Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PR - 2001.02.15MEETING MINUTES Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, February 15, 2001 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Ed Larios at 7:07 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Burlingame Recreation Center. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Dittman, Erickson, Heathcote, Larios, Lawson, Minderman and Muller; Youth Commissioners Martindale and Zhao Commissioners Absent: None Council Member Present: Rosalie O'Mahony Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director John Williams, Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz, Recreation Supervisor Mike Blondino, Recreation Supervisor Lynn Mutto, Recreation Coordinator Tim Barry, Recreation Coordinator Greg Milano, Fire Chief Bill Reilly Consultants Present: Representing DES Engineers were Tom Gilman, Philip Bona and Mariana Alvarez-Parga; Representing Callander Associates were Peter Callander, Ben Woodside and Steve Russell. Others Present: 148 other persons signed the attendance roster for this meeting. The attendance roster is attached as Exhibit A. A total of 170 persons were officially recorded in attendance. Informal room counts during the evening estimated that an additional 25-30 persons were in attendance at some point during the meeting. MINUTES Minutes of the January 18, 2001 meeting were approved, as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS The only comments received from the public were made during the public discussion portion of the review of the Youth Center/Lions Hall/Community Center project. No verbatim minutes of this meeting were taken, but public comments are summarized in the the text of these minutes. Persons with concerns about how their comments have been recorded are welcome to submit clarifying comments to John Williams, Parks & Recreation Director, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010. Clarifying comments will be considered by the Commission at its March 8, 2001 meeting or at any future meeting of the Commission. OLD BUSINESS 1. Discussion of the Youth Center Alternatives Project Chairman's Introduction. Chairman Larios welcomed those in attendance and described what would happen during this portion of the Commission meeting. He described the possible actions that the Commission might take in making its recommendations to the City Council. Project Background. Parks & Recreation Director Williams gave a brief review of the study being conducted to determine what alternatives might be available in the development of a Youth Center in the community. The City Council has directed that the City staff and the firm of DES Engineers review the possibility of constructing a youth center in Washington Park and also review other possible alternative locations in the community. Director Williams introduced Tom Gilman of DES Engineers and Peter Callander of Callander Associates. Peter Callander discussed the ideas that have been developed and the processes that have been followed in reviewing Youth Center alternative sites to date. He presented six alternative plans for Washington Park and reviewed two downtown sites at City parking lots F and M. 2. Tom Gilman described each alternative plan, discussing the various architectural and program components. Commissioner Questions. Chairman Larios asked the Parks & Recreation Commissioners if they had any questions of the consultants or staff before the meeting was opened for public comments. --� Commissioner Muller asked about the amount of open space preserved or developed in the various alternatives. Ben Woodside of Callander Associates reviewed a matrix of the alternative sites. In one case the park open space is reduced, in two cases the park open space remains about the same as it is currently, and in three cases the park open space is increased in the new schemes. 2. Commissioner Muller asked how far the closest Lexington Way neighbors would be from the youth center if it was placed in the existing Parks Division yard. Gilman estimated that the nearest home would be approximately 150 feet away. Commissioner Erickson asked about parking proposed in the underground parking structures. Gilman estimated that about 120 cars could be placed in each underground level. Two levels may be required for the project. 4. Commissioner Dittman asked where the Lions Hall could go, if removed from its present location. Gilman indicated that no site has been identified as a possible new location. Dittman stated that the building might be moved to the current Parks Yard area and might be used by the Historical Society. Chairman Larios asked about purchasing a new location for the Parks Yard. Gilman indicated —� that options for a relocated Parks Yard have not been reviewed in this study. 2 Public Comments. Chairman Larios gave the ground rules for public comments and asked that speakers limit their remarks to a maximum of three minutes in order that everyone who wished to speak could be heard. Vic Mangini noted how important the outstanding children's playground is to the park. He also would like all consideration given to the moving of the Historical Society from its current inadequate location. 