. This booklet is not to be adopted with the ordinance, but is intended to be approved as an implementing tool. Staff will use it at the counter and applicants can take it with them to help them understand the design objectives of the ordinance. The Commerical Design Guidebook will be forwarded to Council in time for the second reading of the ordinance. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEWIN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS APRIL 2, 2001 Commerical Design Review Fees The fees proposed for commercial design review is $395 ( $200 for staff review, $75 for environmental review and $120 for public noticing). This fee is basically the same as that established in 1998 for residential design review, except for the noticing fee. Because of the larger number of notices and staff time for on-site noticing typically required for commerical projects the city's regular noticing fee for commercial projects is $60. The proposed commercial design review process requires two public notices. Therefore the total commerical design review fee paid for city services will be $50 higher than the residential design review fee. As is the case for single family residential design review, applicants for commercial design review also will be required to pay the cost of independent design review if assigned by the Planning Commission. This fee is $100 per hour. The applicant is required to make a design reviewer consultant deposit of $500. Like residential design review, the unused portion of the design reviewer consultant deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Currently only about 40% of the residential projects requiring design review are being sent on to design review consultants after initial study by the Planning Commission. The commercial design review fees proposed are in line with the fees being charged for residential design review, but, like the residential design review fees, are not priced to fully cover the cost of staff time to plan check, work with applicants to complete applications, and prepare staff reports. The city's fee is intended to be kept modest in order to encourage developer participation. The design reviewers will be paid the same hourly rate for commerical design review as they are for residential design review. The cost of their services at $100 per hour is covered by the fee collected, and if more time is required than covered by the initial deposit, then an additional deposit will be collected. These design reviewers are contractors to the city and their hourly rate is established in those contracts. BUDGET IMPACT: The costs of this program will not be fully funded by the applicant and the residual will be made up from the General Fund. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Establish Commerical Design Review in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts of the City Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Adopting Fees for the Costs of Design review Under chapter 25.57 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Planning Commission Minutes, March 12, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes, Unapproved, March 26, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report, with attachments including Annotated Draft of Ordinance to Establish Commercial Design Review in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts of the City, February 15, 2001 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1> 16 17 18 19 0 21 �4 26 27 8 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The areas of the City contained in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts of the City are key elements to economic well-being and the aesthetic values of the City. These districts are the gateway to the northern and southern portions of the City. They comprise the fundamental retail areas for consumers and create the pedestrian atmosphere that is vital to Burlingame's attractiveness to all age groups. In order to ensure that these important areas are not lost to strip mall design or shabby architecture and the wonderful architectural elements of many of the older buildings are not destroyed, a commercial design review process is necessary. Section 2. A new section 25.08.255 is added to read as follows: 25.08.255 Facade. "Facade" means: (a) The exterior walls of a building or structure exposed to public view; or (b) The walls viewed by a person not inside the building; or (c) For a tenant space within a larger building, the portion of the exterior walls that corresponds to the interior space occupied by the tenant or business establishment; or (d) Any awnings on or attached to the exterior walls that meet the definition of facade. Section 3. Section 25.08.643 is amended to read as follows: 25.08.643 Substantial construction. "Substantial construction" means construction of a wholly new building, primary dweHing and or removal or reconstruction of fifty (50) percent or more of the exterior walls of a building; change to accessory structures is not included in this definition. 3/19/2001 draft 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 23 II 2411 25 26 27 28 Section 4. A new section 25.36.037 is added to read as follows: 25.36.037 Design review. Construction and alterations as designated in chapter 25.57 shall be subject to design review under that chapter. When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structure shall be included in the design review. Section 5. A new section 25.38.055 is added to read as follows: 25.38.055 Design review. Construction and alterations as designated in chapter 25.57 shall be subject to design review under that chapter. When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structure shall be included in the design review. Section 6. Chapter 25.57 is amended to read as follows: 25.57.010 Design review required. (a) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building or construction permit shall be issued in any R-1 district for the following: (1) Substantial construction as defined in this title of or to a single family dwelling; or (2) A single family dwelling addition having a plate height greater than nine (9) feet above finished floor; or (3) An increase to the height of the existing plate line of a single family dwelling; or (4) Construction of a garage attached to a single family dwelling; or (5) Addition to or construction of a second story or higher. (b) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building 3/19/2001 draft Chapter 25.57 DESIGN REVIEW 25.57.010 Design review required. 25.57.015 Exceptions. 25.57.020 Design review panel. 25.57.030 Design review process. 25.57.040 Exemptions 25.57.010 Design review required. (a) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building or construction permit shall be issued in any R-1 district for the following: (1) Substantial construction as defined in this title of or to a single family dwelling; or (2) A single family dwelling addition having a plate height greater than nine (9) feet above finished floor; or (3) An increase to the height of the existing plate line of a single family dwelling; or (4) Construction of a garage attached to a single family dwelling; or (5) Addition to or construction of a second story or higher. (b) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building 3/19/2001 draft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or construction' permit shall be issued in any G1 or C-2 district for the following: (1) Substantial construction; or (2) Change to more than fifty (50) percent of the front facade or (3) Change to more than fifty (50) percent of any facade facing a public or private street or parking lot. 25.57.015 Exceptions. The following shall be exceptions to the requirement of a design review in the C-1 and C-2 districts': (a) Any facade with twenty-five (25) feet or less of parking lot or public or private street frontage and (b) New or replacement awnings when the facade or building is not subject to design review. 25.57.020 Design review panel. (a) With the approval of the planning commission, the city planner shall appoint one or more design professionals to advise the city planner and the planning commission on applications in R-1"districts made under thisordinanee chapter. The panel appointees shall be persons in the business of residential design who have practiced their design profession involving residential designs in the city and who are willing to contract with the city to provide advisory services under this chapter. On a random basis, the eity planner shall assign eaeh applieation tttider this ehapter to a panel appointee for review and eomment ttndef t (b) For applications in the C-1 and C-2 districts, with the approval of the planning commission, the city planner shall appoint one or more design professionals who shall be persons in the business of commercial design and who are willing to contract with the city to provide advisory services'' under this chapter. 3/19/2001 draft 3 11 a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25.57.030 Design review process. (a) Any person seeking approval of construction to be reviewed under this chapter shall submit an application for design review to the city planner in the same form and containing the same signatures as provided in section 25.16.040 of this title. The schematic design plans submitted with the application shall demonstrate the architectural details of the proposal, and in the case of an addition, of the existing structure and the addition. (b) Upon completion of the application, the schematic design plans and the application shall be referred to the planning commission for study. The study meeting shall be noticed in accordance with the provisions for notice in this title. If at the study meeting, the planning commission determines that formal design review is not required for the application or that only minor changes are needed, the planning commission may order that the application not be subject to subsection (c) below and will proceed directly to hearing under subsection (e). (c) If the commission instead refers the application for further design review, the plans submitted shall be referred by the city planner on a random basis to the appointee professional described above for review and comment. The appointee's analysis shall be forwarded to the planning commission. (d) No prior mailed notice of the appointee's review is necessary. However, notice of the commission's review of and hearing on each application under this chapter shall be given a provided in section 25.16.050. (e) A design review application in an R-Idistrict shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (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 consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; (4) Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; (5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 3/19/2001 draft 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (6) In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. (f) A design review application in a C -I or C-2 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off -'street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent'' among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures' in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. (ft -(g) The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the planning commission that the applicant's design and project comply with the design criteria set forth in subsections (e) or (f) above,' as applicable. The commission may deny, deny without prejudice, approve, or approve with conditions any application under this chapter. �gj (h) Decisions of the planning commission under this chapter shall be subject to appeal to the city council and the effectiveness as provided in Sections 25.16.070 through 25.16.130, except that the determination of the commission shall become final and conclusive in seven (7) days from the date of the commission decision if no appeal is filed with the city 3/19/2001 draft 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 clerk. 25.57.040 Exemptions. The following applications are exempt from the chapter: (a) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in R-1 districts filed before March 17, 1998 and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1602. (b) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in R-1 districts filed before 5:00 p.m. on November 18. 1999, and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1620. (c) Applications for buildings permits or planning approvals for developments in C-1 or C-2 districts filed before 5:00 p.m. on and certain amendments to those applications or permits ° as specifically provided in Ordinance No. Section 7. The provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this ordinance shall have the following application to building or construction permits in the C-1 and C-2 districts that are subject to this chapter: 1 3/19/2001 draft R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Date of submittal or approval of complete building or construction permit application or complete planning application Status under ordinance Effect of Ordinance on an Amendment to permit or application Before 5:00 p.m. of the Exempt from Design Subject to Design Review under effective date of Ordinance Review under Chapter Chapter 25.57 if: 25.57 1. The permit or application, as amended, involves any construction subject to Chapter 25.57; and 2. The amendment would extend the structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would chan e a facade After 5:00 p.m. on the Subject to Design Review Subject to Design Review under effective date of Ordinance under Chapter 25.57 if the Chapter 25.57 if the application application, involves any involves any construction subject construction subject to to Chapter 25.57 Chapter 25.57 Section 8. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2001, by the following vote: 1 3/19/2001 draft rA 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2; 24 25 26 27 28 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: D AW P51 \FILES\ORDINANC\commdes3.rdl.wpd 1 3/19/2001 draft City Clerk IS RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING FEES FOR THE COSTS OF DESIGN REVIEW UNDER CHAPTER 25.57 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City has amended the Zoning Code provisions regarding design review to include additional design review of certain structures in the R-1 districts and providing preliminary Planning Commission review at the beginning of the application; and WHEREAS, the City is now amending the Zoning Code to provide for design review of certain construction and remodeling in the C-1 and C-2 districts of the City; and WHEREAS, the City will incur significant costs of processing applications for these review process in the contract costs of the consultants, City staff, preparation of reports, review of plan submittals, and noticing; and WHEREAS, the costs of such processing has reasonably approximated the costs of processing a variance or conditional use permit application; and WHEREAS, noticing of design review applications in the C-1 and C-2 districts will include more properties because of the businesses and locations involved; and WHEREAS, the fees and deposits required of applicants to pay for these costs will be less than the actual costs incurred by the City in this regulatory activity, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Applicants for design review in the R-1 districts pursuant to Chapter 25.57 shall pay a fee of $345 at the time of submittal of the application. In addition, applicants shall deposit the sum of $500 at the time of submittal from which the costs of the City design consultant, if any, shall be paid. If and when such deposit is drawn down, the City Planner shall require an additional deposit based on an estimate of the work required of the consultant to complete the design review. Work on the application shall cease until such time as the deposit is made. 2. Applicants for design review in the R-1 districts pursuant to Chapter 25.57 shall pay a fee of $395 at the time of submittal of the application. In addition, applicants shall deposit the sum of $500 at the time of submittal from which the costs of the City design consultant, if any, shall be paid. If and when such deposit is drawn down, the City Planner shall require an additional deposit based on an estimate of the work required of the consultant to complete the design review. Work on the application shall cease until such time as the deposit is made. Mayor 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 day of , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DAWP51 \FILES\RESO\designfees.pin.wpd N City Clerk City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 j 5, O JWW — ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO SOME n BUILDINGS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS City Planner Monroe presented a summary of the proposed revised ordinance which would establish eligibility of properties in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts for commerical design review, criteria for that review and a process for commercial design review. CP noted that there were still some editorial corrections to be made to the commercial design guidelines so Commission could review them at their next meeting and forward them on to the City Council. The guidelines are not intended to be regulations but an assistance to applicants, as such they need only to be approved and acknowledged by the Commission and Council. Commissioners asked that staff review the wording of the ordinance to make sure that it was clear that all tenant and building facades that are 25 feet in length or less are exempt, even if changes are made to 50% or more of the facade. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved that the commission recommend this ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that the quality of this ordinance and the process followed in its formulation is testimony to the need of professionals on the Planning Commission. It was noted that the commerical design review guidelines would be on the Commission's next agenda so that they could go to Council so the entire package would be available at the public hearing. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to City Council for action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. SECOND UNIT AMNESTY — ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AMNESTY FOR SOME SECOND UNITS IN THE R-1 ZONE DISTRICT Cers. Vistica and Deal both noted that they would abstain from action on this item because they owned property zoned R-1 with nonconforming second units. They asked CA Anderson if they could participate in the debate on the ordinance. He responded that they could testify on how the proposed program/ordinance will affect their property. They stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed second unit amnesty program as established in the ordinance before the Planning Commission. Commission noted that there appeared to be a word processing problem with the apostrophes on page 3. Chairman Luzuriaga asked the members of the Subcommittee to review how they arrived at the qualifying criteria. Commissioners noted felt needed one offsite parking space since parking in the existing neighborhoods is generally difficult now, this also affected the maximum of two people per unit; felt it important to have the owner on site for close supervision of the rented unit, would be more particular who rented to; important to get maintenance done to make units safe and sanitary, fire department needs to know if a second unit is present in case of an emergency; put a maximum size in place because did not want units to exceed maximum allowable FAR for site and wanted to keep them a small secondary use; felt must comply without exception to insure fit and continuation of existing conditions. bi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22, 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The areas of the City contained in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts of the City are key elements to economic well-being and the aesthetic values of the City. These districts are the gateway to the northern and southern portions of the City. They comprise the fundamental retail areas for consumers and create the pedestrian atmosphere that is vital to Burlingame's attractiveness to all age groups. In order to ensure that these important areas are not lost to strip mall design or shabby architecture and the wonderful architectural elements of many of the older buildings are not destroyed, a commercial design review process is necessary. Section 2. A new section 25.08.255 is added to read as follows: 25.08.255 Facade. "Facade" means: (a) The exterior walls of a building or structure exposed to public view; or (b) The walls viewed by a person not inside the building; or (c) For a tenant space within a larger building, the portion of the exterior walls that corresponds to the interior space occupied by the tenant or business establishment; or (d) Any awnings on or attached to the exterior walls that meet the definition of facade. Section 3. Section 25.08.643 is amended to read as follows: 25.08.643 Substantial construction. "Substantial construction" means construction of a wholly new building, and or removal or reconstruction of fifty (50) percent or more of the exterior walls of a building; change to accessory structures is not included in this definition. 13/19/2001 draft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Section 4. A new section 25.36.037 is added to read as follows: 25.36.037 Design review. Construction and alterations as designated in chapter 25.57 shall be subj ect to design review under that chapter. When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structure shall be included in the design review. Section 5. A new section 25.38.055 is added to read as follows: 25.38.055 Design review. Construction and alterations as designated in chapter 25.57 shall be subject to design review under that chapter. When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structure shall be included in the design review. Section 6. Chapter 25.57 is amended to read as follows Chapter 25.57 DESIGN REVIEW 25.57.010 Design review required. 25.57.015 Exceptions. 25.57.020 Design review panel. 25.57.030 Design review process. 25.57.040 Exemptions 25.57.010 Design review required. (a) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building or construction permit shall be issued in any R-1 district for the following: (1) Substantial construction as defined in this title of or to a single family dwelling; or (2) A single family dwelling addition having a plate height greater than nine (9) feet above finished floor; or (3) An increase to the height of the existing plate line of a single family dwelling; or (4) Construction of a garage attached to a single family dwelling; or (5) Addition to or construction of a second story or higher. (b) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building 1 3/19/2001 draft 2 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 or construction permit shall be issued in any C-1 or C-2 district for the following: (1) Substantial construction; or (2) Change to more than fifty (50) percent of the front facade; or (3) Change to more than fifty (50) percent of any facade facing a public or private street or parking lot. 25.57.015 Exceptions. The following shall be exceptions to the requirement of a design review in the C-1 and C-2 districts: (a) Any facade with twenty-five (25) feet or less of parking lot or public or private street frontage; and (b) New or replacement awnings when the facade or building is not subject to design review. 25.57.020 Design review panel. (a) With the approval of the planning commission, the city planner shall appoint one or more design professionals to advise the city planner and the planning commission on applications in R-1 districts made under this ordinanee chapter. The panel appointees shall be persons in the business of residential design who have practiced their design profession involving residential designs in the city and who are willing to contract with the city to provide advisory services under this chapter. On a random basis, the eity plaftner shall assign applieation tinder this ehapter to a pane! appointee f;Df feview and eomffleftt ttflder this owe. (b) For applications in the C-1 and C-2 districts, with the approval of the planning commission, the city planner shall appoint one or more design professionals who shall be persons in the business of commercial design and who are willing to contract with the city to provide advisory services under this chapter. 3/19/2001 draft 3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25.57.030 Design review process. (a) Any person seeking approval of construction to be reviewed under this chapter shall submit an application for design review to the city planner in the same form and containing the same signatures as provided in section 25.16.040 of this title. The schematic design plans submitted with the application shall demonstrate the architectural details of the proposal, and in the case of an addition, of the existing structure and the addition. (b) Upon completion of the application, the schematic design plans and the application shall be referred to the planning commission for study. The study meeting shall be noticed in accordance with the provisions for notice in this title. If at the study meeting, the planning commission determines that formal design review is not required for the application or that only minor changes are needed, the planning commission may order that the application not be subject to subsection (c) below and will proceed directly to hearing under subsection (e). (c) If the commission instead refers the application for further design review, the plans submitted shall be referred by the city planner on a random basis to the appointee professional described above for review and comment. The appointee's analysis shall be forwarded to the planning commission. (d) No prior mailed notice of the appointee's review is necessary. However, notice of the commission's review of and hearing on each application under this chapter shall be given a provided in section 25.16.050. (e).A design review application in an R-1 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (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 consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; (4) Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; (5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 3/19/2001 dram 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (6) In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. (f) A design review application in a C-1 or C-2 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. (ft -(g) The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the planning commission that the applicant's design and project comply with the design criteria set forth in subsections (e) or (f) above, as applicable. The commission may deny, deny without prejudice, approve, or approve with conditions any application under this chapter. (g) (h) Decisions of the planning commission under this chapter shall be subject to appeal to the city council and the effectiveness as provided in Sections 25.16.070 through 25.16.130, except that the determination of the commission shall become final and conclusive in seven (7) days from the date of the commission decision if no appeal is filed with the city 3/19/2001 draft 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 cicrk. 