2. Connie Streifinger expressed her concern about building any center for teenagers. She believes that kids are already separated from families too much and is opposed to separating them further from the mainstream. She proposes that we build a Recreation Center for families. Chris Hallenbach works at PARCA and is representing disabled kids in Burlingame. He noted the lack of afterschool programs for disabled young people and stressed the importance of having a place for disabled teens to go and meet with non -disabled teens. 4. Sam Malouf read three e-mail messages that he had received on this matter: a. Do not place a massive teen center in Washington Park. b. Do not put a teen center in Washington Park. Supports the teen center, just not in Washington Park. C. Keep the park the same. No new impacts please. Malouf commented that he is not opposed to the teen center, he does not believe that it belongs in Washington Park. Save the dollars that would have to be spent on parking and spend that money on Burlingame Avenue. Kids should be on Burlingame Avenue. He is opposed to other uses in a teen center, such as wedding receptions where smoking might occur inside City buildings. Gloria Malouf read three e-mail messages that she had received on this matter: a. Concerned about teen problems such as alcohol, drugs and bad language. Also concerned about more traffic congestion. b. The proposed structure of 25,000 feet is too large for the parks. Wonders why a teen center of that size is required. C. Washington Park is a place of tranquility. Suggests using the former Route 66 site (adjacent to Parking Lot M). Believes that the Parks Yard area is too small and asked that the Parks Yard site not be supported. 6. Melanie Seidner stated that she moved here for the park. She is interested in keeping the playground for tots. Questioned if the proposed alternatives call for less square footage for the playground and the basketball courts. The park has a charming unplanned appearance. Wonders why so many parking spaces are needed. The current drop-off and pickup before and after teen dances is already too difficult for Burlingame Avenue. OIN 7. Brian Johnson indicated that he did not understand how the teen facility needs were assessed. He stated that the Gunst family would be saddened by this project in Washington Park. Once you take away open space, you never get it back. If you take away the trees and open space in Washington Park, you take away the heart and soul of our City. 8. Dr. Charles Pascal, Past President of the Burlingame Lions Club, indicated that the Lions Club has a history of support to the City. The club's ability to offer service to the City will be impacted if the club does not have access to a facility equal to the current facility. 9. Stephanie Woodrow stated that this facility does not have to be a big production. The young people do not need this much space, they can share some multiuse space. The Youth Advisory Committee wants to share with the community. 10. Diane Condon-Wirgler, Vice President of the Historical Society, reported that her 19 year old college student daughter had asked by letter, "why does something simple have to be so hard." Her daughter believes that the computer and homework areas should be located at the Library. Mrs. Condon-Wirgler asked that the existing outdoor basketball court be preserved and wondered why the teen center site was being proposed for wedding receptions. 11. Tom Middlemass said that Washington Park is the jewel of Burlingame. Do not change it. A park is a park - keep it that way. 12. Dan Marsante wanted to discuss the neighborhood impacts. He pointed out that he lives on Chatham Road and that the high school soccer practice field and new swim pool adversely affect neighbors living on Chatham. He noted screaming kids and parents on the soccer field and bullhorns in the pool area at 7:30 a.m. He pointed out that there used to be small stores on Burlingame Avenue, not the big name stores we presently have. He suggested using money intended for the teen center to add new freeway lanes to get in and out of town. He may now want to sell his home because of crime in the area and because the area is becoming too crowded. 13. Chuck Voltz noted that the excellent public showing is good to demonstrate to the Commission that people care. We need to start over. Although the Commission has been at this for awhile, the park neighbors are just beginning. Washington Park should stay a place of tranquility. Do not build more in the park. There is no free land in the park - adding density is not free. Do not make this another overbuilt Yosemite. 14. Mary Hunt reported that the San Carlos Teen Center is located in a good location, set back of Brittan. The San Carlos Teen Center has adequate parking and seems to work well. She thinks that underground parking would lead to drug deals and an underground lot would become a haven for drug deals and a place for the homeless to live. She stated that she is personally terrified of underground parking lots and never uses them. She is also concerned about traffic issues; specifically how and when teens would get there. She also noted that persons using the Historical Society facility at the Carriage House in the rear of Washington park now park on Vernon Way and walk into the park. rd 15. Leslie Reisfield asked why teen centers cannot be placed at Burlingame Intermediate School or Burlingame High School. She asked why no residents from west of El Camino Real are present. The current Parks Yard location is a bad idea and would impact Lexington Way neighbors who already have problems with high school students who park on that street. 16. Lauren Kucera asked that staff send out more information about the meetings regarding this project. She believes that Washington Park is a jewel for children, seniors and all of the community. Informal space needs to stay in our society and the ballfields are not informal space. She believes that we build community in parks. The proposed teen center would be a babysitting room where kids will not feel comfortable to gather. 17. Doug Kniveton does not believe that this project will build community. In other cities teen centers attract deviant behavior. He opposes anything that increases density in the park. As a neighbor of the Recreation Center he is impacted by noise and behavior problems outside the building. He does not want to replace the Recreation Center with tennis courts. 18. Cindy Kaldor moved to Burlingame because: a) she could afford the house; b) she loves Mango trees; c) she loves the trees in the park; and d) the park is a place for isolation. She wants to see a recent needs analysis and suggests not starting with a solution. The project has been referred to as the Teen Center project and as a Teen/Community Center and she would like to know the development program objectives. She would like to have access to the Traffic Engineer's study of this project. She noted that CalTrain is looking at building an express rail and may have to move the train station area. If the train station is moved, this project is back to �.. the drawing board. 19. Annamarie Daniels represents the Burlingame Mothers Club. The club wants the existing outdoor basketball court to remain because the mothers teach children how to ride bikes on the court. She does not believe that the City should have a teen center and feels that young people should study at home. Kids mess up the area at Starbucks, think what a mess they would make of an underground parking lot. She is concerned about parking and traffic on Burlingame Avenue when small children are using the playground area. Burlingame High School is against the teen center because the school already has its after school programs. She has not seen any notices announcing meetings in the Independent. 20. Janet Benson Martin asked that the City not change the traffic circle area. She believes this area is open space. She had her wedding reception at Lions Club Hall and does not believe that only six trees will be removed. She likes to permit her 9 and 11 year old children to ride their bikes in the park. She is concerned that safety will be lost with underground parking. The Recreation Center is great; we already use it for ceramics classes, dances, etc. Why can't the Recreation Center suit all the needs. The Lions Hall was a teen center in the 1970's and that did not work. As a business owner, the Lions Club does a lot for the City - from egg hunts to donating money to the town for playground rehabilitation. Why should my tax money go to build this facility? 5 21. Elaine Breese stated that her family loves Washington Park and the rest that goes with it. Do -� not even think of putting the teen center in the current Parks Yard area. There is no parking options for that plan. 22. Dan Anderson understands the need for a teen center, but is not sure why the Recreation Center is brought into the picture. The Rec Center's auditorium is a basketball court. At the last meeting, one alternative called for two buildings near the train station, which served as a large buffer to the residents. No one has notified the area residents about this process. He suggests stepping back and looking at what should be done. He would like to see one multiuse structure. 23. John McMorrow wants the Commission to know that area residents are already impacted with facilities like Burlingame High School, the new swim pool and the Recreation Center. He wants the City to be evenhanded and spread facilities around. Does not want another problem coming into his neighborhood. 24. Grant Gilliam responded as a member of the Youth Advisory Committee: a. Some people think that we will not use a teen center and that we do not need one. We will use the center and we do need one; especially the basketball court. However, we do not need a place for wedding receptions and that could make the facility smaller. b. Parents of small kids, take note, when they grow up, they will think that Burlingame is boring. The playground is for young children and the Rec Center is for when they grow up. 25. Cathy Baylock said that she loves Washington Park and the Lions Hall building and believes that it should be saved. She suggested that the City purchase the former Route 66 building on Califonia Drive and presented a sketch of her vision for the facility. Does not intend to include the adjacent parking lot or that a gym be located in the building. The former Route 66 building is presently for sale and for the $2.5 million purchase price, the City could have a turnkey teen center facility ready to open tomorrow. She would like to have this option considered. 