25.57.040 Exemptions. The following applications are exempt from the chapter: (a) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in R-1 districts filed before March 17, 1998 and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1602. (b) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in R-1 districts filed before 5:00 p.m. on November 18. 1999, and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1620. (c) Applications for buildings permits or planning approvals for developments in C-1 or C-2 districts filed before 5:00 p.m. on and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. Section 7. The provisions of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this ordinance shall have the following application to building or construction permits in the C-1 and C-2 districts that are subject to this chapter: 13/19/2001 draft 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Date of submittal or approval of complete building or construction permit application or complete planning application Status under ordinance Effect of Ordinance on an Amendment to permit or application Before 5:00 p.m. of the Exempt from Design Subject to Design Review under effective date of Ordinance Review under Chapter Chapter 25.57 if: 25.57 1. The permit or application, as amended, involves any construction subject to Chapter 25.57; and 2. The amendment would extend the structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a facade After 5:00 p.m. on the Subject to Design Review Subject to Design Review under effective date of Ordinance under Chapter 25.57 if the Chapter 25.57 if the application application, involves an% involves any construction subject construction subject to to Chapter 25.57 Chapter 25.57 Section 8. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of, 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2001, by the following vote: 13/19/2001 draft 7 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 5 DAWP51\FILES\ORDINANC\commdes3.rdl.wpd 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City Clerk 3/19/2001 draft 8 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING FEES FOR THE COSTS OF DESIGN REVIEW UNDER CHAPTER 25.57 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the City has amended the Zoning Code provisions regarding design review to include additional design review of certain structures in the R-1 districts and providing preliminary Planning Commission review at the beginning of the application; and WHEREAS, the City is now amending the Zoning Code to provide for design review of certain construction and remodeling in the C-1 and C-2 districts of the City; and WHEREAS, the City will incur significant costs of processing applications for these review process in the contract costs of the consultants, City staff, preparation of reports, review of plan submittals, and noticing; and WHEREAS, the costs of such processing has reasonably approximated the costs of processing a variance or conditional use permit application; and WHEREAS, noticing of design review applications in the C-1 and C-2 districts will include more properties because of the businesses and locations involved; and WHEREAS, the fees and deposits required of applicants to pay for these costs will be less than the actual costs incurred by the City in this regulatory activity, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Applicants for design review in the R-1 districts pursuant to Chapter 25.57 shall pay a fee of $345 at the time of submittal of the application. In addition, applicants shall deposit the sum of $500 at the time of submittal from which the costs of the City design consultant, if any, shall be paid. If and when such deposit is drawn down, the City Planner shall require an additional deposit based on an estimate of the work required of the consultant to complete the design review. Work on the application shall cease until such time as the deposit is made. 2. Applicants for design review in the R-1 districts pursuant to Chapter 25.57 shall pay a fee of $395 at the time of submittal of the application. In addition, applicants shall deposit the sum of $500 at the time of submittal from which the costs of the City design consultant, if any, shall be paid. If and when such deposit is drawn down, the City Planner shall require an additional deposit based on an estimate of the work required of the consultant to complete the design review. Work on the application shall cease until such time as the deposit is made. Mayor 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 day of , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DAW P5 I\FILES\RESO\designfees.pin.wpd 0) City Clerk City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 5. CQMMERC-4Af DESIGN,RF-VMW - ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO SOME BUILDINGS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS City Planner Monroe presented a summary of the proposed revised ordinance which would establish eligibility of properties in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts for commerical design review, criteria for that review and a process for commercial design review. CP noted that there were still some editorial corrections to be made to the commercial design guidelines so Commission could review them at their next meeting and forward them on to the City Council. The guidelines are not intended to be regulations but an assistance to applicants, as such they need only to be approved and acknowledged by the Commission and Council. Commissioners asked that staff review the wording of the ordinance to make sure that it was clear that all tenant and building facades that are 25 feet in length or less are exempt, even if changes are made to 50% or more of the facade. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved that the commission recommend this ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that the quality of this ordinance and the process followed in its formulation is testimony to the need of professionals on the Planning Commission. It was noted that the commerical design review guidelines would be on the Commission's next agenda so that they could go to Council so the entire package would be available at the public hearing. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to City Council for action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. SECOND UNIT AMNESTY - ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AMNESTY FOR SOME SECOND UNITS IN THE R -I ZONE DISTRICT Cers. Vistica and Deal both noted that they would abstain from action on this item because they owned property zoned R-1 with nonconforming second units. They asked CA Anderson if they could participate in the debate on the ordinance. He responded that they could testify on how the proposed program/ordinance will affect their property. They stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed second unit amnesty program as established in the ordinance before the Planning Commission. Commission noted that there appeared to be a word processing problem with the apostrophes on page 3. Chairman Luzuriaga asked the members of the Subcommittee to review how they arrived at the qualifying criteria. Commissioners noted felt needed one offsite parking space since parking in the existing neighborhoods is generally difficult now, this also affected the maximum of two people per unit, felt it important to have the owner on site for close supervision of the rented unit, would be more particular who rented to, important to get maintenance done to make units safe and sanitary, fire department needs to know if a second unit is present in case of an emergency; put a maximum size in place because did not want units to exceed maximum allowable VAR for site and wanted to keep them a small secondary use; felt must comply without exception to insure fit and continuation of existing conditions. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 12, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the March 12, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Meeting minutes of February 24 and the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 26, 2001 were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant at 2606 Summit Drive has requested his Item #5 be continued to the March 26, 2001 agenda. There were no other changes to the agenda. V.FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Dreiling noted that he had a concern he wished to discuss with the Planning Commission and it was his understanding that this was the place to ask that it be placed on the next agenda. He would like the reappointment of Planning Commissioners to be placed on the March 26, 2001, agenda for discussion. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW — ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO SOME BUILDINGS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed commercial design review ordinance. Planning commissioners who sat on the extended citizens committee which proposed this recent revision to the proposal reviewed the history of the ordinance review and the suggestions from the committee were included. Commissioner noted that exempting 25 lineal feet of fagade on street or parking lot could have a big impact on the appearance of an area and be out of character. Commissioner who participated on committee, responded that 25 feet was a threshold chosen because the group did not want to discourage smaller tenants from making improvements to their businesses by forcing them through a design review process and because the smaller spaces are important to promoting the diversity we enjoy in the downtown areas. A concern was also expressed by a commissioner about work load increases from minor changes to facades. Commissioners discusses whether there was some intermediate requirement short of full design review if staff felt a change to less than 25 feet of frontage would impact an area. CA Anderson indicated that in zoning something is either permitted or not, no real mid -ground. Commissioner noted that the guidebook needs another pass, has a couple of grammatical errors and some blanks. Asked commissioners and staff to review for editing and get back to him by end of week. There was a consensus that the ordinance was ready for public hearing. Item # Meeting Date: 03/26/01 City of Burlingame Action on Ordinance to Establish Commerical Design Review in the Gl and C-2 Zoning Districts Meeting Date: 03/26/01 Request: Public hearing on a proposed ordinance which will create commercial design review in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts based on five criteria and using the same review process established for single family residential design review. CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15308 — Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, Class 8: actions taken by regulatory agencies as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environment degradation are not included in this exemption. Planning Commission Action: Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and take testimony on the proposed commercial design review ordinance. Following the public hearing Commission may. - Act on the ordinance, recommending it to City Council for action and recommend to City Council the Commercial Design Guidebook for approval., or - Suggest specific areas which need further consideration and refer the ordinance back to the expanded citizens committee for additional consideration. If the Commerical Design Guidebook needs further work it should be noted and referred back to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. Planning Commission Study Meeting: At their meeting on March 12, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed commerical design review ordinance as recommended by the expanded citizens committee. Three Planning Commissioners, Luzuriaga, Dreiling, and Vistica, sat on the committee along with 7 local businessmen/property owners/residents and Councilman Coffey. At the study session the commission discussed why changes to facades of buildings of 25 feet or less were exempt. Two reasons were given: did not want to discourage smaller tenants from making improvements to their facades by requiring them to go through a design review process and because the eclectic nature of these smaller spaces contributes to the diversity of the commercial areas which is so essential to their character. A concern for the increase in workload caused by reviewing all changes to commerical facades was also expressed. It was noted that the guidebook needs additional minor editing. Everyone was asked to look it over one more time and submit their changes so it could be finalized and recommended to the City Council along with the ordinance. This item was then set for public hearing and action at the Commission meeting on March 26, 2001. Background and Summary: In May 2000, with the direction of City Council the Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee to prepare a commerical design review ordinance for the city. The Planning Commission considered this Action on Ordinance to Establish Commerical Design Review in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts March 26, 2001 ordinance at public hearing in September and forwarded to the City Council. After discussion the Council appointed a committee made up of merchants, commerical property owners and managers and residents to review the proposed ordinance. The Citizen committee reported out their conclusions to the Council in December and asked if they could continue to work with the text of the ordinance. The Council then reappointed the committee and expanded its membership to include three Planning Commissioners and a Council member. The proposed ordinance now being considered includes the revisions made by the Expanded Citizens Committee. Currently the city has commerical design review standards in the C-4, Waterfront Commerical zoning district. These standards are different from those proposed in the new ordinance for the C -I and C-2 zone because they are measurable, siting standards (i.e. establish view corridors, setback proportional to height, visual softening with landscaping, and coastal access) designed for larger, generally vacant sites. The proposed standards are designed to address infill development in the city's developed, in land, pedestrian oriented commercial districts. They focus on promoting diversity and continuing the sense of place that is Burlingame. These standards would apply to all development in the C -I and C-2 commerical zones. They would not apply in the C-3, C-4 or C-R (commerical -residential) districts. Major Tenets of the Proposed Commerical Design Review Ordinance The proposed ordinance would address commerical design review in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts in the following way: Commerical design review will be required when: 1. Half of the existing walls are being removed in an existing building or a new building is being proposed. 2. When more than 50% of the front fagade is proposed to be changed. 3. When more than 50 lineal feet of the wall of a building facing a public or private street or parking lot is being changed. Commerical design review will not be required when: 1. The exteriors of tenant spaces or buildings that are 25 feet or less in length on public or private streets or parking lots are being changed. 2. For installation of new or replacement awnings (unless they are part of a project facade which requires commercial design review). Five design criteria are established for commercial design review: 1. Support the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; 2. Respect and promote pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other 2 Action on Ordinance to Establish Commerical Design Review in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts March 26, 2001 structures in the immediate area; Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commerical neighborhood. Commercial design review will use the same process which is used for single family design review. Design reviewers for commerical project review will have commerical design experience. The Commerical Design Guidebook To facilitate implementation of the Commerical Design Review Ordinance the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission also prepared a Commerical Design Guidebook which provides verbal and pictorial explanations of the features of the commerical area that the five design review criteria are intended to encourage and protect. This booklet is not to be adopted with the ordinance, but as an approved implementing tool. Staff can use it at the counter and applicants can take it with them to help them understand the design objectives of the ordinance. Public Notice: The public notice for the proposed commercial design review ordinance was published in the Independent and San Mateo County Times as a free standing advertisement ten days in advance of the public hearing. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: Commercial Design Review Ordinance Revisions Proposed, Commercial Design Review Regulations for Development in the C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts, February 15, 2001, with Annotations. Planning Commission Minutes, March 12, 2001 Public Notice, San Mateo County Times and Independent 3 REVISIONS TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS, FEBRUARY 159 20019 WITH ANNOTATIONS To establish the requirements for commercial design review in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts the following amendments would need to be made to Chapter 25 of the Municipal Code, Zoning Regulations. The changes to the original proposed ordinance suggested by the Expanded Citizens Committee for Commercial Design Review are shown below in italics. Add Definition CS 25.08.255 Facade, Commercial "Commercial Facade " means the exterior walls of a building or structure exposed to public view or the walls viewed by a person rzot inside the building; for a tenant space ivithin a larger building, the portion of the exterior walls that corresponds to the interior space rented by the tenant or business establishment; and any awnings on or attached to the exterior walls which meet the definition of commercial ,facade. Annotation: The term "commercial facade" needs to be added to definitions section of the zoning code to insure that it is clear what portions of all structures in the C- I and C-2 zones will be subject to the commercial design criteria and review process. The definition allows awning style and placement to be reviewed only when commercial design review is required. Revise Definition of Substantial Construction Currently Reads: CS 25.08.643 Substantial construction: "Substantial construction" means construction of a wholly new primary dwelling and/or removal or reconstruction of fifty (50) percent or more of the exterior walls; change to accessory structures is not included in this definition. Proposed Wording: CS 25.08.643 Substantial construction: "Substantial construction" means construction of a wholly new building or primary dwelling and/or removal or reconstruction of fifty (50) percent or more of the exterior walls; change to accessory structures is not included in this definition. Annotation: This definition needed to be expanded to include commerical and other buildings in order to properly implement the provisions of the commerical design review ordinance. CITIZFNS AND F,.tPANDED COMMITTEE REl,7SIONS ANNOTATED TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOFMENT IN THE Gl AND C-2 ZONING DISTIRCTS FEBRUARY 15, 2001 Chapter 25.36 C-1 Zoning District Add code section 25.36.037 Design Review Code Section 25.36.037 Design Review Construction of a new building and changes to facades of any building, and any change to the structure shall be subject to design review as provided in Chapter 25.57. When any part of a commerical structure is subject to design review mvnings shall be included in this review. Annotation: Addition of this section establishes that design review is required for all buildings in the C- I zoning district no matter what their use. It should be noted that this section does not extend design review to buildings being used for commercial purposes in another zone or to buildings in other zones being given a face lift to enable them to accommodate a C -I use. Applications for signs and awnings and signage and awning replacements will be excluded from design review. However, when construction on a building or its fagade qualifies it for commerical design review, future awnings shall be a part of that review. Chapter 25.38 C-2 Zoning District Add code section 25.38.055 Design Review Code Section 25.38.055 Design Review Construction of a new building and changes to facades of any building, and any change to the structure shall be subject to design review as provided in Chapter 25.57. Annotation: Addition of this section establishes that design review is required for all buildings in the C-2 zoning district no matter what their use. It should be noted that this section does not extend design review to buildings being used for commercial purposes in another zone or to buildings in other zones being given a face lift to enable them to accommodate a C-2 use. Applications for signs and awnings and signage and awning replacements will be excluded from design review. However, when construction on a building or its faq.ade qualifies it for commerical design review, future awnings shall be a part of that review. Chapter 25.57 Design Review ( Revisions to add Commercial Design Review shown in italics) Sections: 25.57.010 Design review required. 2 CITIZENS AND EXPANDED COMMITTEE REVISIONS ANNOTATED TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGNRE17EIV REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GI AND G2 ZONING DISTIRCTS FEBRUARY 15. 2001 25.57.020 Design review panel. 25.57.030 Design review process. 25.57.040 Exemptions. Section 25.57.010 Design review required. (a) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building or construction permit shall be issued in any R-1 district for the following: (1) Substantial construction as defined in this title of or to a single family dwelling; or (2) A single family dwelling addition having a plate height greater than nine (9) feet above finished floor; or (3) An increase to the height of the existing plate line of a single family dwelling, or (4) Construction of a garage attached to a single family dwelling; or (5) Addition to or construction of a second story or higher. (b) Unless the proposed project has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter, no building or construction permit shall be issued in any C-1 or C-2 district for the following. (1) Substantial construction Of a structure; or (2) Change to more than fifty (50) percent of the front fagade; or (3) change to more than fifty (50) lineal feet of arty .fa(ade facing a public or private street or parking lot. Annotation: This change adds commercial design review as a requirement. It also defines what is subject to commercial design review: new construction, structural changes to more than 50% of the front facade of a building and/or changes to more than 50% of any building fagade facing a parking lot, public street or private street when the fagade facing each of these frontages of the building is more than 50 feet long. For example, if a building has 30 feet of frontage and is changing more than 50% of the fagade facing the public street it would be subject to design review. Section 25.57.115 Exceptions (a) The following shall be exceptions to the commercial design review requirements: (1) All tenant and/or building facades with twenty-five (25) feet or less of parking lot, public or private street frontage shall be exempt from commercial design review; and (2) New or replacement awnings when the facade is not subject to commerical design review. Annotation: A section identifying what was not subject to design review was added because the combined committee wanted to encourage diversity in the commerical areas and allow smaller tenants every opportunity to easily maintain their store fronts and building facades. So the ordinance was amended to make clear that all tenant spaces and buildings with twenty five feet or less CITIZENS AND EXPANDED COMMITTEEREVISIONS ANNOTATED TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGNREHEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTIRCTS FEBRUARY 15, 2001 frontage on a parking lot, public or private street would not be subject to commercial design review no matter how much of the surface area of the facades less than 25 feet were modified. To implement this proposal a section which identifies what is not subject to design review was added.. Since it was also decided that commercial design review would not apply to awning replacements or new awnings unless the entire fagade qualified for commerical design review, an exemption (2) was also added for clarification. Section 25.57.020 Design review panel. (a) With the approval of the planning commission, the city planner shall appoint one or more design professionals to advise the city planner and the planning commission on applications in R-1 districts made under this chapter. The panel appointees shall be persons in the business of residential design who have practiced their design profession involving residential designs in the city and who are willing to contract with the city to provide advisory services under this chapter. (b) For applications in the C-1 and C-2 district, with the approval of the planning commission, the city planner shall appoint one or more design professionals who shall be persons in the business of commercial desig77 and who are willing to contract with the city to provide advisory services under this chapter. Annotation: This section speaks to who will do design review. It adds the requirement that commercial design review will be done by one or more individuals selected because of their strength and knowledge of commercial design. As folded into the existing requirements the commercial design reviewer(s) would be appointed by the City Planner. It should be noted as presented here commercial design reviewers are not required to be city residents or to have done commercial design in Burlingame. This section does not preclude the residential design reviewers from also doing commerical design review if they are qualified e.g. have done commerical design work. Section 25.57.030 Design review process. (a) Any person seeking approval of construction to be reviewed under this chapter shall submit an application for design review to the City Planner in the same form and containing the same signatures as provided in section 25.16.040 of this title. The schematic design plans submitted with the application shall demonstrate the architectural details of the proposal, and in the case of an addition, of the existing structure and the addition. Annotation: No change is required to this section in order for it to cover commercial design review. The application requirements will be the same as for a residential design review project. 10 CITIZENS AND EXPANDED COMMITTEERET7SIONS ANNOTATED TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGNRE17EJV REGUL ATIOhS FOR DET ELOPMENT IN THE GI AND G2 ZONING DISTIRCTS FEBRUARY 15. 