26. Nancy Locke acknowledged the Commission's concern for the quality of life for teenagers. She noted that everyone understands that the proposed alternatives would require massive funding support. She suggested putting the money into a job program for teens. She also stated that the programs being suggested could be accommodated in Burlingame High School facilities or in those of commercial establishments such as Prime Time athletic club. The City should subsidize or pay for local teens to use those facilities. In regards to the alternatives being discussed, she feels that lots of hard work still does not justify a bad idea.. 27. Roxanne Cyr indicated that the outdoor basketball court is very important to her. She noted that, living on Vernon Way bordering Washington park, she often had problems with kids adjacent to her home. Build a teen center and crime will come. l: 28. Mary Warden is a member of the Youth Advisory Committee and she pointed out that Burlingame High School does have outside basketball courts that are open for public play. She also noted that Burlingame High School facilities are used after school by athletic programs and that Burlingame Intermediate School has 35 basketball teams and needs places to practice and play. Her mom passed away last October and she is unable to go home after school and work on her homework, she needs a place to go. Drugs and alcohol problems will occur whether or not there is a teen center. She is a member of the Rotary sponsored Interact Club at school and works with the Senior Citizens/High School Student computer program at the high school. Space and facilities are not adequate at the school. She believes that a downtown facility will cause complaints from the merchants about loitering. Where are kids to go? If a young person does not play sports, what is there to do? 29. Nick Borosni stated that kids need something to do and not much happens in Washington Park on Saturday and Sunday anyway. Burlingame is not a fun town. Kids like to hangout on Burlingame Avenue but are chased away. 30. Linda Lees stated that she wants a place for kids, but this is about location. Traffic in the area has gotten worse as the years have gone on and there is a concern for the safety of senior citizens. The City and the San Mateo Union High School District collaborated well on the swim pool and on the running track at the high school. Let's work with the schools to do more and keep the kids where they already are. 31. Shellie Shultz said she realizes that lots of work has been done on the project, but she does not know what the next step is in the process. She has been a tennis court user in Washington Park. �-- She was not comfortable playing tennis in the park after dark. It will be more uncomfortable if you add teens into the area. 32. Tom Paine feels that the park is a great benefit of living in Burlingame. He is concerned with the increased density in the park and its effect on property values. Washington park is really the only park in Burlingame, the only open space. He agrees with adding an appropriately sized teen center and prefers the Park Road parking lot site. If you can build a two story parking structure in the park, you can build it at Park Road. The Parks & Recreation Commissioners have worked hard on this project, but are now in an adversarial relationship with the public. Going to the City Council with this project is more than a month away. He hopes that everyone will continue to search for a better site. He agrees with the need, just not in Washington Park. 33. Kelly Arthur lives on Chatham behind Burlingame High School and has been greatly impacted by the new swimming pool. Her heart goes out to park neighbors who will be impacted with a new teen center in Washington park. Her heart also goes out to teens. We should be pulling together and recognizing that teens are an important part of the community. 34. Nancy Lindstrom, as a former Commissioner, appreciates the work of the Commissioners, but she believes that there is still a long ways to go. She agrees with the need for the facility, but not in Washington park. She takes her grandchildren into the park and wants to be able to continue doing so. 7 35. Bud Harrison noted that this is not a new subject. During his entire tenure as a high school teacher at Burlingame High School, kids have always asked for a teen center. His analysis is that junior and senior class students will not use a teen center because they have cars, jobs and other interests and freshmen and sophomores will not use a center because they do not want to hang out with middle school aged kids. He questions the need for a teen center. He is concerned about the development of a "wall" along Burlingame Avenue in the park. The City Manager has stated that it is time to move the Parks Yard to the same location as the City Corporation Yard. He believes that the current Parks Yard is OK for a teen.center if there are no other options. The Rec Center has been used for teen activities in the past and can be used again. 