2001 Code Section 25.57.030 (b) (b)Upon completion of the application, the schematic design plans and the application shall be referred to the planning commission for study. The study meeting shall be noticed in accordance with the provisions for notice in this title. If at the study meeting, the Planning Commission determines that formal design review is not required for the application or that only minor changes are needed, the planning commission may order that the application not be subject to subsection (c) below and will proceed directly to hearing under subsection (e). Annotation: No changes to this section are proposed. The noticing and processing will apply to commercial design review applications in the same way it does now to single family residential applications. The City Council recently renewed the current design review process whereby applications go first to the Planning Commission for public comment before being assigned to a consent calendar, regular action calendar or design reviewer. This same process will be used for commerical design review. Code Section 25.57.030 (c) (c) If the commission instead refers the application for further design review, the plans submitted shall be referred by the city planner on a random basis to the appointed professional described above for review and comment. The appointee's analysis shall be forwarded to the planning commission. Annotation: The only change to this section is to clarify how projects will be assigned to the various design reviewers (residential or commercial). The system of assignment will be the same for commercial design review as for residential design review. Code Section 25.57.030 (d) (d) No prior mailed notice of the appointee's review is necessary. However, notice of the commission's review of and hearing on each application under this chapter shall be given a provided in section 25.16.050. Annotation: No change is proposed to this section. Noticing will apply to commercial design review in the same way it does now to single family residential design review. Code Section 25.57.030 (e) E CITIZENS AND E.tPANDED COMMITTEE RE11SIONS ANNOTATED TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGNRE17EW REGULATIONS FOR DEI TLOPMENT IN THE GI AND G2 ZONING DISTIRCTS FEBRUARY 15. 2001 (e) The design review application in an R-1 district shall then be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (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 consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; (4) Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; (5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and (6) In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled Annotation: No changes are proposed to this section describing the criteria for single family residential design review, except to make it clear that these criteria apply only to the R- I zoning district. Add new Code Section 25.57.030 (f) )9 A design review application in a C-1 or C-2 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; and (2) Respect and promote pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street fi orttage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and its compatible with the surrounding development; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and (S) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision Of Site features such as fencing, landscaping and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Annotation: This section defines the criteria to be used for design review of all projects in the C- I and C-2 zoning districts. At their meeting on August 14, 2000, the Planning Commission suggested a number of refinements to the original criteria recommended to Council on July 24, 2000. The 6 CITIZENS AND E.tP.4NDED COMMITTEEREVISIONS ANNOTATED TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE C -I AND G2 ZONING DISTIRCTS FEBRUARY 15, 2001 primary reason for the recommended changes was the completion of the work on the Commercial Design Review Guidelines which refine the design goals for the commercial areas. Revise Code Section 25.57.030 (f) Change CS 25.57.030 subnumber from (f) to (g) (g) The applicant shall bear the burden of demonstrating to the satisfaction of the planning commission that the applicant's design and project comply with the design criteria set forth in subsections (e) and (/) above as applicable. The commission may deny, deny without prejudice, approve, or approve with conditions any application under this chapter. Annotation: This change clarifies that the applicant's responsibilities are the same for commercial design review as they are for residential design review. No Revisions to Code Section 25.57.030 (g) Change CS 25.57.030 subnumber from (g) to (h) (h) Decisions of the planning commission under this chapter shall be subject to appeal to the city council and the effectiveness as provided in Sections 25.16.070 through 25.16.130, except that the determination of the commission shall become final and conclusive in seven (7) days from the date of the commission decision if no appeal is filed with the city clerk. Annotation: The appeal process is the same for commercial design review as for residential. Section 25.57.040 Exemptions. Now Reads: The following applications are exempt from the chapter: (a) Applications for building permits or planning approvals filed before March 17, 1998 and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1602. (b) Applications for building permits or planning approvals filed before 5:00 p.m. on November 18. 1999, and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1620. Proposed changes: The following applications are exempt from the chapter: (a) Applications for building permits or planning approvals.for development in the R-1 district filed before March 17, 1998 and certain amendments to those applications or permits as CITIZENS AND E_YPANDED COMAIITTFFf REIISIONS ANNOTATED TO PROPOSED COMMERICAL DESIGNRE1,70F REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTIRCTS FEBRUAR P 15. 2001 specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1602. (b) Applications for building permits or planning approvals.for development in R-1 districts filed before 5:00 p.m. on November 18. 1999, and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1620. (c) Applications_ for buildings permits or planning approvals, for developments ill the C-1 and C-2 districts .filed before S: 00 p. m. on and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided ill Ordinance No. Annotation: Revision clarifies that first two subsections apply to single family residential projects exempted from the design review process. The addition of (c) addresses the effective date and time of the new requirements for commercial design review for projects in the planning or building review process. Draft: June 21, 2000 June 23, 2000 ca June 29, 2000 June 30, 2000 ca July 12, 2000 July 13, 2000 July 17, 2000 change order August 15, 2000 rev. PC July 12,/Aug 14, 2000 October 2, 2000 consolidate for Cit. Com. January 11, 2001, incorporate Cit. Com. comments January 31, 2001 February 15, 2001, Expanded Com. Comments to PC E: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 12, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the March 12, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Meeting minutes of February 24 and the regular meeting of the Planning Commission on February 26, 2001 were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant at 2606 Summit Drive has requested his Item #5 be continued to the March 26, 2001 agenda. There were no other changes to the agenda. V.FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Dreiling noted that he had a concern he wished to discuss with the Planning Commission and it was his understanding that this was the place to ask that it be placed on the next agenda. He would like the reappointment of Planning Commissioners to be placed on the March 26, 2001, agenda for discussion. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW — ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO SOME BUILDINGS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS. CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed commercial design review ordinance. Planning commissioners who sat on the extended citizens committee which proposed this recent revision to the proposal reviewed the history of the ordinance review and the suggestions from the committee were included. Commissioner noted that exempting 25 lineal feet of fagade on street or parking lot could have a big impact on the appearance of an area and be out of character. Commissioner who participated on committee, responded that 25 feet was a threshold chosen because the group did not want to discourage smaller tenants from making improvements to their businesses by forcing them through a design review process and because the smaller spaces are important to promoting the diversity we enjoy in the downtown areas. A concern was also expressed by a commissioner about work load increases from minor changes to facades. Commissioners discusses whether there was some intermediate requirement short of full design review if staff felt a change to less than 25 feet of frontage would impact an area. CA Anderson indicated that in zoning something is either permitted or not, no real mid -ground. Commissioner noted that the guidebook needs another pass, has a couple of grammatical errors and some blanks. Asked commissioners and staff to review for editing and get back to him by end of week. There was a consensus that the ordinance was ready for public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 12, 2001 Chairman Luzuriaga set the public hearing for the March 26, 2001, action calendar. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 2. 1447 BURLINGAME AVENUE — ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT (IQBAL SERANG, ARCHITECT; ELIO D. URZO, APPLICANT; BANK OF AMERCIA NT SA ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: there is some suggestion of signage on the plans, want to make sure applicant is aware of the sign code and that their action does not address signage; application notes that the objective is to provide delivery service for food, could applicant expand on this, are they providing parking for delivery trucks, if so, where; applicant proposes to provide cooking classes in the afternoon, can they do that and if so, how many people will be on site; the area of the restaurant is expanding quite a bit, is the number of employees shown correct; the application states that there will be 75 people on site at any one time, do we have a study on the number of public parking spaces available in that area after 5:00 p.m.; provide information on where all the employees of current business park. There were no further questions and the item was set for action on March 26, 2001 provided all the information can be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:30 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. Commissioner Dreiling noted that he will abstain from voting on the item at 2627 Easton Drive because he has a business relationship with the applicant. 3A. 2627 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (MARTIN DREILING, CSS ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TRICIA GODOWSKI, PROPERTY OWNER) 3B. 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) C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts 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. Boju6s. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; Item 3a, 2627 Easton Drive passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Dreiling abstaining) and #3b, 164 Pepper Avenue passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. 2 City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Planning - Commission Will hold a public hearing on a proposed ordinance to estal l ish commercial design review which could affect some buildings in the r-1 an:l - %oM districts. J 'lus hearing will be on Monday, March 26, 2001 7:00 w w in the City Hall Council Chambers at 01 Prinirose Road, Burlingame, California. SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES FRIDAY March 16 2001 SIT ,• L N T PLANNING DEPARTMENT Will hold a public hearing on Monday, March 26, 2001 at 7:00 pm on a new ordinance which will establish a two year amnesty program for existing second dwelling units in the single family residential zone. The Planning Colnnl1ss,_on s action w11i be a recommendation to the City Council. e 5 t - ,t e e ;t e 's e e x �f I As now pr�;puseck ill 11-�is draft `l}erfo�ell`-5 i will be I existing second units built s legal eligible to becotne a part of the Cit'ordinance housing stock. The oblective smaller antisless costly is to retain these older... dwelling units and to encourage the existing - owners to maintain these presently 11011, confornei�� 7 dwellings. Applications amnesty t,rogram, if approved 1-)y the Council. �� i11 be, initiated by the currect ond t property owner. Only those secdwelling units which meet all the criteria in t.r ordinance will be eligible for amnesty. The public hearing, will be held oilMmiday, March 26, 200 I at 7:00 pm inl BurlinOU game City Hall. Council Chambers, Ii5 1 Primrose Road, Bur please aMe Monroe, have any questions, please City Planner, at (650) 558-7255• SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES FRIDAY, March 16, 2001 CITY BURLJNGAME STAFF REPORT 9$Ma TO DATE FROM SUBJECT Honorable Mayor and City Council March 28, 2001 AGENDA 8b ITEM # MTG. DATE 4/2/01 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED Parks & Recreation Director BY Z �,6 Proposed Elimination of Senior Commission and Reorganization of Parks & Recreation Commission RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider the elimination of the Senior Commission and the temporary expansion of the Parks & Recreation Commission by two members until such time as there are Commissioner vacancies and the Parks & Recreation Commission can revert to seven (7) regular members and two (2) Youth Advisory Members. It is further recommended that the Parks & Recreation Director meet with both the Senior and Parks & Recreation Commissions at their regular April, 2001 meetings and return to the Council with final recommendations after discussions with both Commissions. BACKGROUND: The Burlingame Senior Commission was established by the City Council in 1992. The Powers and Duties assigned by the City Council in Municipal Code Section 3.34 are attached. (Exhibit A) In recent years the Commission has spent many hours wrestling with the specific mission of and need for the Commission and the group has been unable to come up with a work plan. In the late 1 990's the Commission developed a portfolio system whereby each Commissioner was assigned a specific subject matter area (e.g., health, housing, etc.). Some of the Commissioners invested many hours into compiling information on their assigned subject matter area, while other Commissioners were unable to invest much time in the effort. None of the information gathered seemed to be terribly useful in the support of Burlingame senior citizens or programs for seniors. During the past 24 months, the Commission has made two recommendations to City staff: One was regarding disabled parking at the Recreation Center. Staff was able to add two (2) part time disabled spaces in front of the Recreation Center so as to better accommodate seniors during weekdays from 9:00 am to 3:00 p.m. A second request was to require bells on bicycles used on City bike trails. That recommendation has been passed on to Public Works staff. During the same 24 month period, the Commission has sent three items forward to the City Council: 1 . Sent one copy of Senate Bill 335 (re senior motor vehicle driving) to the City Council for the Council's information. 2-3. Twice formally supported the development of a teen center and/or senior wing improvements at the Recreation Center. Four Commission meetings were canceled during the 24 month period and one meeting could not be held because of the lack of a quorum. Commissioner attendance has only been fair in recent months, perhaps because Commissioners have not perceived any specific needs for their participation. In the past 24 months, attendance reports show that there has been an average of nearly two (2) Commissioners missing at each scheduled meeting of the Commission (38 absences in 20 scheduled meetings). The last meeting of the Commission which was attended by seven (7) members was in April, 1998. Staff has recently been advised that all three (3) of the Commissioners whose terms expire in March, 2001 are not planning to apply for reappointment to the Commission. Several Commissioners have provided assistance to staff in the preparation of the annual Senior Citizens Handbook which lists providers of service in the area and is given free to any interested Burlingame senior. Volunteer assistance is always helpful in such an endeavor, but staff will always have to be the lead in this kind of an activity. Commissioners have never appeared to take an active interest in recreation programs for seniors at the Recreation Center, although staff regularly reports on the programs and activities being offered. The Senior Commission cannot actively coordinate and strengthen public support for senior citizens, function in an advisory capacity; or serve as a clearing -center when Commissioners are isolated from much day to day contact with seniors. Staff has also noted that, although some of the commissioners have spent many hours over the past nine (9) years gathering information on senior legislation and other issues, there has been little opportunity to make use of that information in our community. City staff in other communities have described similar problems in finding meaningful tasks to occupy senior commissions. In the past, in other Cities, senior matters have been reviewed by Parks & Recreation Commissions. Participating on a City Commission requires a commitment of time and energy from Commissioners. Although all of the current and past Senior Commissioners appear to care very much about senior citizens, their commitment of time and energy does not appear to be producing much in the way of a product for the City Council or the seniors in Burlingame. Staff annually commits between 50 and 100 staff hours annually to the support of the Commission. This work in preparing agendas, preparing reports, attending meetings, preparing minutes and dealing with individual Commissioners on an irregular basis probably costs the City between $2,000 and $4,000 per year in salary and benefit costs, in addition to the wide range of office expenses generated. ALTERNATIVES: Staff has identified three alternatives at this time. The City Council may wish to consider these alternatives, suggest additional alternatives or direct further discussions with Commissions. In Burlingame, commissioners are asked to continue serving after the expiration of their term until a replacement has been appointed. The three alternatives are: Make no change in the current Commission structure. Council will probably need to appoint three (3) new Commissioners to fill anticipated vacancies. Reduce the size of the Commission to five (5) members and direct it to meet less often - for example, quarterly. Eliminate the Senior Commission and enlarge the Parks & Recreation Commission on a temporary basis. Staff suggests adding two seats on the Commission until October, 2001 when three (3) Parks & Recreation Commissioner appointments expire and the Commission could be again reduced to seven (7) members. Two seats could then be reserved for senior members just as two advisory seats are now reserved for youth members. EXHIBIT: Exhibit A - Powers and Duties of the Commission BUDGETIMPACTS: In the No Change Alternative, there would be no change in costs associated with supporting the Commission. If the Senior Commission meets less often during the year and has fewer members, staff and support costs will be reduced proportionately. Eliminating the Senior Commission and expanding the Parks & Recreation Commission temporarily will eliminate the cost of staffing and supporting the current Senior Commission. Exhibit A Powers and Duties of the Senior Commission (Excerpted from City Municipal Code Section 3.34) It shall be the duty of the Senior Commission, subject to the approval of the City Council, to: 1 . Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and the residents of Burlingame on issues and needs of the senior population. 2. Coordinate and strengthen public support for senior citizens and function in an advocacy capacity. 3. Recommend programs and policies when appropriate to meet evaluated needs. 4. Serve as a clearing -center for city senior activities. 5. Provide information and recommendations on senior legislation. iyi vl�ej CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: City Council DATE: March 30, 2001 FROM: Jim Nantell, City Manager f1 SUBJECT: Teenage Recreational Fa ' ity Needs Committee This memo is to serve as a summary of our follow up regarding the formation of a citizens committee to look at the recreational facility needs to better serve the teenage population in Burlingame. The Scope of the Committee's Work: The scope of the work of the committee is to develop a recommendation for consideration by the Park & Recreation Commission and the City Council as to how to best provide a facility to meet the teenage recreational needs of the community. Such a determination should include consideration as to whether it is best to build/improve a separate building, or provide a facility space as part of a plan for a long-term community center. In addition consideration should be given as to how such a facility might enhance or detract from our ability to meet the recreational needs of the rest of the community including our senior citizens. Any approach that would involve Washington Park needs to consider how it would fit into the park as a whole in the long term. Committee Members: Joe Galligan - Mayor and Council Liaison Ed Larios - P&R Commission Chairman Karen Dittman — P&R Commission Member Peter Martindale - Youth P&R Commission Representative Charles Voltz - Washington Society Representative Grant Gilliam BIS Student Natalie Cirigliano Youth Advisory Committee Sam Malouf - Neighborhood Representative Frank Hunt - Senior Community Anna Marie Daniels Holland - Mothers Club Chuck Pascal - Lions Club Representative Cathy Baylock - Historical Society Representative Linda Lees - Burlingame School Board L. Serenella Leoni — PARCA Catherine Mc Cormack — Senior Commissioner Committee Leadership ■ Ms. Betsy Vegso, Associate Director of Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, would provide the facilitation services as an objective neutral resource. ■ The Committee would be co-chaired by Ed Larios and Charles Voltz, as co-chairs they would work with Ms. Vegso and staff on the process preparation and determine how to facilitate the meetings in her absence. ■ Randy Schwartz, Recreation Superintendent would serve as the lead staff resource with U:\Council\Teen Rec Scope.doc lo1 additional support from Tim Richmond, Parks Superintendent and Police Commander Jack Van Etten. ■ As necessary professional resources would be provided by DES Architects and Callander & Associates. ■ Mayor Galligan and the City Manager, would make our selves available as needed to assist the Committee in it's efforts. Process and Timing: The committee membership has purposefully been designed to involve people who can adequately represent one or more of the different perspectives that were articulated during the public hearings. The formation of the committee is a departure from the more typical public process where the number of people involved limits the time and the interaction that can take place. The committee of various stakeholders and perspectives is an approach that is designed to "engage" the community in a more complete manner than can be easily accomplished through the more typical public hearing approach. This "civic engagement" approach cannot involve all members of the community who might like to participate but it does strive to involve people who can represent the various perspective and stakeholders. Unlike the public testimony approach the committee members are now given the opportunity and they accept the responsibility to work through the issues and develop an approach that in the end they feel is the most responsive to the issues and perspectives that were identified. By design the committee is asked not to continue the public hearing process. At this step in the civic engagement model the Committee will take all the public input to date and the begin to use it to work for solutions. Therefore, although it would be left up to the Commission to decide if their meetings will be public noticed and open to the public, we do not expect that the meetings will be open to participation from the general public. General public participation will begin again when the Committee completes their work and presents it's conclusions to the Park and Recreation Commission. The Park and Recreation Commission would then forward their recommendation to the City Council for the action. If there was a significant difference between what the Park & Recreation Commission ultimately recommends and the Committee's recommendations the Council would be given a written review of those differences. ■ As the Council knows we had our first planning meeting with Ms. Betsy Vegso, Associate Director of Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center, Ed Larios and Charles Voltz, who will serve as co-chairs of the committee to begin to plan the approach. They share the council's view that the public not feel that the work is being done in a total vacuum. Ms. Vegso, who has done this work in other cities like Redwood City and San Mateo cautioned that we need to find a way to keep the public informed of the process without adversely impacting the comfort and environment for the committee to accomplish their work. She indicated that she could assist the group in look at options that can address those interests. U:ACouncil\Teen Rec Scope.doc From a timing standpoint it is expected that the Committee will complete it's work by the mid June 2001. If they are unable to do so they will provide a status report to the City Council for it's second meeting in June 2001. At that time the City Council will provide any additional direction regarding the Council's desire to continue, discontinue or modify the work of the Committee. U:\Council\Teen Rec Scope.doc 4CITY STAFF REPORT �A euFtuNc3aMIE o i9t o,� o TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 26, 2001 AGENDA ITEM # 8d MTG. DATE 4/2/01 SUBMITT BY APPROVED FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ BY Administrative Services Director suBJ m INFORMATION ONLY: Refuse and Recycling Rates for 2001 RECOMMENDATION: There is no change in refuse and recycling rates for 2001, based on the rate study submitted by Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson (HFH.) BACKGROUND: The City maintains an exclusive franchise with Browning Ferris Industries of San Mateo County (BFI) for pickup of residential and commercial solid waste, residential green waste (brush and garden clippings,) curbside residential recycling and commercial bin recycling. The agreement dictates a specific methodology for calculating rates based on the company's audited financial statements and uses a fixed rate of return known as an operating ratio. This ratio is 91 %, and therefore allows BFI a 9% before -tax return. Rates are calculated individually for each city in the JPA. Shortfalls and surpluses are maintained in a balancing account for each city. The agreement is uniform among the cities and the county who are members of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), which was formed to facilitate the upcoming acquisition of the San Carlos waste management facilities from BFI. The SBWMA also meets with BFI after they have prepared a rate increase request to develop the final rate recommendations to city councils, using the formulas specified in the agreement. The SBWMA retains Hilton Farnkopf and Hobson (HFH), an accounting firm specializing in rate analysis, to audit BFI's rate proposals and make recommendations to the SBWMA. Attached are copies of the material pertaining to Burlingame from the report. A complete copy of HFH's report and BFI's rate application is available with the City Clerk. No change is needed in the rates for 2001. The surplus in Burlingame's balancing account is sufficient to absorb the increase. A major reason for the surplus is greater revenues during 2000 than originally estimated. During the year, staff plans to analyze the rate structure to correct anomalies. As part of the AB939 recommendations, rate discounts for multiple cans were eliminated several years ago. There appear to be a few such situations in the rate base. Given the complex array of can sizes and frequency of pickups, it will take some time for HFH to prepare a recommendation. I had hoped to present preliminary AB939 diversion numbers in this report, but SBWMA staff has not yet prepared the state reports. Since the formula uses economic data to produce the rate, the fact that Burlingame's diversion increased (+17.6% per BFI) in 2000 does not necessarily translate into the same AB939 gain. While four of the 11 JPA members had no increase, four had very sizable increases. This has sparked concerns about the cost allocation methodology. This will not have an impact on Burlingame at this time, but the variety of service levels between cities makes cost allocation a matter of some debate. I will participate in meetings regarding this subject and keep council apprised of any proposed changes. Two program changes will be analyzed by the SBWMA during 2001: Co -mingling of recyclables into one container to eliminate the multiple curbside containers presently deployed, and automated service. Both of these studies involve changes to residential service and, if determined to be beneficial, would be presented to council for consideration next year. cc: John Zirelli, District Manager, BFI CITY OF BURLINGAME Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson Category Residential Commercial Tonnage/Year 6,988 Route Days/Week 19.4 17,799 Accounts 6,356 17.0 1,539 •girl �' • Category Projected 2001 Revenues $ 5,391,000 Expenses $ 5,113,000 Profit 199,000 Balancing Account (367,000) Revenue Req't $ Adjustment 4,945,000 $=—A6_ 446090 Adjustment -8.3% Residential Cans REPRESENTATIVE RATES Commercial Bins Category Current Recommended Category Current Recommended 1 Can $ 11.48 No Change 1 Yd. Bin X 1 Week $ 62.02 No Change 2 Yd. Bin X 1 Week 124.05 No Change 2 Can 21.53 No Change 3 Yd. Bin X 1 Week 186.06 No Change 1 Yd. Bin X 2 Week 124.05 No Change 3 Can 31.00 No Change 2 Yd. Bin X 2 Week 248.10 No Change 3 Yd. Bin X 2 Week 372.14 No Change 1 of 2 I 1-111ton Farnkopf & Hobson CITY OF BURLINGAME �.