36. Russ Cohen applauds the teens for asking and would like to see a prioritization of their wish list. Teens in any town in the USA will say that it is boring. We used to have theaters and bowling alleys in Burlingame. We do not need to continue building. 37. David Whiteside indicated that he had played in Washington Park as a child and believes that Washington park is a sacred place. As a contractor, he knows that there will be major impacts on Washington Park during construction. The park will be a mess for awhile. The plans proposed will cost a lot of money to build. It would only take 10% to rehab the existing Recreation Center and add program space. Questions from the Public. Parks & Recreation Director Williams announced that many questions had been recorded and he recommended to the Parks and Recreation Commission that the Commission consider continuing this matter to its March 8 regular meeting. If the Commission chooses to continue the matter, he will send a written reply to all the questions asked, as well as copies of the meeting notes to all persons whose names appear on the sign -in sheets. Questions and Comments from Commissioners. Chairman Larios asked Commissioners if they had any questions for staff or consultants before the close of the matter. Commissioner Erickson would like to have more discussion about the purpose of the facility. Teens should be asked more questions. He would like staff to pull together the answers to questions asked during the meeting. Commissioner Dittman asked that Director Williams provide more information regarding the process that has been followed to date. Commissioner Lawson wants more clarification from kids about what they want in a youth center. Chairman Larios stated that we wanted more young people to attend the next meeting. Youth Commissioner Martindale stated that he will invite young people to attend the next meeting. Commission Action. Chairman Larios called for discussion on Director Williams' suggestion. It was moved by Commissioner Heathcote, seconded by Commissioner Minderman and approved 7-0 to continue the review of alternative sites for a new Youth Center to the March 8, 2001 meeting of the Commission. Recreation Superintendent Schwartz will investigate options for the meeting location. A flier announcing the meeting will be mailed to all in attendance at this meeting. 2. Report on Youth Advisory Committee (YAC). Youth Advisory Commissioner Martindale reported that the Youth Advisory Committee is discussing a change to make YAC members' terms two years in length. The group believes that this will help them be more efficient and more consistent. The group is considering a cap on YAC membership at 15 persons so that the group can be more effective. Martindale also reported that the YAC is considering an all -City teen dance for May. He reported on some other program ideas currently under consideration by the YAC. NEW BUSINESS Review of Proposed Rehabilitation Project at Trenton Pla ry round. Project architect John Cahalan described the plans being proposed for the rehabilitation of the tot lot at Trenton Park. Commissioners Lawson and Minderman served on the review committee for this project and they expressed their support for the proposed changes. It was moved by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Dittman and approved by a 7-0 vote to recommend approval for the proposed changes at Trenton Park. 2. Proposed Park Rules at Pershing and Village Park Playgrounds. Recreation Superintendent Schwartz reported that conflicts have occurred at the playgrounds at Pershing and Village Parks in recent years. Both of these parks and their playgrounds are attractive and well used, however, the influx of large and organized groups of elementary and pre school classes during �— the last two months of the school year is causing problems. When more than one school group at a time attempts to use the facilities at one time, conflicts inevitably arise. Staff is proposing that the Commission recommend that new park rules be adopted at both parks. The proposed new rules would prohibit groups of over 15 persons from using the parks during weekdays between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. without a permit issued by the Parks & Recreation Director. No fee is proposed for the processing of these permits. Staff will notify all area schools of this new regulation, if it is approved. The Commission discussed this matter and it was moved by Commissioner Lawson, seconded by Commissioner Erickson and approved 7-0 that the Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following rules and regulations for the use of Pershing and Village Parks: Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 10.55, Section 030, the following special rules and regulations apply to the use of Village Park. These rules and regulations are in addition to and supplement the general rules and regulations governing the use of City of Burlingame parks. 