�:��REVENUE VARIANCE 2000 Projected 2000 Projected 2001 Last Year This Year Projections Revenues at Current Rates $ 4,980,000 $ 5,389,000 $ 5,391,000 Greater/(Less) Than Projected Last Year $ 409,000 N/A Reasons for Variance • 2000 increase is due to a 4.5% rate increase effective 1/1/00. • 2001 revenue is projected to be the same as 2000, slight difference is due to rounding. REQUIREMENTREVENUE 2000 Projected Last Year Balancing 2000 Projected 2001 This Year Projections Operating Costs $ 2,343,000 $ 2,275,000 $ 2,377,000 Pass -Through Costs 2,619,000 2,651,000 2,736,000 Operating Profit 182,000 134,000 199,000 Total Revenue Requirement $ 5.,_144,000 $5 060,000 $5r312000 Change from 2000 Revenue Requirement $ (84,000) $ 252,000 Reasons for Variance • 2000 variance is the result of reduced allocation of labor and truck expense and an increase in projected disposal expense. • 2001 expenses reflect inflation, the second step in the phasing -out of the surcharge limit for recycling, increases in plant material tonnage, and increases in recycling maintenance costs. 2 o I' 2 AGENDA I BURLINGAME 1 STAFF REPORT ITEM# 9a MTG. 4/2/01 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: March 26, 2001 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION RESCINDING CONTRACT BY APPROVED BY AWARD TO WATERTIGHT RESTORATION, INC., AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO BAMER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR CLEANING AND REPAIRING WATER TANKS: HILLSIDE, MILLS AND SKYVIEW TANKS AND RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS - CITY PROJECT NO. 9828 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Council: • approve the attached resolution rescinding contract award to Watertight Restoration, Inc. and awarding a contract for cleaning and repairing water tanks to Bamer Construction Company for $217,710 • approve the attached resolution to transfer $167,110 from the Multi -Agency Water Project to the Water Tank Cleaning and Repairing Project • authorize staff to execute change orders of up to 20% of the construction work. BACKGROUND: Council approved a project in the Capital Improvement Budget for cleaning the three City water storage tanks, including the 1,500,000 gallon Hillside tank, the 1,000,000 gallon Mills tank, and the 150,000 gallon Skyview tank. The tanks supply water to the hillside areas of Burlingame and have not been cleaned in 20 years. As the cleaning process requires the tanks to be drained, the scope of the project was modified to include concurrent interior concrete repairs, additional pipe connections, and access installations. DISCUSSION: Three bids for the work were received on March 6, 2001, ranging from $161,500 to $392,050. At their meeting of March 19, 2001, Council awarded a contract to the lowest bidder, Watertight Restoration, Inc. for $161,500. During the process of signing the agreement, it was determined that the principle of Watertight Restoration, Inc. did not have the class of license required for this work. Without the license, Watertight cannot be considered a qualified bidder; and therefore the original award must be rescinded. In order to avoid this problem in the future, staff has modified the standard contract bid sections to require that license qualifications be submitted with each bid. The second lowest bidder, Bamer Construction Company, has the required license to do this work and has been in business for 20 years, 10 years in tank cleaning and related work. As their bid of $217,710 is 3.6% lower than the engineer's estimate, staff recommends award to Bamer Construction Company. The work can still be performed this spring during lower water consumption. The daily water supply to the residents will not be affected as the tanks are mainly used for emergency situations and to accommodate high summer usage. The City of Millbrae will be providing Burlingame water for those residents served by the Mills and Skyview reservoirs. In order to expeditiously proceed with any additional repairs discovered after draining the tanks, staff requires authorization to issue change orders of up to 20% of the construction award. EXHIBITS: Resolution to Rescind Award and Award to Bamer Construction Co.; Resolution Authorizing Transfer; Bid Summary r BUDGET IMPACT: The scope of the project has changed significantly since the budget was approved, including the addition of tank repairs and modifications. As a result, staff recommends that Council approve a transfer of $167,110 from the Multi -Agency Water Project. The Multi -Agency Water Project will continue with a feasibility study of a Millbrae, Hillsborough, San Francisco Airport, Burlingame storage and pipeline project in a few years once funding becomes available from the other participants. Following is the project financing: Expenditures Cleaning contract $2179710 20% Change Orders 44,000 Staff time 169000 Consulting Engineering and 57,000 Inspection Services including structural engineering and access installation efforts Total $334,710 Revenues CIP 9828 $1679600 Transfer from CIP 9007 167.110 Total $334,710 c: City Clerk, Finance Director Bamer Construction Company Watertight Restoration, Inc. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9828 Re-Award.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 29-2 01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESCINDING AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WATERTIGHT RESTORATION, INC. AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO BAMER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR CLEANING AND REPAIRING WATER TANKS, CITY PROJECT NO. 9828 WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame duly sought bids in order to perform water tank and system cleaning and restoration work in the City; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2001, the City Council awarded a contract to Watertight Restoration, Inc., the apparent lowest responsible bidder, for City Project No. 9828; and WHEREAS, after that award, the City found that Watertight Restoration, Inc. does not possess a California Class A Contractors License as required by the Contract Award; and WHEREAS, this is not a minor clerical error that can or should be waived by the City; and WHEREAS, because the City has suffered little delay in this necessary rescission, any claim against the bid or performance bond of Watertight Restoration should be waived; and WHEREAS, the second lowest bidder, Bamer Construction Company, does possess a valid California Class A Contractors License and is in all other respects a responsible bidder, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. The award of contract to Watertight Restoration, Inc. is rescinded. 2. The bid of Bamer Construction Company is accepted and approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement with Bamer Construction to perform the work under City Project No. 9828. 1 -1The City Clerk is authorized and requested to witness the signature of the City Manager on the Agreement. OR 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 on the 2ND day of APRT , 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 DAW P51\FILES\RESo\rescindk.pwd.wpd 2 Bid Opening Date: March 6, 2001 Water Tight Restoration Bamer Construction L & B Engineering ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE Woodside, CA Castro Valley, CA San Francisco, CA BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM QUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price BID SCHEDULE A 1 Mobilization 1 LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 # $32,500.00 $32,500.00 $20,000.00 $3,500.00 $8,000.00 $32,500.00 Schedule A Subtotal BID SCHEDULE - B - MILLS TANK 1 Removal of Water, Debris/Silty Material --------- ------ A-Base Bid Item 1 L.S. $20,000.00 $20,000.00 # $12,250.00 $12,250.00 # $29,490.00 $29,490.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 'B -Additional Silt/Debris Removal 1 Ea. $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $3,300.00 $3,300.00 # $5,897.00 $5,897.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Per One Inch (1") $0.00 2 Dismantle and Repair Water Level Housing Devices (Tell Tale) 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000.00 # $3,800.00 $3,800.00 # $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3 Refurbishing of Oval Hatch 1 L.S. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 # $760.00 $760.00 # $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 4 High Pressure Water Jet Cleaning 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000.00 # $5,650.00 $5,650.00 # $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 5 Tank Inspection By City --------- ------- A-Base Bid Item (2 Hours) 1 L.S. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 # $600.00 $600.00 # $500.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 B Additional Duration Inspection 1 L.S. $500.00 $500.00 $150.00 $150.00 # $375.00 $375.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 (Add'I 1 hour) 6 Video Taping of Tank 1 L.S. $300.00 $300.00 # $400.00 $400.00 # $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 7 Digital Photos of Tank 1 L.S. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 # $200.00 $200.00 # $500.00 $500.00 $600.00 $600.00 8 Final Wash Down Cleaning 1 L.S. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 # $1,700.00 $1,700.00 # $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 9 Tank Disinfection 1 L.S. $500.00 $500.00 # $700.00 $700.00 # $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 12 `Concrete Repair 100 S.F. $15.00 $1,500.00 # $38.00 $3,800.00 # $25.00 $2,500.00 $100.00 $10,000.00 13 'Concrete Protective Coating 20 S.F. $15.00 $300.00 # $12.00 $240.00 # $25.00 $500.00 $75.00 $1,500.00 14 'Metallic Protective Coating 40 S.F. $30.00 $1,200.00 # $7.50 $300.00 # $30.00 $1,200.00 $120.00 $4,800.00 $41,300.00 $33,850.00 $56,712.00 $77,900.00 Schedule B Subtotal BID SCHEDULE - C - HILLSIDE TANK 1 Removal of Water, Debris/Silty Material ------- ------ A-Base Bid Item 1 L.S. $50,000.00 $50,000.00 # $24,600.00 $24,600.00 # $62,291.00 $62,291.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 `B-Additonal Silt/Debris Removal Per One Inch (1") 1 Ea. $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $6,200.00 $6,200.00 # $12,458.00 $12,458.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 2 Dismantle and Repair Water Level Housing Devices (Tell Tale) 1 L.S. $3,000.00 $3,000.00 # $4,200.00 $4,200.00 # $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3 High Pressure Water Jet Cleaning 1 L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 # $7,700.00 $7,700.00 # $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 4 Tank Inspection By City -- -- 1 A-Base Bid Item (2 Hours) L.S. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 # $600.00 $600.00 # $500.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 'B Additional Duration Inspection (Add'I 1 hour) 1 Ea. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 # $150.00 $150.00 # $375.00 $375.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 5 Video Taping of Tank 1 L.S. $1,000.00 $1,000.00 # $900.00 $900.00 # $2,250.00 $2,250.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 6 Digital Photos of Tank 1 L.S. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 # $450.00 $450.00 # $1,125.00 $1,125.00 $600.00 $600.00 7 Final Wash Down Cleaning 1 L.S. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 # $1,700.00 $1,700.00 # $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 8 'Tank Disinfection 1 L.S. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 # $1,700.00 $1,700.00 # $3,250.00 $3,250.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 9 Installation of Water Line Connection 2 Ea. $6,500.00 $13,000.00 $3,600.00 $7,200.00 $3,250.00 $6,500.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 10 Hatch Cover Installation 1 Ea. $6,000.00 $6,000.00 # $2,935.00 $2,935.00 # $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 11 `A -Root Removal and Repair 2 LS $1,250.00 $2,500.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $1,375.00 $2,750.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 12 'B -Vent Removal and Repair 5 LS $1,000.00 $5,000.00 $90.00 $450.00 $312.40 $1,562.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 13 "Concrete Repair 750 S.F. $15.00 $11,250.00 $38.00 $28,500.00 $2.50 $1,875.00 $100.00 $75,000.00 14 'Concrete Protective Coating 100 S.F. $15.00 $1,500.00 $12.00 $1,200.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 $75.00 $7,500.00 15 'Metallic Protective Coating 70 S.F. $30.00 $2,100.00 $7.50 $525.00 $18.74 $1,312.00 $120.00 $8,400.00 $123,350.00 $90,610.00 $121,998.00 $202,000.00 Schedule C Subtotal 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 BID SCHEDULE - D - SK`IVIEW TANN Removal of Water, Debris/Silty Matena A -Base Bid Item 1 L.S. $1E -B-Addtlonal Sill/De ria Removal Per One Inch (1") 1 Ea. $E Dismantle and Repair Water Level Housing Devices (Tell Tale) 1 L.S. $2 High Pressure Water Jet Cleaning 1 L.S. $2 Tank Inspection By City # $1,250.00 - $5,000.00 A -Base Bid Item (2 Hours) 1 L.S. $: 'B Additional Duration Inspection (Add'I 1 hour) 1 Ea. $1 Video Taping of Tank 1 L.S. $1 Digital Photos of Tank 1 L.S. $1 Final Wash Down Cleaning 1 L.S. $1 Tank Disinfection 1 L.S. # $150.00 Hatch Cover Installation 1 Ea. $4 'Concrete Repair 150 S.F. $600.00 'Concrete Protective Coating 30 S.F. $1,500.00 "Metallic Protective Coating 50 S.F. # $250.00 Schedule D Subtotal $600.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 TOTAL BID = TOTAL SCHEDULES A, B, C AND D $1,700.00 Is $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $15,OOO.OD $8,950.00 $8,950.00 Is $12,864.00 $12,864.00 $4,200.00 $4,200.00 $5,000.00 $2,980.00 $2,980.00 # $2,573.00 $2,573.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $3,000.00 # $3,800.00 $3,800.00 # $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $3,000.00 # $2,950.00 $2,950.00 Is $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 Is $2,000.00 # $600.00 $60000 # $500.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 # $150.00 $150.00 # $375.00 $375.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 # $600.00 $600.00 Is $500.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 111 $300.00 $300.00 # $250.00 $250.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 Is $1,700.00 $1,700.00 Is $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00 # $700.00 $700.00 # $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,00000 # $2,935.00 $2,935.00 # $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $2,25000 # $38.00 $5,700.00 $25.00 $3,750.00 $100.00 $15,000.00 $45000 9 $60.00 $1,800.00 $25.00 $750.00 $75.00 $2,250.00 $1,500.00 Is $7.50 $375.00 $18.76 $938.00 $120.00 $6,000.00 $41,200.00 $33,540.00 $31,000.00 $79,650.00 #= Unit Price Caled from Total 1f= Unit Pace Calc'd from Total #= Una Price Calc'd from Total --= Watertight Restoration, Inc. did not have required Class A license so was inelligible to bid CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS, ENGINEERING DATE: MARCH 9,2'001 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION 326 70070 040 $167,110 MULTI AGENCY WATER FROM: 326 78280 olo $167,110 HILLSIDE, MILLS & SKYVIEW RESERVOIR CLEANING TO: Justification (Attach Memo if Necessary) Concrete Tank Cleaning, Project 9828 has Sufficient funds to perform the cleaning DEPARTMEN AD and repairs to Mills, Hillside and Skyview tanks. BY: DATE: 2.®' COUNCIL ACTION ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQ ED REQUIRED Remarks: FINANCE DIRECTOR BY: C "�c DATE 3. ❑APPROVE AS REQUESTED ❑APPROVE AS REVISED ❑ ISAPPROVE Remarks: CITY MA AGER BY: , ;, DATE: RESOLUTION 29-2001 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. 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 2ND day of APRIL X001 , and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERSNONE CITY CLERK z�,:apunucworKsoir\prolects\ub2b\ i ranster Kequest.doc RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve a Special Encroachment Permit for a stone retaining wall within the City's right-of-way at 1617 Forest View. BACKGROUND: A 191/2- inch high stone retaining wall was partially built at the back of the sidewalk encroaching 14 inches into the City's right-of-way. Although the applicant did not realize a permit was required, she has been cooperative with the City in applying for this permit. Staff visited the site and found no blockage of utilities or interference with sight distance by the installation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the attached drawing and standard conditions. EXHIBITS: Application, Permit, Sketch, Pictures Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Applicant SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\1617 forest view.wpd BURLINGAME ;� STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 9b MTG. 4/2/01 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE DATE: March 22, 2001 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A STONE BETA ING WALL WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 1617 FOREST VIEW RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve a Special Encroachment Permit for a stone retaining wall within the City's right-of-way at 1617 Forest View. BACKGROUND: A 191/2- inch high stone retaining wall was partially built at the back of the sidewalk encroaching 14 inches into the City's right-of-way. Although the applicant did not realize a permit was required, she has been cooperative with the City in applying for this permit. Staff visited the site and found no blockage of utilities or interference with sight distance by the installation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the application in accordance with the attached drawing and standard conditions. EXHIBITS: Application, Permit, Sketch, Pictures Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Applicant SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\1617 forest view.wpd SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION A. P. No.�2 3 - / 3 •?, - �,) o Address of Proposed Encroachment t 1 L ZI e- Lot No. I Block No. 7 Subdivision RA V[!),4.i'4lq'1P U Applicant ��o, �c�o, c� Phone//o qs 6 Z6 Address A 1,o 1 % Best Time to Call VI -A Property Owner 5�..,�, C.� S �}I�c YV Phone Address 10 Best Time to Call ' Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicable) 1 G a S ne� w011 *A r /S'" F nc�c�� r � Skne, n0nC�' J Ile 0�oc,qe-, Give Reasons for Request C) 1 i � nG (—Gl1V\Cfc � ��l C�c�_UVl — � ,1�•-ln „� • . \ `\ rcr--�-, . � Date 31 201a I Signed Property Owners) ATTACH plans or drawings to show the dimensions, locations and heights of the encroachment. PLEASE CALL (650) 558-7230 FOR INSPECTION. Below This Line is for City Use Only___, Security Bond $300 (Refundable) Fee: ($25 will be refunded if the application is denied) w Additional Bond $50 Non Permanent, No Council Action (The bond or cash deposit will be $75 Permanent,uncil Action � returned after construction is finished) Fee & Bond Paid: dol In addition, a $100 penalty fee will be added if work is complete without a permit. Inspected By: Initials Date Department By Date Department By Date ❑ Parks ❑ Planning ❑ Water ❑ Sewer ❑ Engineering ❑ Others Authorization Date Council Approved Date sent to City Clerk Record No. Date Record Copy to Owner REF: EFFECTIVE 9/5/00, CHAPTER 12. 1 0 CITY CODE SAA Public Works Directory\FORMS\General Office Forms\ENCRSPCL.APP WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 4/2/01 TO OWNER: Joan Schaeffer (Date) 1617 Forest View Burlingame, CA 94010 In compliance with your request of March 20, 2001, and subject to all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted for 19-1 /2 -inch high stone retaining wall at the back of sidewalk The applicant will assume all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the fence. The wall encroaches 14 inches into the City's right-of-way. AT 1617 FOREST VIEW Block 3. Lot 19, Burlingame Park Subdivision Assessor's Parcel No. 028-133-310 . General Provisions 1. Definition: Revocability. The term "encroachment" is used in this permit to mean any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, under, or over, any portion of the right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice. 2. Acceptance of provisions. It is understood and agreed by the permittee that the doing of any work under this permit shall constitute an acceptance of the provisions. 1 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 3. No precedent established. This permit is granted with the understanding that this action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent on the question of the expediency of permitting any certain kind of encroachment to be erected within rights-of-way of the City of Burlingame. 4. Notice prior to starting work. Before starting work on which an inspection is required, or whenever stated on the face of this permit, the permittee shall notify the Director of Public Works or other designated employee of the City. Such notice shall be given at least three (3) days in advance of the date work is to begin. 5. Permit on premises. This permit shall be kept at the site of the work and must be shown to any representative of the City, or any law enforcement officer on demand. 6. Protection of traffic. Adequate provision shall be made for the protection of the public. All work shall be planned and carried out so that there will be the least possible inconvenience to the public. 7. Storage of material. No material shall be stored on the City right-of-way. 8. Clean up. Upon completion of the work, all brush, timber, scrap and material shall be entirely removed and the right-of-way left in as presentable a condition as before work started. 9. Standards of construction. All work shall conform to recognized standards of construction. 10. Supervision of city. All the work shall be done subject to the supervision of, and to the satisfaction of the City. 11. Future moving of installation. It is understood by the permittee that whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work on the right-of-way may require, the installation provided for herein shall, upon request of the City, be immediately removed by and at the sole expense of the permittee. ra ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 12. Liability for damages. The permittee is responsible for all liability for personal injury or property damage which may arise out of work herein permitted, or which may arise out of failure on the permittee's part to perform his obligations under this permit in respect to maintenance. In the event any claim of such liability is made against the City, or any department, officer, or employee thereof, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold them, and each of them, harmless from such claim. 13. Care of drainage. If the work herein contemplated shall interfere with the established drainage, ample provision shall be made by the permittee to provide for it as may be directed by City. 14. Location plan. Upon completion of the work under this permit, the permittee shall furnish a plan to the City showing location in detail. 15. Maintenance. The permittee agrees, by the acceptance of this permit, to exercise reasonable care to maintain properly an encroachment placed by it in the City right-of-way, and to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and immediately repairing and making good any injury to any portion of the right-of-way which occurs as a result of the maintenance of the encroachment in the right-of-way, or as a result of work done under this permit, including any and all injury to the right-of-way which would not have occurred had such work not been done or such encroachment not placed therein. Maintenance shall include any damage that may be caused by roots of City trees. 16. Commencement of work. This permit shall be void unless the work herein contemplated shall have been completed before June 30 2001 . 17. Recording. This permit shall be recorded by the City Clerk with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo. 3 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 18. This permit shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 19. Sketch. See attached. CITY OF BURLINGAME Lo Syed Murtuza, P.E., City Engineer ATTEST: Ann T. Musso, City Clerk OBTAIN NOTARIZATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) OWNERS Approved as to form: Larry Anderson, City Attorney On before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature NOTARY PUBLIC 10 'Pilo r-outivk,,-10h1 -f YF, h1✓ GT! D 1\4 I � ► -7 -r?r,�t�-r v I�V\r I _ _- - __ �� i2 " H i G, H 4-rWrz LAAO, ICv' Loti�r� 2 1 i�2i 0 ['00(1 z 7- �LA S' hWK F � it / �1 � !• _' �.. `�a _..:r -L .dee: ",'� •Mtt.. ... RIP 7 ` Ly a - _ .. .fti•'q.�� � -- .i CwR• ap .. ts` .w Anvvj v yic-�'.°• r ji �l..`.�J 1 , . _- f-. 