1. On weekdays, between the hours of 10: 00 am and 3: 00 pm, no group of more than fifteen (15) persons shall gather in the park without the specific written permission from the City's Parks & Recreation Director. 0J Proposed 2001-02 Capital Improvements Budget. Director Williams presented the draft 2001-02 C.I.P. budget and proposed 5 year Capital Improvement Plan for the Parks & --� Recreation Department. This item will be placed on the Commission's March agenda for discussion and for the Commission's recommendation. REPORTS Capital Project Status. Director Williams gave a short report on the status of various projects. 2. Parks & Recreation Division Reports. Commissioners had received written reports from the Parks & Recreation Superintendents. 3. Commissioner Reports. Commissioner Dittman asked about the status of striping on the Ray park basketball courts. Director Williams will followup on this matter. Chairman Larios and Commissioner Heathcote asked staff to clarify use of the existing Washington Park basketball court. Williams and Schwartz noted that the courts are seldom used for full court basketball play and, more typically, half court games or other uses such as model car racers or bicycle lessons for pre school children are observed. Williams noted that full court basketball has been eliminated by the Commission in recent years at Cuernavaca and Victoria Parks. Larios reminded Commissioners that the City of Burlingame contributed to the upgrade of the basketball courts at Burlingame High School and that those courts are available -� for public use during non -school hours. Chairman Larios asked about the status of the artificial turf project for Biurlingame High School. Williams reported that he has been asked to attend a meeting at the High School District office in the next few days on that subject. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Larios adjourned the meeting at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, John W. Williams Parks & Recreation Director attachments: Exhibit A. Roster of Attendees Exhibit B. Questions and Responses Others. Various Project Alternatives and Other Items Presented at Meeting 10 EXHIBIT A ATTENDANCE ROSTER - MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC Parks & Recreation Commission Regular February Meeting Burlingame Recreation Center February 15, 2001 Nick Barisone 2714 Hillside Drive Gloria Barton, 734 Winchester Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands John & Martha Benson, 1401 Paloma Gene & Suzanne Bordegary, 1236 Cabrillo Diane Condon-Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Grant Gilliam, 2305 Ray Jack Heffernan, 30 Lorton Annamarie Holland Daniels, 515 Howard Jean Dunne, 220 Arundel Kathleen & John Savarese, 229 Arundel Jill Schoenfeld, 236 Arundel Kay Arnaudo, 273 Bancroft Brian Stubbs, 212 Bancroft Nancy Meyers, 808 Bayswater Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Deborah & John, 223 Bloomfield Charlotte Knollin, 320 Bloomfield Jill Lauder, 449 Bloomfield Robin Liffman, 401 Bloomfield Walter & Melody Linn, 220 Bloomfield Don Snider, 228 Bloomfield Gene & Lorraine Bordegary, 705 Burlingame Jane & Ron Calavano, 715 Burlingame Neil & Nancy Dobson, 716 Burlingame Jerry & Mimi Hahn, 719 Burlingame Bruce & Cindy Kaldor, 704 Burlingame Douglas Kniveton, 808 Burlingame Connie Streifinger, 808 Burlingame Dr. Sulon, 612 Burlingame Bill Tokheim, 609 Burlingame Wendy Voorsanger, 608 Burlingame Bob Zlatic, 505 Burlingame Alexandra King, 601 Ansel, #212 Nancy Locke, 1384 Hillside Circle Vic Mangini, 3141 Rivera Julie Meyers, 1117 Oxford Cecilia Sharer, 740 Crossway Shelly Scholtz, 1349 Capuchin Don Stanaway, P.O. Box 208, 94010 Mary Warden, 736 Acacia Stephanie Woodrow, 1316 Drake Erik Winkler, 36 Victoria Kelly Arthur, 482 Chatham Aloha Holm, 487 Chatham JoEllen Ellis, 310 Clarendon Margaret Farney, 220 Clarendon David Jonson, 336 Clarendon Mary -Helen McMahon, 215 Clarendon Lewis Salzman, 211 Clarendon Janet Steiner, 326 Clarendon Molly Bugg, 720 Concord Ken & Tina Church, 715 Concord Dan & Laura Escobar, previously 733 Concord Vicki Friedberg, 409 Concord John & Marissa Hauselt, 315 Concord Stephen & Elizabeth Johnson, 721 Concord Brian & Lana Johnson, 609 Concord Brett & Allison Johnson, 609 Concord Janine Johnson, 609 Concord Marcia Kircher, 704 Concord Chris & Jenny Kitts, 732 Concord Frank Nash, 712 Concord Tom & Susan Paine, 728 Concord Chuck & Suzanne Saul, 716 Concord William & Anna Bess Schott, 707 Concord Mike & Debbie Cortese, 470 Cumberland Michael Dardin, 446 Cumberland Janet Martin, 451 Cumberland Natalie Cirighano, 228 Dwight Jack Easterbrook, 409 Dwight Carol Fanucchi, 305 Dwight Linda B. Lees, 324 Dwight Stuart Shafer, 404 Dwight David Whiteside, 16 Dwight Elaine & Harry Breeze, 749 Lexington Ken & Priscilla Burchill, 317 Lexington Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Bud Harrison, 376 Lexington David Hyman, 711 Lexington Judy Kaufman, 741 Lexington Barbara Lee, 349 Lexington John McMorrow, 736 Lexington John & Florence Parrinello, 318 Lexington Leslie Reisfield, 724 Lexington Frank & Sharon Schlageter, 728 Lexington Fred & Nancy Sturm, 342 Lexington Tom & Heidi