1 � a f/ ;:'rte �•n �.re``.r � i� BU RLINGAME STAFF REPORT 1 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: March 22, 2001 BY FROM: F'UbLIU WUKK5 APPROVEDA /4' li' AGENDA ITEM # 9C MTG. 4/2/0 DATE A^ SUBJECT: WEEDS AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERT)V- JOB NO. 80280 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution setting a public hearing for May 21, 2001 for the 2001 Weed and Rubbish Abatement Program on public and private property. BACKGROUND: Each year the City establishes the Weed and Rubbish Abatement Program to abate weeds on public and private property. Once the hearing date is set, property owners will be notified to abate their weeds. At the public hearing, property owners objecting to such proceedings may be heard. BUDGET IMPACT: Staff time will be spent on this program as in previous years. Work authorized by the City to remove weeds and rubbish on private property will be paid for by liens assessed with the tax roll in July of this year. EXHIBIT: Resolution SyedWiirtuza, P.E. City Engineer pa c: City Attorney City Clerk f:\apublicworksdir\staffreports\weeds. stf RESOLUTION NO.3Q_2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING NOXIOUS AND DANGEROUS WEEDS AND RUBBISH A NUISANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11.08 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, that: WHEREAS, all weeds growing upon any private property or in any public street, lane, way or alley within the City which bear seeds of a wingy or downy nature, or which, because of having attained such a large growth and being dry, shall become a fire menace, or which are otherwise noxious or dangerous, and all rubbish, refuse, or piled dirt in parkways, sidewalks or private property constitute a public nuisance, and WHEREAS, it is the obligation of each owner of real property to maintain its property free of nuisances, including the adjacent parkways pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT these nuisances exist upon streets, squares, lanes, alleys, avenues, courts, parkways, private property and places within the City of Burlingame, and these weeds, rubbish, and refuse do now constitute a public nuisance. IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AND ORDERED THAT these public nuisances be abated without delay pursuant to law. Unless these nuisances are abated without delay, the City of Burlingame may perform this abatement with its own forces or by contract, and the expense of that abatement may be assessed and charged against the property from which the nuisance is removed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a public hearing shall be held at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, May 21, 2001, in the City Council Chambers of the City of Burlingame, located at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, for the time and place for the City Council to receive and hear objections to the proposed removal of such weeds, rubbish, and refuse. Any interested person may submit oral or written comments prior to or at this public hearing. The City Engineer is hereby ordered and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be given in the time, manner, and form provided by law. 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 Mday of APRIL ,2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY 9 O'MAHONY 9 SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE CITY CLERK SAA Public Works Directory\FORMS\General Office Fonns\WeedResolution.res 2 CITY BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT e TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: March 27, 2001 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # ___ 9d MTG. DATE 4/2/2001 SUBMITTED, - n BY APPROVED / BY ADOPT RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THAT PERSONS WHO PERFORM VOLUNTARY SERVICE WITHOUT PAY FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SHALL BE DEEMED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution that brings City volunteers within workers compensation coverage of the City. DISCUSSION: The City uses a significant number of volunteers to support City services, such as the libraries and recreation programs. In order to ensure that these volunteers have some minimal protection from injuries while doing volunteer work and to avoid unnecessary, adversarial litigation when such injuries occur, it is recommended that volunteers be included in the City's workers compensation program. State law requires a resolution to be adopted to make this possible. Attachment Proposed Resolution r RESOLUTION 31-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AFFIRMING THAT PERSONS WHO PERFORM VOLUNTARY SERVICE WITHOUT PAY FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SHALL BE DEEMED EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY FOR PURPOSES OF THE STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the purpose of the California Workers Compensation laws is to provide a protection to persons providing service to employers regardless of the fault of any person and to further provide a non -adversarial process for medical treatment and compensation; and WHEREAS, volunteers provide invaluable service to the City and are vital to the continued provision of many public services to City residents; and WHEREAS, inclusion of registered volunteers in the City's workers compensation program will provide the volunteers with protection and benefits should injury occur to the volunteers while in the course of employment by the City, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, 1. Pursuant to Labor Code § 3363.5, the City declares that volunteers to the City shall be considered employees of the City for purposes of workers compensation laws only when the following conditions are met: a. The volunteer has completed and submitted a City volunteer application form; and b. The City has accepted and approved the volunteer for service, and that approval and acceptance is current; and c. The volunteer is injured during the course of performing service that has been authorized and directed by the City for that volunteer; and d. The volunteer is receiving no remuneration for the service, other than meals, transportation, lodging, or reimbursement for incidental expenses, from any other agency or person. 01 o -e - 1\ AYO 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 2NDday of APRIL ,200 1, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE (&4L - CITY CLERK 2 STAFF REPORT L :tom TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 26, 2001 FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ Administrative Services Director AGENDA [TEM # 9e MTG. DATE 4/2/1 SUBMITTED BY 1 SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Agreement with KPMG LLP for Audit Services RECOMMENDATION: Review proposal from KPMG for audit services and either approve resolution authorizing agreement with KPMG or direct staff to obtain additional proposals. BACKGROUND: The three-year agreement with KPMG has lapsed. They have provided the attached proposal to extend the agreement for three additional years. As proposed, the cost for the 2000-2001 audit represents an increase of 10.5% for the audit of general purpose financial statements. The audit will also cover at least three hotel tax audits, and two compliance audits required by law (The city's Gann Limit and Measure A Fund.). A 10.3% increase is recommended for the second year, but the third year remains the same as the second. KPMG has proposed that city staff take responsibility for preparation of financial statements in the third year of the agreement. I have reviewed this with my accounting staff, and they are prepared to do this work, which has become the norm among other public agencies. Staff believes that the multi -agency contract with San Mateo and Redwood City regarding GASB 34 will resolve concerns regarding the additional work required in the third year for the new reporting that will be required. In addition, the hiring of one of KPMG's auditors for the vacant senior accountant position insures strong staff support for the audit. Staff is satisfied with the performance of KPMG and their regular rotation of staff insures a fresh perspective each year. In addition, the proposed costs appear in line with cost increases in this area. KPMG has placed at least one Burlingame -experienced staff member on the audit team each year. City policy has been to use a major national accounting firm since depth of staff has been helpful in addressing special accounting issues that arise, and coverage in case of staff turnover. It is the Council's decision on how to proceed, since the auditors are retained by Council to review staff accounting practices and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: Proposal from KPMG LLP for Audit Services Resolution Authorizing City Manager to sign agreement. Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP 500 Campus Drive P.O. Box 805 Florham Park NJ 07932 Telephone (973) 236 7000 Facsimile (973) 236 7200 December 16, 1999 To the Partners of KPMG LLP: We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of KPMG LLP (the "firm") in effect for the year ended March 31, 1999. A system of quality control encompasses the firm's organizational structure and the policies adopted and procedures established to provide it with reasonable assurance of complying with professional standards. The elements of quality control are described in the Statements on Quality Control Standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (the "AICPA"). The design of the system, and compliance with it, are the responsibilities of the firm. In addition, the firm has agreed to comply with the membership requirements of the SEC Practice Section of the AICPA Division for CPA Firms (the "Section"). Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the design of the system, and the firm's compliance with that system and the Section's membership requirements based on our review. Our review was conducted in accordance with the standards established by the Peer Review Committee of the Section. In performing our review, we obtained an understanding of the system of quality control for the firm's accounting and auditing practice. In addition, we tested compliance with the firm's quality control policies and procedures and with the membership requirements of the Section to the extent we considered appropriate. These tests covered the application of the firm's policies and procedures on selected engagements. We also tested the supervision and control of portions of engagements performed outside the United States. Because our review was based on selective tests, it would not necessarily disclose all weaknesses in the system of quality control or all instances of lack of compliance with it or with the membership requirements of the Section. As is customary in a peer review, we are issuing a letter under this date that sets forth comments relating to certain policies and procedures or compliance with them. These matters were not considered to be of sufficient significance to affect the opinion expressed in this report. Because there are inherent limitations in the effectiveness of any system of quality control, departures from the system may occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of a system of quality control to future periods is subject to the risk that the system of quality control may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of KPMG LLP in effect for the year ended March 31, 1999, has been designed to meet the requirements of the quality control standards for an accounting and auditing practice established by the AICPA, and was complied with during the year then ended to provide the firm with reasonable assurance of complying with professional standards. Also, in our opinion, the firm has complied with the membership requirements of the Section in all material respects. RESOLUTION 32-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH KPMG PEAT MARWICK TO PROVIDE INDEPENDENT AUDIT SERVICES TO THE CITY FOR THREE YEARS AND AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, KPMG Peat Marwick has served the City as independent auditors; and WHEREAS, KPMG Peat Marwick has provided excellent service in those audits; and WHEREAS, KPMG Peat Marwick has offered to continue to perform audits of the City over a three-year period at a reasonable cost, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Agreement between KPMG Peat Marwick and the City attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved, and the Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 2. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. 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 2ND day of APRIL ,2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE r CITY CLERK A 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 2ND day of APRIL ,2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE r CITY CLERK 91TY STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: March 27, 2001 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA f ITEM # - -9 MTG. DATE 4/2/2001 1� SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY SUPPORT OF AB 855 TO EQUALIZE SALARIES OF TEACHERS AT STATE FACILITIES WITH THOSE OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS RECOMMENDATION: Consider resolution expressing support of AB 855 currently pending before the Legislature to equalize salaries of State teachers with those of local public schools. DISCUSSION: Currently, teachers at State facilities, such as the California School for the Blind and the California Schools for the Deaf, are paid a salary established on a statewide basis. No differentiation is made between a teacher's salary at a school in the Bay Area and that elsewhere in the State. Because housing and transportation costs in the Bay Area are so high, this means that qualified teachers are often going elsewhere. The proposed legislation would set teacher salaries at the State facility at a level roughly equal to that of the school districts within which the facility is located. This would begin to better account for the different costs of living among various locations in the State. Bill and Nancy Reilly of Burlingame asked for the Council's support of this legislation by the attached letter. Attachments Letter of March 12, 2001, from Bill and Nancy Reilly Proposed Resolution Bill & 1Vane7 Reilly �-- 1912 Denereu.v Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 692-4744 March 12, 2001 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Galligan and Members of the City Council, We are asking you to support AB 855. We are the parents of a 17 -year-old deaf daughter, Kathy who attends the California School for the Deaf in Fremont. We are very pleased with our daughter's education, but because of the high cost of living in the Bay Area, we are very concerned about the recruitment and retention of teachers and other staff at the California School for the Deaf in Fremont. At the present time, many teachers are planning on leaving positions at the school to take teaching positions in other state facilities, such as the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, because state teacher salaries there still make it possible for those teachers to buy nice homes and have a comfortable living standard. Salaries for teachers at the California School for the Deaf Fremont are exactly the same as they are for teachers at the California School for the Deaf Riverside, yet the median cost of housing in Fremont, $435,000 is more than double the median cost of housing in Riverside. The California School for the Deaf in Fremont has a worldwide reputation as being one of the finest schools for the deaf in the world. Without keeping the staff currently there and being able to recruit new staff to replace those retiring or who leave, the school cannot continue to play the role it has played. The school is a national treasure and needs to be fiiily supported by the state. Please help us keep the California School for the Deaf Fremont strong so that our deaf children can continue to receive the best education possible. Our deaf students grow up to be tax supporting citizens if they receive the education they need. If staff cannot be recruited or retained because of the high cost of living in Fremont, the school will not be able to do the job it has done for 141 years. AB 855 will bring the salaries of the teachers at the California School for the Deaf Fremont (CSDF) in line with those of the teachers in the Fremont schools who currently make $12,000 to $25,000 more than CSDF teachers with the same credentials. Please support AB 855 and our children. We would appreciate your expressing this support to Assemblyman Papan and Senator Speier. Sincerely yours, &g ktwjgvl—r� Bill & Nancy Re' OWM -11 RESOLUTION NO. 33-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING AB 855 TO PROPERLY COMPENSATE TEACHERS AT STATE FACILITIES RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, the State Legislature is considering AB 855, which would begin to equalize salaries of teachers at State facilities, such as the School for the Blind and the Schools for the Deaf with those of public schools in the same area where the State school is located; and WHEREAS, this bill would assist in keeping qualified teachers working at State facilities in the San Francisco Bay Area, where soaring housing and transportation costs have adversely affected all public schools, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby resolved: 1. The State Legislature is urged to adopt AB 855 to support the diverse educational needs of the State. Mayor 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 2ND _ day of APRIL , 2001, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COLNCILMEMBER: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: NONE NONE ABSENT: COLTNCILMEMBER: City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 26, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the March 26, 2001, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Boju6s, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 12, 2001, meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved with the correction of a spelling error on page 3, paragraph 3, "applicant". IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved with the acknowledgement that item lb, 1219 Vancouver Avenue, was continued since the applicant decided to redesign, item 3, 2812 Easton Drive, was continued to April 9, 2001, and items 8, 21 Dwight Road, and item 9, 1228 Balboa Avenue, would be heard in the order they were on the agenda, not as they were numbered in the packet. V. FROM THE FLOOR VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. VII. ACTION ITEMS There were no public comments. CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE ACTED ONSIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR ACTIONIS 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. Commission commented that the applicant for 1637 Westmoor Road did a great job with the changes and following the direction given by the Commission. Commissioner Keighran noted that she would abstain from voting for Item 1C at 1532 Vancouver Avenue because she lives within 500 feet of the project. 1A. 1637 WESTMOOR ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DEAN AND URSULA WILLIAMS PROPERTY 0WNERI City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 111. 1219 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RAMIN AND NATALIE FOROOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GARY DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, ARCHITECT) (ITEM CONTINUED) 1C. 1532 VANCOUVER AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT ALLEN WILLIAMS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND KATINA COSENZA, PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings for each in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion; Item IA at 1637 Westmoor Road passed 7-0. Item 1C at 1532 Vancouver Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote. (C. Keighran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:09 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI AND YOLANDA YEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 12, 2001 MEETING) Reference staff report, 3.26.01, with attachments. Planner Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Johnny Darosa, applicant and architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked: what changes were made to the proposed house in response to the Commission's comments at the study meeting? The applicant noted that all of the windows at the east elevation were reduced in size, siding had been added to the front entrance to match the existing siding, windows were added to the west elevation and the roof material was changed. Commission commented: is there a discrepancy on the plans, on the second floor, left side of the east elevation, the wall is shown to be T-0" high, but on the south elevation this same wall is T-0" high. The entrance is out of context; archway of entrance does not blend with any other element of the house. The windows on the east elevation appear to look directly into the neighbor's yard; only reducing them in size does not improve privacy, did applicant look into relocating the windows?; large landscaping at the east elevation would help to screen the addition and insure privacy; please clarify which trees are existing on the east elevation, their approximate. size and which trees are proposed. On the south elevation on the right side, the windows appear to crash into the roof line below, this will be difficult or impossible to build. There is no architectural consistency to the house; original design is modern looking and the proposed alterations have tacked on many traditional details that are not appropriate; the original house has elements of wood siding, cement blocks and stucco, these. materials and pattern of use are not echoed io the second floor; sudden change of materials at the corner of the second floor looks odd, as if materials suddenly ran out and so the addition does not blend with the existing house. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 There were no further comments from the audience. C. Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: the direction given at the study meeting does not appear to have been fruitful. The drawings need to be cleaned up and made consistent, needs to make sure fascia shown on dormers at front elevation is shown on other elevations, wall on the east elevation must be drawn correctly and match what is shown on south elevation, the windows on the south elevation that are shown crashing into the roof line need to be revised; redesign the front entry to blend with the existing architectural materials and clean lines of architecture in original house. C. Deal moved to refer the project to a design review consultant. C. Vistica seconded the motion. Further Commission discussion: this project is improving in summary for the design reviewer the applicant needs to address the following issues: repeat the eave detail; the stucco wall on the west elevation stands out as different and massive; the arched entryway does not blend with the existing architecture; windows on the second floor of the east elevation do not match the existing square windows on the first floor; the existing house has architecture of planes and voids, created with the cement blocks punctuated by siding and stucco, these elements need to be engaged on the second floor. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:39 p.m. 3. 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) (CONTINUED TO APRIL 9, 2001 MEETING) At the applicant's request this item was continued to the April 9, 2001, meeting to the regular action calendar. 4. 1447 BURLINGAME AVENUE — ZONED C-1 SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FULL-SERVICE RESTAURANT (IQBAL SERANG, ARCHITECT; ELIO D. URZO, APPLICANT; BANK OF AMERICA NT SA ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 3.26.01, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Iqbal Serang, architect, was present to answer questions. Commission asked if the signage shown on the plans was within the maximum allowed by code? Staff noted that no signage is addressed in this application, the applicant will have to make a separate application for signage. The architect indicated that he understood this clarification. There were no further comments. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Commission is satisfied with the responses submitted by the applicant 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minute.: March 26, 2001 C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) tha seating area on the first floor, 216 SF of seating area on the mezzanine, 868 SF of storage area on the mezzanine, and 276 SF of office area for the restaurant on the mezzanine; these areas and their designated uses shall be altered or expanded only with amendment to this conditional use permit; 2) that the tenant space shall be operated as shown on the commercial application form submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 16, 2001; that the business shall not be open for business except during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m, seven days a week, with a maximum of 14 employees on site at one time, including the owner, and that there shall be no delivery service from the site and no classes offered at the site; 3) that this full-service food establishment may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 4) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5) that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet in each direction of all frontages of the business; 6) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 22, 2001 and the City Engineer's January 22, 2001 memos shall be met; 9) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; and 10) 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. C. Dreiling seconded the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW — ORDINANCE TO EXTEND DESIGN REVIEW TO SOME BUILDINGS IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS City Planner Monroe presented a summary of the proposed revised ordinance which would establish eligibility of properties in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts for commercial design review, criteria for that review and a process for commercial design review. CP noted that there were still some editorial corrections to be made to the commercial design guidelines so Commission could review them at their next meeting and forward them on to the City Council. The guidelines are not intended to be regulations but an assistance to applicants, and as such the guidelines need only be approved and acknowledged by the Commission and Council. Commissioners asked that staff review the wording of the ordinance to make the exemption for all tenant and building facades that are 25 feet in length or less is clearly stated; this exemption would include all changes made to facades 25 feet or less in length, even if changes are made to 50% or more of the fagade. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 C. Vistica moved that the commission recommend this ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: Commissioner noted that the quality of this ordinance and the process followed in its formulation is testimony to the need of professionals on the Planning Commission. It was noted that the commercial design review guidelines would be on the Commission's next agenda so that they could go to Council that the entire package would be available at the public hearing. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to City Council for action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 6. SECOND UNIT AMNESTY — ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AMNESTY FOR SOME SECOND UNITS IN THE R-1 ZONE DISTRICT Cers. Vistica and Deal both noted that they would abstain from action on this item because they owned property zoned R-1 with nonconforming second units. They asked CA Anderson if they could participate in the debate on the ordinance. He responded that they could testify on how the proposed program/ordinance will affect their property. They stepped down from the dais. CP Monroe presented a summary of the proposed second unit amnesty program as established in the ordinance before the Planning Commission. Commission noted that there appeared to be a word processing problem with the apostrophes on page 3. Chairman Luzuriaga asked the members of the Subcommittee to review how they arrived at the qualifying criteria. Commissioners noted felt needed one offsite parking space since parking in the existing neighborhoods is generally difficult now, this parking impact also affected the choice of a maximum of two people per unit; felt it important to have the owner on-site for close supervision of the rented unit, the owner would be more particular who rented to; important to get maintenance done to make units safe and sanitary, fire department needs to know if a second unit is present in case of an emergency; put a maximum size in place because did not want units to exceed maximum allowable FAR for site and wanted to keep them a small secondary use; felt must comply without exception to insure fit and the continuation of existing conditions. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The following spoke at the public hearing: Lee Tanton, Linden Avenue; Jerry Deal, 1228 Paloma Avenue; Stan Vistica, 24 Arundal Road; Richard Quadri, 530 Francisco; Mike Zerrela, Vancouver; Dan Griffin, 1015 Cabrillo; Kevin Griffin, 1700 Sanchez. City has been 15 years in getting to a second unit amnesty program, started back in 1982, need program to increase affordable housing; Burlingame should not base its program on those of Daly City or Half Moon Bay; city needs hundreds more units, this is a good start, need to move now; would encourage to have program extend beyond 250 unit target. Have a duplex built in an R-1 zone, have owned 20 years, built about 1924, nonconforming but could not qualify under proposed program because each unit is 1100 SF, have always been rented; when changed nonconforming rules for single family zone was bypassed because unit attached so cannot expand primary unit (would like to add a family room), only solution for me is rezoning with neighbor to join adjacent R-2 district; concern is that with these criteria the program will not address a lot of existing, nonconforming second units. Have a second unit which will fall within the scope of the ordinance, take issue with the requirement that the owner live on the property, means cannot keep as an income property and would have to sell if able to move to a single family house in the future; don't understand the 640 SF cap with a maximum 30 SF addition; owner does not have to live there to keep an eye on the tenant, should be careful who he rents to anyway. Own a single family house without a second unit; here to offer qualified support for second unit program; 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 agree to extend cut off date to December 1953 because more defensible date since ordinance changed at that time; would like notification to be 300 feet from the start, not 100 feet and 300 feet only on appeal; like all five criteria, and like even more that exceptions are not granted; feel it is generous to allow remodel up to 50% of value, do not agree if damaged by catastrophe should be allowed to be rebuilt; people who come forward will appreciate the value of their property; this ordinance is on the right track without changes. Do not feel that it is fair to limit this program to second units added before 1954, later units were better built and also add to the housing stock, they ease the burden of a high mortgage payment; feel that this will create a two class system among second units, if caught the later units would have to be removed, displacing low income tenants and reducing the low income housing stock; ask consider amnesty for all existing second units not just those built before 1954. Opposed to any legalization of second units, do not want to let people live in garages in Burlingame, the neighborhoods will become unsafe, on street parking will become more difficult since tandem will not work out. Own several rental properties in the area, have relatives in Daly City and Mission where second units allowed, cannot park within 7 blocks when visit; increase in crime rates in these areas, too much activity on the streets; need to preserve the neighborhoods in Burlingame for our children; people who rent these second units do not have good judgement about their tenants, are taken advantage of, older people cannot get rid of a bad person; if units are illegal they should be ripped out not legalized; will reduce property values and safety in the city; ask that you kill the proposal. Commission asked: do you own rentals? Yes, but not in Burlingame. How do you address safety? Potential tenants have credit checks, make deposits, must qualify; in this proposed situation, elderly people may do others a favor and get taken advantage of. A different type of people are willing to live in a garage, will not park in tandem in the driveway with the property owner, will park on street. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: cannot legislate from fear or based on what might happen, the nature of Burlingame is different than Daly City in terms of economics, density and physical fabric; this ordinance proposed a cut off for units built before 1954, at that time these units were not prohibited in the R-1 zone, this is worth a trail, if there is a problem we will do something different; we are not talking about transforming the city, the number is fixed, cannot add second unit now under this proposal. Feel that 100 foot notice initially is adequate since the impacts of these existing units is on the immediate properties, if problem the appeal notice will be 300 feet; do not feel that the fear factor regarding type of tenant holds water, makes no difference if people rent nonconforming second unit or whole house; need a place to start, this is a good point; the 640 SF size with 30 SF addition is a bit arbitrary but again need to start some place, can modify rough spots as we progress; compliment people who came to speak, if this were a huge community issue the house would have been full; would like to see this move forward to Council. C. Bojues noted that they spent a lot of time in the subcommittee reviewing this; these units are not just garages, they are separate structures built on R-1 properties or part of existing houses; the owner occupancy is a safe guard for both the owner and neighbor since the owner will live on the property too and experience whatever occurs; the downside of the proposal is that it is very limited but it is a start so would move to recommend this project as described in this ordinance to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. On the motion: Can't compare Burlingame to other cities, understand concern about safety that is the reason for having the property owner live on site; if owner has a child s/he will be more careful who they have living on the property with them; may want to reconsider the 640 SF in the future but was chosen because it seemed a comfortable size for two people; this project came about because we have a 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 housing crisis, the people who need housing are lower income, students, service workers, elderly; feel that housing these will be an asset to property values, its worth a try; its also an opportunity to make these dwelling units more safe; favor the stricter requirements. The 1954 date was chosen because during World War II there was a housing crisis and code did not prohibit second units; agree with all requirements, this is an experiment and it addresses the Council's policy on housing; we are experiencing social pressure to provide more housing; think expansions should be limited to 30 SF. 30 SF would allow enclosure of an outdoor water heater or other appliance, make unit safer. C. Bojues, maker of the original motion, suggested by motion that the original motion be amended to change the effective date of the amnesty program to second units built before December 31, 1953. C. Osterling, the second to the original motion, agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the proposed second unit amnesty program as amended to address second units in the R-1 zoning district built before December 31, 1953, to City Council. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 vote (Cers. Deal and Vistica abstaining). This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1532 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATTHEW BOLAK, DESIGNER, AND DENIZ SALON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS) ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. Commission asked of staff: Is there a front setback necessary for the proposed work; were there any variances or special permits granted to the project proposed on this site in 1999? Staff responded that a variance is not necessary because no proposed work will encroach into the required front setback, and there were no exceptions granted to the property or structure at any prior date. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Mathew Bolack, designer, was present to answer questions. He noted that the existing stucco house does not fit into the neighborhood and that the current owners are proposing a gabled Craftsman style home, similar to those seen on the East Coast during the 1800's, which will fit into the warm architectural fabric of the neighborhood. Commission commented: this is good design and they feel that it fits into the surrounding neighborhood. Suggested that the architect and owner consider a redesign of the master bedroom and storage area because the proposed design allows for very little natural light and does not make the best use of space; French doors are the only source of light to this room; shed dormer addition should have more windows to break up the expanse of blank wall along the second floor; would like to note for owner's clarification that once the house is framed, if they are not happy with the number of windows, must come back through design review in order to add additional windows. Concerned about privacy issues with the balcony; it fits into the design, but is large; potential for it to become an observation deck and gathering point. Can it be reduced in size? Landscaping on the site is almost non-existent; would like to see a landscape plan showing trees and large-scale shrubs including plant size at planting; landscaping can help screen the balcony and insure privacy of the neighbors. Details of the house design are very important; would like to see more details in the eaves, water table, windows. Is the octagonal element at the rear of the house necessary?; has the owner actually furnished this room?; element doesn't fit into the rest of the design and these types of spaces are generally an inefficient use of floor area. Feel differently about the balcony; although on the second floor, balcony designed so that it is nestled into the back of 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 the house; is only 8'-6" x 10' with doors swinging into it, do not think it is too large; Commissioners having commented that the balcony was too large noted that they could see the logic in this argument and were willing to agree that balcony is not too large; will not deny the project if owner chooses not to reduce the size of the balcony. Don't support the light fixtures proposed on the fence posts; this type of design, a row of lights, does not work well in an urban setting; suggest down -lights or burying the lights in the structure so that they do not impact neighboring properties. House has nice roof line, many pitches, but garage has plain 4:12 pitch; why not design garage to match house? Deniz Salon, the applicant and general contractor, addressed the Commission. He noted that he would prefer to change the roof on the garage, but it was his understanding that the ridge could not be made any higher because of height limitations. Staff noted that the garage height is currently 13'-0", where maximum allowable height is 15'-0". Commission suggested that there are many pitches on the roof of the house and the applicant explore a pitch roof closer to a 15 foot ridge for the garage. There were no other comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Osterling commented that the project fits into the neighborhood and made a motion to place this item with suggested revisions on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: clarification or direction to the applicant to eliminate the light fixtures on fence posts and replace them with down lights or buried lights; add windows on the second floor to the shed dormer addition; change the roof pitch to 6:12; develop the eave details; develop the window trim details; and provide a landscape plan to include placement of large scale shrubs and trees and size at time of planting. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:36 p.m. 8. 21 DWIGHT ROAD- ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER CP Monroe presented a summary of the project. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Randy Grange, applicant, architect and owner, was present to answer questions. He noted that this design was difficult to work out. The house is very narrow and addition had to be narrow also. Commission commented: work of the architect is very impressive, he understands the purpose of design review; addition carries the traditional style of the existing house; the design is an elegant solution to a difficult addition; great job; excellent plans. Small correction needed on the elevations where windows above the bed wall are not shown. Corridoor to addition is only T-0", would it be possible to increase this by a F-0" or P-6"?; would add more vertical element to the outer wall on the addition. The applicant noted that he would consider this, but it would take the building outside of the allowable envelope. The Commission noted that they grant special permits based on consistency of architectural style findings; feel a special permit for exceeding the declining height envelope would be warranted in this case and would strongly support application for the permit. There were no additional comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 C. Dreiling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on motion: direction given to apply for a special permit to exceed the declining height envelope. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:46 p.m. 9. 1228 BALBOA AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A PORCH ADDITION (KENNETH ROBY, APPLICANT AND DAWOOD JAMSHIDNEJAD, PROPERTY OWNER) ZT Lewit briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Kenneth Roby, applicant, was present to answer questions. He noted that the roof on the porch had been redesigned and the materials changed so that it would fit in with the existing house. Commission discussed the project: do not support the new design for the porch; it is not integrated into the house, but instead tacked on to the outside; would look much better if the porch cut into the existing house and only the stairs extended into the front setback. Don't see evidence for findings to grant a variance for the front setback; physical hardship, such as slope on lot, or 25' frontage, is necessary to grant a variance; this house is already existing non -conforming in F.A.R. and a setback variance on top of that is asking for too much. Commission is placed in a tough spot; if porch design had come through the proper channels in the first place, we could have worked with applicant to arrive at a good design solution; instead Commission is forced into a corner; house looks better with the proposed porch, but the design of the porch is still not acceptable; in addition to this there are no findings to make for a variance. This is a poorly done job; the neighborhood will be forced to live with this bad design for years to come and it is the fault of the applicant. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor. Walter Smith, 1249 Balboa, commented that he feels the design of the house is beautiful, especially compared to the condition and appearance of the house before the present owner. He is not aware of the issues the house may have with code requirements, but thinks that the house as built is a great improvement over what was there before. There were no other comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. C. Keighran noted that there is a consensus that there is no justification for the variance and made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on motion: in order to make this porch work, some floor area will have to be taken out of the existing house, the porch must be inset and not just have a pediment tacked on to it or the roof line changed; there are no findings for a variance on this property; the applicant seems to think that his options are either to keep this porch or have no porch; must realize that by going to design review consultant there is opportunity to arrive at a better design for the house. 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 10. 1220 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED C-4 — SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 4 -STORY, 16,000 SF OFFICE BUILDING (ROGER HAY, SMITH GROUP, ARCHITECT: ROBERT WADELL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented as summary of the project description and staff report. Commission asked if there was a difference between a Negative Declaration and Mitigated Negative Declaration; staff responded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration included actions which the project would be require to incorporated so that it would not have significant impacts on the community, a Negative Declaration is used for a project where, after study it is determined that without changes it would have no impacts unacceptable to the community. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Bob Wadell, 808 Burlingame Avenue, property owner , and Roger Hay, architect, 225 Bush St, SF, represented the project. They noted submittal is incomplete at this time so can work with the City; Burlingame needs a professional design office center; have been working on this project for 18 months; public access pathway is no longer on the neighboring property. Work on the site has revealed why the site has not been developed, a number of hardships, two lots, a major drainage easement which is a part of the Bay, including pickle weed, limits the useable site; almost the entire site is within BCDC jurisdiction; when look at all the development guidelines as applied to this site, small foot print left to develop; originally looked at 18,000 SF of office with two levels of parking, have reduced to 16,000 SF with at grade parking reducing two floors in height. Commissioners asked: size and height of building next door, lot is 2.5 times as large with 19,000 SF of office; proposed project seems out of context, does not fit in neighborhood; property should be clarified one lot, not two, with drainage easement from CalTrans on it. Design proposed does not take advantage of the drainage easement as a "preserved" environment and asset to site, should be incorporated. Bayfront trail needs to be on site and part of project. Concerned about the appearance of the structure, looks in style and scale like the airport, major departure from existing, may be good in proper context but not here; need to show a hardship on the property for a parking variance (13 parking spaces is a big variance), concerned that there is no other place to park in area if not on site, should reduce size to meeting parking. Parking layout should be evaluated seems inefficient, dead end at gate on one way entrance drive, car cannot exit if there in error. Do study of number of visitors to an office of this size and use, two a day seems unrealistic given 16, 000 SF; concerned about the bulk of the structure, takes away the public view and access to the bay. Building is set too close to the Bay and on the street side appears "fenced in", does not make a pedestrian friendly connection with the street. Would like an evaluation of the leasable space to gross square footage of this building against that of a standard office building. The size of the building proposed should be clarified. Architecture is interesting, need visual study to determine if this is the place to put it. Location is a gateway to the community, a focal point, building needs to fit into this location and environment, not modern, abstract and urban like downtown San Francisco, design needs to fit character of the neighborhood. Should look at siting of building given constraints on the site, building needs to be moved away from the Bay, pedestrian access should be provided at the front. Energy conservation should be examined, especially the amount of glass on the south side. There is a major change in Title 24 in June 2001, how does this proposal size up? There should be a parking study, parking at a number of buildings in the area is abused. Building looks like people are entering the back, should be addressed. Applicant noted would like to work with commission to shape project. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes March 26, 2001 Paul Savoran, 1240 Bayshore, this is a difficult site, this massive structure does not fit the size of the property; concerned about parking and public access; have 71 parking spaces on our site they are used by all neighbors as are the parking spaces at the Park Plaza Hotel; welcome a building that fits the lot and meets all the city's development requirements. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment scoping session was closed. Commissioner comment: perhaps design is too cool, concerned about whether applicant anticipates the cost of providing the quantity of detail and its maintenance given the leasable square footage of this building; would look good at 9 stories, but here three; a lot of stuff on this building that would have to be maintained for 50 years in an unfriendly climate. Suggest that this project be assigned to a subcommittee of the Planning Commission for clarification before proceeding to environmental evaluation. Chairman Luzuriaga appointed Cers. Vistica, Bojues and Deal with Dreiling as an alternate to form a subcommittee to work with the applicant. Staff will arrange a meeting of the subcommittee with the applicant. This item concluded at 10:07 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of March 19, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions of the City Council at their meeting on March 19, 2001. The commissioners who attending the California League of Cities Planners Institute discussed briefly the highlights of the meetings, noted that they had tapes of sessions to share with the commissioners who were unable to attend, and felt that the meeting was particularly helpful regarding CEQA. Appointment of Design Reviewer Commission reviewed the City Planner's proposal that Randy Grange be appointed as the fourth design review consultant. Commission concurred with the appointment and recommended that it be forwarded to the City Council for acknowledgement. Discussion of Sign Code Issues CA Anderson reviewed some recent litigation and legal actions regarding sign codes and noted that he and Planning Staff were undertaking some revisions to our 1978 adopted sign code. He anticipated bringing these revisions to the Commission for consideration and action at the next meeting. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann Keighran, Secretary 11 Cl 4t Clerk Count�l BURLINGAME SENIOR COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting Thursday, March 15, 2001 Burlingame City Hall The regular meeting of the Burlingame Senior Commission was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Chairperson McCormack. ROLL CALL Present: Members: Douglas Anderson, Clara Crook, Harrison Holland (arrived at 9:45am), Mara Kahn, Catherine McCormack, Staff: Lynn Mutto, Recreation Supervisor Arlene Castro, Recreation Coordinator Guests: None Absent: Members: Herman Katz, David Plyer MINUTES Commissioner McCormack moved to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2001 meeting as presented. Commissioner Kahn seconded the motion, which passed 4-0. COMMUNICATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Supervisor Mutto reminded the commissioners that the City's annual Commissioner's Dinner is scheduled for March 23rd. Commissioner McCormack stated that she might miss the dinner. If unable to attend she would call on Commissioners Kahn and Crook to be the spokesperson for the Senior Commission at the dinner. Commissioner Crook requested that Superintendent Schwartz save two tables for the Commission. B. Commissioner McCormack reported that David Plyer's term ends this month and he would not be returning to the Commission. C. Commissioner McCormack discussed an article that she read in the Wall Street Journal on children being paid for caring of their elderly parents. A copy will be sent to all commissioners. OLD BUSINESS A. Emeritus Forum Lectures Coordinator Castro announced that she has plenty of speakers. Commissioner Crook recommended Mark Simon as a speaker. Coordinator Castro said that attendance has been low these past two months. Discussion followed on how to get more participants. B. Senior Wing of the Recreation Center Supervisor Mutto discussed the formation of a citizen committee and how it will have both teen and community members. Mutto reported that the teens presented Council with a petition with over 500 signatures in favor of adding teen facilities. Commissioners McCormack and Kahn wanted to know if anyone from the Senior Commission is going to be on the committee. Both would like to be considered. C. California Senior Legislature (C.S.L.) Update Commissioner McCormack presented information on behalf of Commissioner Plyer. One bill out of the Top Ten C.S.L. bills is still making its way through the Legislature. Assembly Bill 109 would require financial institutions to report cases of suspected elder abuse. D. Briefing to the City Council Commissioner McCormack stated that the City Council will not be meeting with each Commission separately. Discussion followed over concerns that the City Council is not reading the Senior Commission minutes or briefings and if it was possible to be put on the City Council Agenda to list points of concern and then submit a short summary of Senior issues. Commissioner McCormack requested that once the 2000 census data is available the Commission would like a copy of the compiled data from the City Planner. Commission received this information from the 1990 census and found it very valuable. Housing was chosen as the main focus for the Commission. Commissioner Kahn will be contacting Mills/Peninsula to find out if there is any senior housing planned in the remodel of Peninsula Hospital and surrounding property. Commissioner McCormack is compiling a list of questions for the Commission to use when phoning the other housing agencies in the Senior Resource Handbook. Commission is hoping these five agencies listed in the Senior Resource Handbook will be available in May or June to speak to the Commission on senior housing issues. The Commission again requested copies of other Commissions' minutes. NEW BUSINESS A. Commissioner Crook visited Rhoda Goldman Plaza in San Francisco. This is a retirement home for seniors. Crook expressed her disappointed that she was ignored by staff (they paid all their attention on her grown children) and that it was not a very friendly environment. B. Commissioner Crook commented on Mark Simon's column in the S. F. Chronicle on how unfriendly neighbors are. Discussion followed on how seniors should be mentors to younger neighbors. Commissioner McCormack requested this topic be placed on next months agenda under "Old Business." C. Commissioner Kahn recommended that an oral history of seniors be taken. Supervisor Mutto reported that Cathy Baylock and the Burlingame Historical Society are beginning to put together such a program. REPORTS A. Chair Reported that the terms for Commissioners Katz, Crook and Plyer will expire on March 30, 2001. B. Commissioners None C. Staff Regarding Commissioner Holland's suggestion that required bicycles on the Bayshore Trail to be equipped with bells, Supervisor Mutto reported that, according to the City Attorney: -The State's vehicle code does not require bicycles to have horns or bells. -Vehicle code section 21206 allows cities to adopt ordinances regarding the operation of bicycles on pedestrian sidewalks and trails. -The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District requires bicyclists to announce themselves when coming up from behind. Mutto suggested that, if he wishes to pursue the matter, Holland ask the City Council to consider such an ordinance or contact a State legislator to consider a Statewide requirement. Commissioner Holland stated that Foster City has signs on bicycle safety placed along their bayside trail. Holland will draft a letter to City Council requesting similar signs. He will deliver the letter to Superintendent Schwartz at the Recreation Center, to then forward to the City Council. D. Attendance at Other Meetings None FROM THE FLOOR None NEXT MEETING The next regular Senior Commission meeting will be held in Conference Room "A", at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, on Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. With no further business pending, the meeting was adjourned at 10:42 a.m. Respectfully submitted, V v � Lynn Mutto Recreation Supervisor I © 2001 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. AU Rights Reserved.1 x' V4 1C Johnson &. Johnson, Merck tu ' re ort., ourtl-' uarter; earnings JPa Technology: Lucent could plan $1 billion restructuring charge : M• w u �►' Vol" WORK & FAMILY • By SUE SHELLENSARGER MW Begin .To `'Raise Questions About Pay for Efforts HEN TITO ABAO'S aged mother was dis- �' abled by a stroke and depression, and dis- traught over staying in a convalescent home, he - made a tough choice. Mr. Abao, 57 years old, quit his sales job at an electronics retailer—dashing his hope of moving ,into management—to care for her in her home. Until her death six yearslater,.Mr. Abao provided ,,her emotional and financial security. "I loved her and felt I owed her this," he says. For all his efforts, Mr. Abao received many intangible re wards, in closeness to his mother. The financial re- wards are another mat- ter. Under his manage- ment, his mother's as- sets had more than dou- bled; yet Mr. Abao failed to ensure ade- quate compensation for his sacrifices. While his mother was alive, he., says; they were more `concerned about cover - Ing her healthcare 4 '°'"^wp costs.. "I didn't know if my mother would live a year or 20 years, and, I had to manage her assets. to last the longest possi- ble time,". he, explains: He took only,a small amount of pay, figuring ,that after, her death, .he would find some :legal re- - course as a caregiver to get some additional money for his retirement., In the. end, a large part of his mother's assets .were set aside in a trust for charity; another chunk went to Mr. Abao's brother. He was left with_ some assets, including the family home in San Francisco, but has to sell it and move to Minne- sota, a cheaper place to live, to look for a job—at age 64. His efforts to secure some pay in the Cali- fornia.courts so far have been unsuccessful. �-: r+f%"T V 11wrIT VDAii. aliiare faea a riilommA- PEOPLE WITH FRAIL elders face a dilemma: Should they drain family assets to pay for chronic care? Or if they quit working to provide care, how do they protect themselves from paying a high personal price? Amid an absence of laws or customs on paying family caregivers, those who choose the latter can land in a financial bind. srlevvaluable d sup- pliefogedlovdones and ae neerreanbursed for it, says Stuart Zimring, a Los Angeles elder -law attorney. Often, siblings fail to help. "Then comes the day of reckoning and Mom and Dad are both deceased, and the estate gets split equally among all the children. And the caregiver child feels absolutely ripped off." Bernard Krooks, vice president of the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, says "there's no legal obligation for the parent to pay" a child. Without an employment agreement in advance, the law conveys "no right or entitlement" to fam- ily caregivers. A 19th -century legal principle, the "family - member rule," holds that family members shouldn't be paid for services to each other. It was based on extended -family households of the past, where members helped each other daily. At the heart of the issue is a cultural paradox: The notion that family members should care for each other out of love and duty is rooted deep in our definition of decency. Yet the way we measure worth in our society increasingly is economic. And because most men and women now are em- ployed in their caregiving years, the financial stakes of caregiving have risen. Only in rare cases have courts granted compen- sation to caregivers. An Oregon appeals court in 1988 awarded pay to a niece who provided home care to her aunt before she died. Other family members testified that the aunt had believed the niece would be paid from her estate. Some experts think the issue deserves atten- tion. Aides to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein are pre- paring a Senate briefing, partly inspired by Mr. Abao's story, on a possible caregivers' bill of rights, perhaps including compensation or train- ing, among many other options. Mr. Zimring says, "It's an area that clearly needs to be revisited." C AREGIVERS NEED TO speak up about their needs. One New York benefits specialist cared for her mother, who had a neurological ailment, for six years until her death. She gave up her so- cial life to cook, clean and provide for her moth- er's basic needs. Her mother wanted her daughter to receive her house, her biggest asset, in return. Making the legal arrangements "was a strug- gle for me," the daughter says. But while she feared her two brothers would be angry, they raised no objections. "One brother told the other, 'She should get the house. She took care of Mom and she did everything she could,' " the woman recalls. "I was touched by the support." Families should discuss the issue while their elder is still alive. If they agree on paying a care- giver, a written document is needed, typically in- cluding the rate of pay, a description of services and a prohibition against transferring the agree- ment, says Ronald Fatoullah, a Great Neck, N.Y., elder -law attorney. Families might base pay on market rates in the area, Mr. Fatoullah says. In New York, a family caregiver might receive $14 to $15 an hour, or $100 a day or more for live-in care. If the parent lacks assets, Mr. Fatoullah has seen siblings chip in. Attorneys watch such cases closely to ensure "there's no arm -twisting going on behind the scenes," and that the aged person has mental ca- pacity, Mr. Zimring says. Mr. Abao learned the value of such legal plan- ning the hard way. Now he hopes to help others by writing a book based on his experiences. c f� a: co; int am ico. co': ket MW am. mor tha esti port anni U.S. offs]: ada, A. farm of sr: in pl., eyed ern, :. large Eartl: into r of thf- ..r neede Avc From Mo- tiVitr Staff R• SANTA ting read - On a 1`1 ead;Onar1 dio here, shakes tht as he wai Stone" to he crisscl around, €, mously W against n performa; rapher re he raises Don't Tyler's s Web ane known Web. W Inc., Aei will allo and bar City tkrk� Gonul MEETING MINUTES Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, March 8, 2001 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ed Larios at 7:03 p.m. in the Social Hall of the Burlingame Recreation Center. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Dittman, Erickson, Heathcote, Larios, Minderman and Muller; Youth Commissioners Martindale and Zhao Commissioners Absent: Lawson Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director John Williams, Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz Others Present: Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way; Annamarie Holland Daniels, 575 Howard Avenue; Lynne Herrick, 467 Cumberland Road; Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way; Sam & Gloria Malouf, 712 Vernon Way; Frederick & Liesl Morell, 300 Channing Road; Tom & Susan Paine, 728 Concord Way; John Parish, 1538 Vancouver Avenue; and Roxanne Cyr, 1033 Shoal Drive, San Mateo MINUTES Due to the fact that the March Commission meeting was moved up one week, minutes of the February 15, 2001 meeting were not available to Commissioners prior to this meeting. Review and approval of the minutes was delayed until the April meeting of the Commission. OLD BUSINESS Report on Youth Advisory Committee (YAC). Youth Advisory Commissioner Martindale reported that the City Council is expected to appoint at least two young people to the Youth Center Study Committee on March 19. YAC members will do some youth center tours of other facilities in the area during the next few weeks. An all -school middle school dance is being planned for the Rec Center in May. Commissioners received flyers for upcoming XFL Football and Sharks games. Recreation Superintendent Schwartz noted that teen trips and other trips have been doing well this winter. 2. Review of 2001-02 Capital Improvement Program and 5 Year Plan. Director Williams reviewed the staff's proposed Capital Improvement Program for the coming fiscal year. $3 Million has been suggested in each of the next two fiscal year budgets for the Youth Center. Obviously, no program or budget for a youth center has yet been approved. Williams noted that major expenditures have also been proposed in years 3, 4 and 5 of the plan for rehabilitation of the Recreation Center and the original Bayside Park facilities. He also explained that the next phase of work at Cuernavaca Park (one of three remaining phases) has been deleted from the 2001-02 budget and suggested as the State Prop 12 Bond Fund project for Burlingame in the 2002-03 FY. Commissioner Erickson asked if staff had prioritized the projects proposed for 2001-02. Williams replied that projects are not prioritized at this time. Commissioner Dittman asked if staff could review the existing Rec Center masterplan for newer commissioners at the April meeting of the Commission. Williams will schedule a review of the Rec Center masterplan for the April Commission meeting. It was moved by Commissioner Dittman, seconded by Commissioner Heathcote and approved 6-0-1 (Lawson absent) that the Commission recommend approval of the Parks & Recreation Department 2001-02 Capital Improvement Budget and 5 Year plan, as proposed by staff. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Annamarie Daniels asked if it was appropriate to include a total of $6 Million in the proposed C.I.P. budget for the next two years, given the fact that the Youth Center project was now going to committee. Director Williams replied that this was the appropriate time to submit such requests to the Public Works Director and City Manager, but that funding decisions would come later in the budget process. 2. John Parish asked the Commission what programs would be conducted in a new teen center. Chairman Larios noted that, since the Youth Center was not on the agenda for discussion, that question would have to wait for the study committee's review or for another Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. 3. Lynne Herrick stated that she is concerned about any possible changes in Washington park. Her mother's memorial tree is located in Washington Park. Both of her parents' ashes are scattered in the park and any changes in the park will be very upsetting to her. She considers the park sacred ground. 4. Sam Malouf asked if the Commission knew whether there is a schedule and process for further review of the youth center. Director Williams reported that any further schedule and process will be determined by the City Council. Williams stated that he will mail copies of the full packets of information re the Youth Center project from the February 15, 2001 Commission meeting to all persons present in this meeting who did not attend that February meeting. 2 NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Commission. RiOU1�I Capital Project Status. A. Bayside Park. Director Williams reported that golf range use is increasing with the beginning of the golf season and better weather. Staff will be performing the one year performance review with the golf operator in the near future. Commissioners are invited to attend the combined grand openings of the Dog Exercise Park (8:30 a.m.) and the new baseball/softball field (9:00 a.m.) on Saturday, March 24, 2001. Preliminary design work has begun on landscape improvements along Airport Boulevard, behind the DoubleTree Hotel and at the entrance to the Golf and Soccer Centers. Commissioner Dittman asked about the condition of the turf at the Soccer Center. Williams reported that the turf has grown in very well in the past few weeks. The disease reported in the turf last summer appears to have been defeated. B. Cuernavaca Park. Williams reported that the project to improve the park entrance and add picnic tables has been put on hold. It will be combined with the Cuernavaca playground rehabilitation and Cuernavaca restroom remodel project and funded with State Prop 12 Park Bond funds, hopefully in 2002-03. C. Trenton Park. Williams noted that the schematic plans for the Trenton Park tot lot rehabilitation will be before the City Council for approval within the next month. D. Washington Park Ballfield Improvements. Superintendent Schwartz reported that the engineers have determined that the baseball field outfield light poles are able to carry the weight of new light fixtures. Some structural bracing will be done to the poles. Commissioner Dittman asked about the previous problems with the Washington Park scoreboard. Schwartz said that staff is working on that issue. Chairman Larios asked about safety around the fight poles down the foul lines. Schwartz reported that downfield fencing is planned to make play safer and clarify what balls are officially in play for players, umpires and spectators. Larios also asked about the layout of grass areas in the baseball infield. Schwartz described what is being planned. E. Aquatic Center Parking Lot. Williams reported that the new lot, paid for with City funds, is almost complete and is in partial use. Several Commissioners noted that the lot is attractive and a good addition to the school and pool. In response to a question by Commissioner Heathcote, Schwartz replied that the area immediately in front of the Aquatic Center main entrance was left unfinished so that donor bricks can be installed there. It has been a mess and will be temporarily filled until the bricks are installed. Commissioner Erickson inquired about use policies for the new parking lot. Williams explained that no restrictions have been placed upon the lot. City program users or high school students are all welcome to park in the lot. The goal for the development of the new lot is simply to get more cars off of the City streets adjacent to the school. Erickson asked about the problems with the swim pool heater in recent months. Schwartz described the problems and indicated that staff now believes that there was a design flaw related to some new pool design rules implemented in this pool. The District has pursued the matter diligently and repairs were completed in good time. The issue of responsibility for the problem is now a matter for the attorneys to decide. Schwartz also indicated that the District pool maintenance has been adequate, but that alternative ways to schedule and conduct pool maintenance are presently being discussed. Erickson also asked about aquatic staff hiring and summer program scheduling. Schwartz noted that recruiting, training and retaining good quality pool staff will continue to be difficult. Staff is presently putting the finishing touches on summer program scheduling. Chairman Larios asked about energy conservation activities at the Aquatic Center. Schwartz noted that pool covers are used on a nightly basis and that only the east bank of pool floodlights is being used in the evenings. Larios also asked Schwartz to followup with District staff re energy conservation plans that might affect the pool. F. Artificial Turf at the BHS Football Field. Director Williams reported that the District is in the process of making a proposal for City financial support in the installation of artificial turf at the high school football field. It is Williams' understanding that the City of San Mateo is being offered a similar opportunity to participate in the placing of artificial turf on the San Mateo High School football field. Parks Division Report. Commissioners had received a written report from Parks Superintendent Tim Richmond. Recreation Division Report. Schwartz reported that all youth basketball programs, other than B.I.S. 6m grade teams, have completed the basketball season. The 2000-01 basketball season was a very successful one with record numbers of young people participating. Senior citizens activities continue to grow. Spring recreation classes have been extremely successful this year. 4. Commissioner Reports. A. Commissioner Dittman asked about the status of skateboard parks. Williams reported that the San Mateo skateboard park, to be located in the County's Coyote Park, is currently being discussed by officials from the City of San Mateo and San Mateo County. Williams expects information regarding the park to be forwarded to the City of Burlingame at any time. Dittman asked about transportation to the Coyote Park site. Williams stated that transportation will be a difficult issue since no public transportation currently runs in that area. Williams also noted that the City of Millbrae has approved the location of a new skateboard park on City land, just north of Mills High School. If the YMCA and City are able to fund the joint project, it can become a reality. B. Commissioner Muller stated that she had received a complaint about the quality of the infield at the new ballfield at Bayside Park. Schwartz stated that staff had reluctantly permitted BYBA teams to use the field for practice at the league's request, even though the field is not in tip-top shape. The field should be in good shape by opening day, March 24. The alternative is to close the field until opening day. Muller also asked staff to review the new seating arrangements for players at women's league basketball games held at BHS. The new arrangement has caused problems. Schwartz will investigate. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Larios adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, 1-1- "�---- 7cfYm W. Williams Parks & Recreation Director R� ME The City of Burlingame L 1 t O 11 M 1 A CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 10 VWWW11 CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Burlingame Avenue Parking Study Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, MARCH 22, 2001 Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Lisa De Angelis, Chair Jim McIver, Vice Chair Tim Auran David Mayer Jim Evans Staff Present: George Bagdon, Director of Public Works Frank Erbacher, Assistant Director of Public Works Syed Murtuza, City Engineer, Public Works Department Philip Ho, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department Bob Ransom, Traffic Sergeant, Police Department Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Department Staff Absent: None Visitors: Richard Zlatunich, 2066 Clarmar Way, San Jose (95128) David Kinkead, 124 Lorton, #2, Burlingame Georgette Naylor, 290 California, Burlingame Sam Malouf, 712 Vernon Way, Burlingame Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington, Burlingame Cliff Woods, 234 Primrose, Burlingame J. Gottsche, 1859 Broadway, Burlingame Mike Pacelli, 2171 Junipero Serra #280, Daly City Jeff Silverman, 1410 Burlingame, Burlingame Frankie Meyer, 308 Lorton, Burlingame John Root, 1407 Montero, Burlingame Francesca Tashjian, 1408 Burlingame, Burlingame Victor Aenile, 1145 Drake, Burlingame Bill Hurrell, Wilbur Smith Associates, Consultants Rosalie O'Mahony, Burlingame Councilwoman SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionNinutesWinutes for 03-22-01 Meeting.wpd Page 1 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Burlingame Avenue Parking Study Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, MARCH 22, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER. 6:00 p.m. by Chair De Angelis. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 3 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. DISCUSSION ITEMS. 4.1 Further parking study based on public input at the Traffic, Safety and Parking (TSP) Commission meeting on January 25, 2001. (a) Introduction. Mr. Murtuza gave a brief history of the parking study which shows a current parking deficiency in the Burlingame business area of 365 spaces and a future deficiency of 760 spaces. He stated that good comments were made at the previous public meeting on January 25, 2001. Since then, the consultants, Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA), incorporated the public input into their plan which will now be presented. A recommendation to City Council by the TSP Commission will be made at their April 12, 2001 meeting. (b) Presentation by Staff and Consultant. Mr. Hurrell of WSA summarized their revised plan. After evaluating public input at the January 25' meeting, they concluded that Lot J is still the best site for a new parking structure which will add 265 spaces. Phased -in increased parking fees of up to $1 /hour will create turnover and help fund the $10 million cost. Public input preferred no change in parking limits, but okayed increased fees, and wanted the consultant to look at alternatives to building on Lot J. In comparing other lot sites, Lot J provided the most number of new spaces, keeping the cost per space low. Lot J is also the best location to serve the core area. Engineering staff met with U.S. Post Office personnel to discuss buying their employee parking lot which would add 256 spaces; however, the post office requires that 95 spaces be reserved for their personnel. The post office said they would consider negotiations for the grass area, but there are some building limitations since their building is so close. Also discussed was rebuilding the existing post office and adding the parking structure on top; however, they were not receptive to the idea - and outright purchase was not acceptable to them, either. Since negotiations could be time consuming, Lot J is more doable. Although, since a Lot J structure would require purchasing adjacent property, we'll need to find out how viable it would be to pursue this site. Mr. Hurrell also displayed other parking structures showing the ground floor having retail space and resembling an office building. Also, the plan includes opening Lot F as a free lot for employee parking. Residential permit parking will be addressed with the City to allow overnight residential parking in public lots; however, the Lot J structure may affect this issue. They looked at attendant/ticket machine parking but this requires redesigning the lots and a loss of parking space. Keeping meters active to 9 p.m. provides more revenue and requires S:\A Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionWinutesNinutes for 03-22-01 Meeting.wpd Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Burlingame Avenue Parking Study Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, MARCH 22, 2001 more enforcement with a need to educate users. Some residents expressed a need for space after 6 p.m. for their vehicles so this would only be viable in the core area. A shuttle from remote lots would be too expensive since the farthest lot is only 2-3 blocks away from the core area. In summary, the consultant recommends Lot J as the best site for a new parking structure, phasing -in increased parking rates, improving existing lots, and monitoring the impact of these changes. (c) Questions and Answers. When Lot J is closed during construction, where will we park? Mr. Hurrell advised that the City will probably negotiate securing private space with the possibility of instituting attendant parking in some lots so cars can be stacked. Cliff Woods was concerned about the new plan following the streetscape plan and keeping the tot lot. Also, why not swap lots with Safeway since they want to move Lots K & L towards El Camino Real. Mr. Hurrell advised that Lots J & W will be dovetailed and the structure will be set back to maintain the trees and the tot lot. Mr. Murtuza stated that the Lot J plan will maintain aesthetics and the structure will be within the lot, not into the sidewalk which will include two entrances and two exits and a tot lot. A resident asked if more employee parking will be needed for retail shops in the new structure and feels that since most residents in area are apartment dwellers with lower income, property owners should pay for new structure. Also, why not build one more level of parking; and were there any employee parking studies made. Mr. Hurrell stated that only some observances were made about employee parking but they have a good idea what they need. Remote lots will be for employee parking which will free up about 100 spaces. One attendee suggested that Safeway should push parking towards the center of town, not El Camino Real. Another asked why are 400 more spaces needed; where is the growth? Mr. Hurrell advised that much of the need exists now; and in the future, they expect this area's popularity to generate more shoppers. One attendee requested good signage to direct employees to free lots. Mr. Hurrell advised they plan to provide flyers, etc., for a good public information program. There was some discussion regarding Safeway's plans, including asking why the City lot combination on Safeway's plans couldn't be facing Primrose with the Safeway building relocated within the site; however, Mr. Bagdon advised that the plans are with the Planning Commission and when Safeway's plans are on Planning's agenda, those who signed this evening's attendance roster will receive a meeting notice. (d) Summary. Mr. Murtuza advised that the TSP Commission will consider all comments made today and will hold a public hearing at their April 12' meeting at which time the Commission will make their recommendation to the City Council to increase fees and to make the outlying lots free. Also at that meeting, a map of City parking lots will be provided as requested by an attendee. 5. FROM THE FLOOR. None. 6. ADJOURNMENT. 7:30 p.m. SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionNinutesWlinutes for 03-22-01 Meetingmpd Page 3 03-15-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2001 Last Act Prev Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD..... Arson 2 0 Other Assaults 11 17 29 27 Forgery and Counterfeiting 2 2 3 4 Check Offenses 3 4 0 Fraud 1 1 1 3 Bad checks 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 1 3 0 Impersonation 0 0 Welfare Fraud 0 0 Wire Fraud 0 0 Embezzlement 1 1 2 1 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 1 1 Vandalism 21 23 45 56 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 1 4 2 Tax Evasion 0 0 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 1 1 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 Bomb Threat 1 1 0 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 2 2 0 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 Sex Offenses 1 0 Indecent Exposure 2 2 2 Sex Offenses against Children 2 2 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 Incest 0 0 Sodomy 0 0 Statutory Rape 0 0 Drug Abuse Violations 4 5 10 10 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 Marijuana Violations 3 6 6 9 Offenses Against Children 1 2 1 4 Driving Under the Influence 9 4 21 10 Vehicle Code Violations 4 6 2 Hit and Run Accidents 5 4 5 9 Suspended License 5 7 7 12 Driver's License Violations 1 0 Liquor Laws 1 0 Drunkeness 5 2 10 5 Disorderly Conduct 7 1 11 2 Vagrancy 0 0 All Other Offenses 29 43 69 89 Trespassing 0 1 Violation of Court Order 1 1 1 1 Animal Abuse 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 Municipal Code Violations 3 6 5 7 Harrassing Phone Calls 7 4 10 7 Mental Health Cases 7 4 12 9 Littering/Dumping 0 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 1 2 0 03-1.5-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITY REPORT FOR: Crime Classification............ Extortion Resisting Arrest Possession of Burglary Tools Escape Perjury Bribery Drug/Sex Registrants Kidnapping Possession of drug paraphernalia Possession of obscene literature;picture Peeping 'Tom' Towed Vehicle Temp Restraining Orders K9 Assists to Outside Agencies Warrants - Felony Warrants - Misd Probation Violations Parole Violations Found Property Missing Property Missing Person Stalking Prowling False Police Reports Fish and Game Violations Other Police Service Bigamy US Mail Crimes False Reports of Emergency Conspiracy -omputer Crime 3urfew_arid. _Loitering- Laws-- - -- - _ Zunaways (Under 18) Cruants/Incorrigible Juvs )ther Juvenile Offenses "hild Neglect/prot custody )eath Investigation licycle Violations PART TWO OFFENSES FEBRUARY, 2001 Last Act Prev Act Current Year.. YTD... YTD..... 39 5 6 2 17 1 1 5 PAGE: 2 230 - -- - - ---- - - - - -- HMO . 230 198 469 WE 398 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 82 58 4 11 11 1 0 1 2 2 2 3 8 8 1 5 1 0 0 3 4 14 5 21 14 2 2 5 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 - -G- - - - - - --8 --- - -- - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 8 11 0 0 0 230 - -- - - ---- - - - - -- HMO . 230 198 469 WE 398 03-15-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2001 Last Act Prev Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD..... Parking Citations Moving Citations 1,979 2,437 5,132 5,560 192 ------- 396 366 625 2,171 ------ 2,833 ------ -------- 5,498 6,185 2,171 2,833 5,498 6,185 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity.... generated on 03/15/2001 at 03:06:45 PM Reported On: A11 Officers Report Range: 02/10/2001 to 02/28/2001 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Page 1 of 1 Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid DAZA-QUIROZ 634 405 23.02 5 23.61 98.78 JFOX 505 247 14.04 3 14.29 98.80 KIRKPATRICK 502 194 11.03 1 4.76 99.49 MORAN 201 850 48.32 12 57.14 98.61 ROSCOE 503 63 3.58 0 0.00 100.00 Total 1759 21 Page 1 of 1 03-15-01 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: FEBRUARY, 2001 Last Act Prev Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD..... Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Manslaughter by Negligence Rape By Force Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape Robbery Firearm Robbery Knife Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon Robbery Strong -Arm Assault - Firearm ,Assault Knife Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet Assault - Other (Simple) Burglary - Forcible Entry Burglary - Unlawful Entry Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry Larceny Pocket -Picking Larceny Purse -Snatching Larceny Shoplifting Larceny From Motor Vehicle Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories Larceny Bicycles Larceny From Building Larceny From Any Coin -Op Machine Larceny All Other Motor Vehicle Theft Auto Motor Vehicle Theft Bus Motor Vehicle Theft Other 81 82 201 173 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 4 1 0 1 11 17 29 27 6 6 22 10 6 6 13 14 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 5 3 7 6 6 10 28 3 3 5 8 1 2 6 23 15 65 28 1 1 2 2 7 4 14 18 9 37 16 1 1 0 ------- ------ 1 0 81 ------ 82 -------- 201 173 81 82 201 173 Date: March 27, 2001 To: City Council From: City Planner Subject: Appointment of a Fourth Design Reviewer: Randy Grange, AIA Under the provisions of the zoning code establishing design review, the responsibility for appointing design review consultants is assigned to the City Planner with the consent of the Planning Commission. At the Commission meeting of March 26, 2001, I proposed appointing Randy Grange, AIA, to fill the fourth, and vacant, position of design reviewer. Since the city is considering adopting commercial design review and the consultants had do to some juggling last summer during vacations to keep up with the design review assignments, staff felt that it was advisable at this time to fill the vacant design reviewer position. Randy Grange is a local architect with an office in Burlingame. He is licensed in California and has a considerable resume of publications. His portfolio includes both residential and commerical projects; a number of them in Burlingame. His resume is attached for your information. Planning Commission unanimously endorsed Mr. Grange for the appointment; and encouraged that he be included in the next quarterly meeting (April) of the design reviewers. I Pam I Architects T. Randolph Grange, AIA Principal, TRG Architects www.trgarch.com TRG Architects 1995 -present Custom single-family residential projects • New homes, re -models. Projects throughout the Bay Area with primary focus on Burlingame and Hillsborough. Commercial • New 45,000 SF restaurant/retail/entertainment facility at Fisherman's Wharf Previous Employment History Fisher Friedman Associates, San Francisco, CA, Job Captain 1990-1994 • Multi -family, Student housing, Large scale mixed -use Kenneth Rodrigues Associates, San Jose, CA, Job Captain 1989-1990 • Retail Archtellic Architects, Portland, ME/Boston, MA, Intern Architect 1986-1988 • Historic -waterfront commercial in -fill, adaptive re -use, housing Education, Qualifications and Affiliations Bachelor of Architecture, cum laude, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 1986 B.S., Building Construction, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, 1981 Licensed Architect, State of California, 1991, C-22222 Completed NCARB Intemship Development Program, leading to NCARB certificate Member, American Institute of Architects Member, National Trust for Historic Preservation Member, Phi Kappa Phi and Tau Sigma Delta academic honoraries Awards 1991 Grand Award, Innovations in Housing National Design competition 1992 Grand Award, Best of American Living Awards (best one-of-a4drid spec. built home under 4,000 square feet) 1992 Best in Region, Best of American Living Award (all residential categories, Northern Midwest Region) 1993 Grand Award, Natural Choice Awards 1996 Merit Award, Best of American Living Awards (best one -of -a -kind spec. -built home under 4000 square feet) 1997 Silver Medal, Parade of Homes, Raleigh-Durham, NC 205 Park Road, Suite 203, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.579.5762 Fax 650-579.01 15 www.rrgarch.com Publications (Partial List The Best of Better Homes and Gardens Home Plans, Summer 2000 Gentry, April 2000 Country House Plans, Spring 2000 Country House Plans, Fall 1999 Traditional House Plans, Fall 1998 Winning Designs, Spring 1997 (cover) Professional Builder, January 1997 Boutique & Villager, 1996 Better Homes and Gardens, August 19,96 (1996 Home or the Year) Wood Window and Door Specifier, Autumn 1993, Summer 1995 Professional Builder, March 1993 San Jose Mercury News, October 1992 San Mateo Times, October 1992 San Francisco Examiner & Chronicle, December 1992 Progressive Architecture, October 1992 Better Homes and Gardens, September 1992 (1992 Home of the Year), Building Ideas, Spring 1992 Builder, February 1992 CLK-Musso, Ann From: MGR-Nantell, Jim Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2001 11:41 AM To: COUNCIL -Coffey, Mike; COUNCIL-Galligan, Joe; COUNCIL -Janney, Mary; COUNCIL - O'Mahony, Rosalie; COUNCIL -Spinelli, Mike Subject: FW: Teen Center -----Original Message ----- From: erobba@kemperinsurance.com [mailto:erobba@kempexinsurance.comj Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 2:35 PM To: jnantell@burlingame.org Subject: Teen Center Dear Mr. Mayor, please reconsider the plans for the teen center. we need a place where teens can go in a safe environment. We don't want to largely impact Washington Park, we like it pretty much the way it is. But a teen center is an excellent idea and the location is ideal. time. 1 Thanks for your 1 IF eO CH MARCH 17. 2001 REcaVE© CP :`Iq:R 9 1 20Cf CL Ncs MAYOR J. GALLIGAN. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL ��� F;�� ?C GAME CHAIRMAN. BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CA 94010 DEAR MAYOR. GALLIGAN. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION. REMEMBER US? WE ARE MEMBERS OF THE CASTENADA DRIVE COMMUNITY, AN ADMITTEDLY SMALL SEGMENT OF THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ELECTED OR APPOINTED TO SERVE. BUT STILL A SEGMENT THAT HAS A RIGHT TO BE LISTENED TO. SEVERAL WEEKS AGO A LETTER WAS ADDRESSED TO BOTH OF YOU POINTING OUT THAT POSSIBLY A FRAUD WAS BEING FOISTED ON BOTH THE COUNCIL AND COMMISSION, AS WELL AS OUR COMMUNITY. THIS WAS IN REGARD TO A PROJECT AT 1625 CASTENADA, A PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION. BOTH OF WHOM VOTED WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THIS POTENTIAL FRAUD, OR WORSE, VOTED WITH KNOWLEDGE BUT IGNORED IT. OUR COMMUNITY HAS NEITHER THE SIZE NOR RESOURCES TO INVESTIGATE CRIMES AGAINST THE LARGER COMMUNITY, BUT AS CITIZENS WE HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO AID IN THE POLICING OF OUR OWN POLITICAL ENTITIES, BE THEY DISTRICTS, TOWNS, CITIES, COUNTIES, STATES OR EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, JUST ONE OF OUR OBLIGATIONS WE ASSUME WHEN WE ACCEPT THE BENEFITS WE RECEIVE FROM OUR WONDERFUL FORM OF GOVERNMENT. TO THAT END WE PRESENTED TO YOU THE VARIOUS PIECES AND FORMS OF POTENTIAL PROOFS OF OUR ALLEGATIONS AND SUSPICIONS, AT THE SAME TIME TRYING NOT TO TRAMPLE ON ANY ONES RIGHTS AND DUE PROCESS. WE HELD SMALL COMMUNITY GATHERINGS, PROVIDED INPUT TO OUR OWN COMMUNITY, VERBALIZED AT COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS, WROTE LENGTHY LETTERS TO BOTH, PROVIDED DRAWINGS, CHARTS, GRAPHS AND PHOTOGRAPHS, INVITED MEMBERS OF BOTH THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMISSION TO OUR HOMES AND TO OUR SMALL COMMITTEE, IN SHORT, WE DID WHAT WE FEEL EVERY GOOD CITIZEN SHOULD DO TO AID OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THEIR SOMETIME ONEROUS JOB. WE ASKED THAT SOME ACTION BE TAKEN, POSSIBLY A RECISSION OF THE COUNCIL AND/OR COMMISSION'S VOTES, SO THAT THE PROCESS COULD BE REVISITED ON A "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" AS WELL AS OTHER PROCEDURES THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME PURPOSE, NAMELY A CHANCE FOR THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE A FAIR CHANCE TO BE LISTENED TO, NOT JUST HEARD. WE HAVE BEEN IGNORED, OR WORSE, REBUFFED WITHOUT COURTESY, PAGE ONE OF THREE MARCH 17. 2001 DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, COUNCILMEMBER SPINELLI INDICATED HE HAD VISITED AND EXAMINED THE PROJECT IN QUESTION, 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE, AND BASED ON HIS VISUAL IMPRESSIONS OBSERVED THAT IN HIS OPINION, THE PROJECT FIT WELL INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS APPARENTLY HE WAS THE ONLY COUNCILMEMBEP. WHO HAD OBSERVED THE PROJECTS OR AT LEAST WAS THE ONLY MEMBER WHO WOULD COMMENT ON THE MATTER, HE AND THE REMAINING MEMBERS VOTED TO UPHOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL. AND YET, THE "STORY POLE PICTURE" ON WHICH MP.. SPINELLI HAD DEFENDED WAS A LIE, BASED ON THE FACT THAT SEVERAL DAYS LATER THE CONTRACTOR ADDED ADDITIONAL "STORY POLES" WHICH AGAIN WERE NOT ACCURATE. NOR WAS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM THE COUNCILMEMBERS THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM THE CASTENADA DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT TO THE CONTRARY, TEN OR MORE IN THE AUDIENCES HAD SPOKEN PASSIONATELY AGAINST IT. WHO WAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT THAT LED THE COUNCIL TO VOTE IN FAVOR. OF IT? ALSO. HOW CAN THE PRESENT LAW OR ORDINANCES OR CHAPTERS OR WHATEVER THEY ARE CALLED STAND UP UNDER CLOSE SCRUTINY. WE REFER TO THE PULE THAT SAYS THAT 40% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A LOT CAN BE BUILT UPON. IN THE CASE OF THE PROJECT IN QUESTION, ACCORDING TO THE SUBMITTED PLANS, THERE IS 21.028 SQUARE FEET OF LAND IN THE LOT. 40% OF THAT WOULD BE 8.411 SQUARE FEET THAT COULD BE BUILT FOLLOWING THE FORMULA, A FACT THAT THE CONTRACTOR FLAUNTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION. AND YET, THE BUILDABLE PORTION OF THIS LOT, AS POINTED OUT BY US ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, DUE TO THE STEEPNESS OF THE LOT, RIGHTS OF WAY FOR SEVERAL DRAINAGE DITCHES, LACK OF INGRESS, SETBACKS, ETC., IS ONLY 3600 SQUARE FEET. 40% OF WHICH IS 1440 SQUARE FEET, WHICH MAKES THE PRESENT HOUSE OF 2128 SQUARE FEET ILLEGAL? YET, YOU ALLOW THE CONTRACTOR TO STAND BEFORE YOU AND SAY HE CAN LEGALLY BUILD A STRUCTURE 6 TIMES AS LARGE AS SHOULD REALLY BE ALLOWED. HELLO, IS ANYBODY LISTENING? WE, AS A COMMUNITY, CAN UNDERSTAND HOW POLITICS WORK, AND HOW IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO PLEASE EVERYONE. FOR INSTANCE, WE UNDERSTAND HOW, EXCEPT IN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COUNCIL SHOULD BACK UP THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN AN APPEAL, AS THAT IS REALLY WHY THE COUNCIL HAS A PLANNING COMMISSION, TO MORE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATE ITEMS AT A BEGINNING LEVEL. AND WE UNDERSTAND HOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION SHOULD STAND UP FOR FELLOW ARCHITECTS IN A SHOWDOWN WITH THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL PART OF A BROTHERHOOD OF PROFESSIONALS WHO EARN YOUR LIVING DOING THE SAME WORK AND YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF THE MYRIAD OF PITFALLS THAT HINDER YOUR ABILITIES, BUT WHAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHO STANDS UP FOR THE COMMUNITY? WE SEE WHAT WE FEEL IS A DEhECP.ATION OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE ALERT THE COMMUNITY AND NOTE THE COMPLAINTS. WE MARCH TO MEETINGS FOR WHICH WE ARE THANKED PUBLICLY FOR OUR INTEREST AND LARGE NUMBERS. WE COMPILE REPORTS, PRODUCE COPIOUS QUANTITIES OF PAPERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF COMMISSIONS AND STAFF, FIND OURSELVES WITH NO OPPOSITION OF ANY KIND, AND YET ARE IGNORED. WE REMEMBER DURING ELECTIONS THAT ALL OF YOU SAID YOU WOULD WORK FOR ALL OF US AND PROVIDE A VOICE FOR US. WELL, HERE WE ARES WAITING FOR WHAT YOU PROMISED IN RETURN FOR OUR VOTE. PAGE TWO OF THREE MARCH 17. 2001 WE NEED ADVICE. WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO WORK WITH A COMMISSION OR A COUNCIL TO CONVINCE THEM WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT THEY CAN HELP US WITH. WE INSTEAD FEEL THAT WE ARE IN THE STRANGE POSITION OF TRYING TO CONVINCE THE ENEMY OF THE CORRECTNESS OF OUR POSITION. WHAT DO WE DO TO GET YOU ON OUR SIDE? DO YOU EVER LISTEN TO US? DO YOU NEED MORE NUMBERS? HAVE WE IN SOME WAY ALIENATED YOU? HOW DO WE GET EACH, OF YOU TO LISTEN TO US? ARE WE WRONG IN TRYING TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY? IN THE RECENT PAST THE COUNCIL HAS RESCINDED A VOTE. HAS THIS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF NEW EVIDENCE? WHERE CAN WE GO FOR HELP OR AT LEAST A FRIENDLY EAR? SHOULD WE HIRE AN ATTORNEY? KNOW ANY GOOD ONES WHO YOU RESPECT ENOUGH TO LISTEN TO? DOES GOING TO COURT REALLY SOLVE ANYTHING? DO WE HAVE OTHER CHOICES? AS IT STANDS NOW, THE PLANNING COMMISSION SET CERTAIN STANDARDS, TELLING THE BUILDER. TO ERECT STORY POLES WHICH WOULD CLEARLY OUTLINE THE PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURE. IF THE NEW STRUCTURE DID NOT EXACTLY FOLLOW THE STORY POLE OUTLINE, IT APPEARS THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE THAT WHATEVER PART OF THE BUILDING DID NOT CONFORM TO THE STORY POLE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE TORN DOWN, THE SAME FATE THAT HANGS OVER ANY PROJECT THAT IS BUILT OUTSIDE OF ALLOWED AND APPROVED PARAMETERS. BUT, THE BUILDER KNOWS THAT THE CITY WOULD NOT FORCE HIM TO TEAR DOWN ANYTHING AND BY IGNORING THE CITY EDICTS IN EFFECT THUMBS HIS NOSE AT THE COMMUNITY, THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL. BUT IF THE COMMUNITY WANTS LAWS THAT HAVE TEETH IN THEM, THE COMMUNITY CAN TURN TO THE COURTS TO ENFORCE THE LAW. BY-PASSING ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUPS, THE SAME AS THE BUILDER IS DOING. DOES THAT SOUND TO YOU AS A GOOD WAY FOR THE FANTASTIC CITY OF BURLINGAME TO PROCEED? HAVE YOU NO PRIDE IN YOUR JOB OR YOUR. CITY? YOU HAVE WATCHED, AS WE HAVE, THE RISING TIDE OF COMMUNITY ANGER AGAINST THE PROLIFERATION OF "MONSTER HOUSES". YET, THE PROLIFERATION CONTINUES. IS IT NOT TIME FOR A TEMPORARY HALT TO ISSUING PERMITS, BY WHATEVER LEGAL PROCESSES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. AND A START OF POLLING THE COMMUNITY TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY REALLY WANT? PERHAPS THE COMMUNITY HAS A DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT MAKES BURLINGAME "FABULOUS BURLINGAME" AND WHEN YOU FIND THAT OUT, YOU CAN MAKE UP YOUR MIND TO TRULY REFLECT YOUR CONSTITUENTS OR STEP OUT OF THE WAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. MP.. & MRS. WILLIAM KAHN 1837 CASTENADA DRIVE BURLINGAME. CA 94010 692-0136 HELMUT ALTHERP. 1838 CASTENADA DRIVE BURLINGAME. CA 94010 697-0177 DP.. & MRS. RICHARD B. KELLEY 1821 CASTENADA DRIVE BURLINGAME. CA 94010 697-8785 PAGE THREE OF THREE a- .< �r Irrr SAMAMTAN H O U S E'�} March 22, 2001 James Nantell, City Manager f ; City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Jim: Following upon our recent conversation, I am forwarding some statistical information about the Samaritan House client base as grounds for consideration by Burlingame to increase its annual financial commitment to human services. While these are Samaritan House statistics, as I indicated my request is to increase the commitment acrms the board in light of what agencies in Central County do to assist citizens in need in Burlingame. As an average over the course of a year we see around 2m5W heads of households for our services each year and each represents an average of 3 to 4 people, obviously mostly children. A general breakdown of these numbers would be that 2,000 are from the City of San Mateo, 200 are from Burlingame, and the remaining 300 from the other cities we cover in central San Mateo County (Millbrae to San Carlos). These 200 Burlingame households receive immediate service from one of our five community workers who case manage their situation, counsel them on long-term stability, refer them to direct services they and their families need from us in the way of food, clothes, furniture, household goods, medical attention, and provide them with necessary information and referral for services we cannot provide. Once a client is assigned a community worker, that worker stays with the client to guarantee continuity in the case management. One further service we have available is funds -for rental assistance, mid we estimate about 6 Burlingame households are assisted with these funds each year. How do we estimate the dollar value to Burlingame residents for those services? This would be a challenge to determine, but we can say that just the cost of staining the five community worker positions alone is around a quarter of a million dollars, without mentioning cost of other supporting staff to various service programs and facility mainten€ xe. Another area where Samaritan House provides direct services to Burlingame residents is our Holiday Assistance Program. We provide food boxes and toys to approximately 1,500 households each Thanksgiving and Christmas, of which an average of 50 per year are from Burlingame, caring for up to 200 men, women, and children. We estimate that the value of what we provide to each family at both holidays is at least $300. While most of what we distribute in the way of food and toys is donated, we spend around $40,000 on Safeway certificates, and the overall cost of running this program to Samaritan House is in the area of $70,000. There is one other area we offer for your consideration, indicating the connectedness between Burlingame and San Mateo and the effectiveness of Samaritan House services on that connection. A significant number of our San Mateo clients provide the workforce for the hotels, restaurants, 401 No. Humboldt Street San Mateo, CA 94401 (650)347-3648 Fax (650) 347-6066 and other businesses that are key to Burlingame's healthy economy. One very vivid example of that is the fact that at the time of the 1989 earthquake the only significant population that came to us for help were the workers at the Amfac and Hyatt hotels that were knocked out of commission. As for support we receive from other cities in our service area, Foster City provides us $5,000 annually, though their client base at Samaritan House is at least half as much as Burlingame's. Belmont and San Carlos have provided us $3,000 annually for the Winter Shelter. And you are aware of our struggles with the City of San Mateo that has gone from once supporting three community workers as city employees at a cost of almost $100,000 to where we battle for around $30,000 annually now out of CDBG funds. We hope this provides sufficient background and information for Burlingame to consider an increase in its commitment to Samaritan House and other programs that assist Burlingame residents. Burlingame is in the enviable position of having fine programs in the city like Call - Primrose and Poplar ReCare but also many other programs located throughout Central County that open their doors to Burlingame residents. We would like to think that this would be an opportune time for Burlingame to review its level of funding for human services, especially, as you suggested, in light of your relief from having to pay into the Convention and Visitor's Bureau fund. We have contacted or will contact each of the members of the Burlingame City Council to introduce this idea to them and we are sharing a copy of this information with each of them. We are enclosing a copy of our fact sheet that gives a quick overview of the services we provide. We want to say that we deeply appreciate the great support Burlingame has provided us for the Winter Shelter of $8,000. We equally appreciate the $5,000 you committed this year to support the year-round Samaritan House programs. We respectfully submit that the latter is for us much more our real mission and the primary reason we exist. Thanks much for your time and consideration and your long-standing concerns for Samaritan House. If you have any questions or need more information, please feel free to call me. espectfully, J Kelly airman of the Board cc: Joseph Galligan, Mayor Mike Spinelli, Vice Mayor Mary Janney, Councilmember Rosalie O'Mahony, Councilmember Mike Coffey, Councilmember "A haven of heart and hope where people able to share give their means, their energy, their care to those who are in need—whether of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, work—in a manner that promotes self- sufficiency and preserves the dignity and worth of all. " Mission Statement ,,00�r I r r r SAMARTTAN H O U S E 401 No. Humboldt Street San Mateo, CA 94401 Phone: 650.347.3648 Fax: 650.347.6066 www.samaritanhouse.com March 23, 2001 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Members of the Council, RECEIVED CM MAR 2 6 2001 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. CITY OF RURLINGAME I am enclosing a recent article from The Wall Street Journal concerning the critical power and water shortage in California. Recently articles appeared in our local newspapers warning of the local well water salt pollution in Daly City and South San Francisco. In spite of this I am advised that our city council is considering building a large residential complex roughly across from Peninsula Hospital. More people mean the use of more water, more natural gas and more electricity. Have you noticed that the sewer portion of our water bill is more than the water use portion? City councils come and go. They are remembered for what they did for the residents both good and bad. We implore you to place quality of life of your constituents over financial gain from taxes on large complexes. Please do not be the cause of more problems by failing to note the consequences of even more people in our city. It would certainly be advisable to abandon counter productive plans. Yours very truly, Mel Lip P40 M7 1227 Cortez Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 03/27/2001 14:20 FAX RAMBUS Z001 C. fit Dan Andersen 728 Vernon Way Burlingame, CA 94010 March 27, 2001 Mayor Joseph Galligan City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Faxed: 650-342-8386 Dear Mr. Galligan, I feel it is important to take part in those activities that directly affect my neighborhood and the city in which I live. To that end, I would like to be considered for the Teen Center/Washington Park committee. It is also important to consider other groups within the City for such a committee. I do want you to know that I am not opposed to Burlingame building a Teen Center. I do believe that the project should be well thought out and the needs of the entire community taken into account. A committee that represents a variety of different aspects of the community is an extremely viable answer to making the process work for everyone. If not already considered, the Beautification Society should also be considered as part of this committee. Sincerely, Dan Andersen Cc: Michael Coffey Rosalie O'Mahony Mary Janney Michael Spinelli Rosalee O'mahoney Mayor city of Burlingame city hall 501. Primrose road Burlingame, California 94010 March 14,2001 RECEIVED MAR 2 6 2001 CITYCYTV �F A UF- r,�GAME Dear Mayor O'mahoney I am a scout from troop 10, I am concerned about is all the deaths on the railroad tracks. I have some ideas that might reduce or even stop the deaths, 1/2 mile ahead of every railroad crossing, there should be a weight sensor that can detect a train so that the barricade will go down earlier, earlier is better than later. There should be a barricade on the side for people who cross. I have been to Burlingame Ave. and have seen people cut right across when a train is less than 50 feet away from them. Also if the deaths still occur then make a gate on both sides of the road and on each side of the tracks, like the ones they have in front of the roller coaster lines so people can't go inside till everything is safe. You can also build a elevated train, I understand that all these will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars but to prolong a human life I think it is well worth it. James Williams 118 Bancroft Rd Burlingame, Ca 94010