Wright, 600 Lexington Sue & Bob Cossins, 459 Marin Joe Parnese, 516 Marin James Dwan, 611 Plymouth Alice Schroeder, 728 Plymouth Hope Barrett, 605 Trenton Brian Harvey, 605 Trenton Mary Ann Notz, 619 Trenton Dan & Carolyn Anderson, 728 Vernon Marjorie Borda, 605 Vernon Roxanne Cyr, 733 Vernon Jay & Nancy Fernandez, 705 Vernon Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Lillian Kelso, 717 Vernon Julian & Lauren Kucera, 724 Vernon Jose Leon, 704 Vernon Michael Lezak, 716 Vernon Nancy Lindstrom, 720 Vernon Sam & Gloria Malouf, 712 Vernon Tom & Sabine Middlemass, 708 Vernon Vince Parker, 732 Vernon Vincent Piana, 545 Vernon Melanie Seidner, 701 Vernon Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Phyllis Whiteside, 732 Vernon `— California Environmental Law Project, 357 Richland Ave., San Francisco, CA 94118 Bob Goodman, Member, Burlingame Lions Club Chris Hollenback, PARCA, 1650 Amphlett Blvd., #213, San Mateo, CA 94402-2515 Larry Panzica, 600 No. Claremont, #9, San Mateo, CA 94401 Dr. Charles W. Pascal, 845 Black Mt. Road, Hillsborough, CA 94010 2 EXHIBIT B QUESTIONS ASKED REGARDING YOUTH CENTER PROJECT Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Burlingame Recreation Center February 15, 2001 Questions asked by members of the public on February 15 have been grouped by subject matter to insure that answers are complete and not repetitive. OBJECTIVES 1. Q: What are the objectives of the project? A: The City Council has directed that the development of a youth center somewhere in the City of Burlingame is the primary objective. Other objectives include: 1. Accommodating the Lions Club and any programs held in Lions Hall if the existing Lions Hall is removed. 2. Encouraging multiple use of any new youth center facilities during school hours. 3. Reviewing the existing Rec Center masterplan and/or creating a senior citizens wing in the existing or a new Rec Center. 4. Minimize City costs in any facility for staffing, maintenance, energy conservation, etc. 5. Preserve and improve Washington Park by - minimizing impacts on existing park landscaping and trees; increasing the actual number of square feet of park and grass; increasing the amount of parking; and by relocating parking and buildings closer to Carolan Avenue and further from park neighbors. 6. Maintain and preserve open space and facilities for special community events such as Art in the Park and Music in the Park. PROCESS 2. Q: What happens before the City Council approval of a project? A: Mayor Joe Galligan has indicated that on Monday, March 5 he will call together a committee of interested citizens, Parks & Recreation Commissioners, young people, City staff and project consultants to review the process and consider all alternatives before any new discussions continue. 3. Q: Why has public participation been so late in the process? A: Many user groups and members of the public have been involved. More will be. It is not late in the process. This an ongoing process. (See discussion in #6 below) Hundreds of meeting notices have been distributed in the past three months. Many alternatives have been reviewed. More alternatives will be reviewed. There is no youth center project at this time. There is no project budget at this time. Much good input has been received by consultants, staff and the Parks & Recreation Commission thus far. All comments and suggestions will eventually be forwarded to the City Council, which will decide whether the study project should continue. 4. Q: Why is one alternative favored over the others? A: At this point, no alternative is favored. The proposed study committee will, in its own time, report back to the City Council with recommendations about whether or not the study should continue and what form the study might take. The public will be informed �-' well before any processes are resumed. 5. Q: How are the comments being made in this meeting to be used? A: All comments in the Parks & Recreation Commission meetings are being summarized for the record. The Commissioners will consider all comments that have been made if they are called upon to make recommendations about project alternatives. All comments will also be forwarded to the City Council for the Council's consideration. It is anticipated that many of the previously considered options will be dropped in any future discussions. Public comments have led to many revisions in proposed alternatives to date. TEEN INVOL VEMENT 6. Q: How have the teens been involved? What are their priorities? A: The process of involving young people, parents, teachers and school administrators, city staff and community members has been ongoing for several years. • In the 1990's the first study committee was convened in Fall, 1994. The Parks & Recreation Commission made programs and facilities for teens its # 1 priority at that time. Two Youth Advisory Commissioner positions were developed at that time to represent teen viewpoints to the Commission. • Three surveys of public and private intermediate and high school students were conducted by the Parks & Recreation Commission during the period 1995 to 2000, seeking input on recreation activities and asking about the development of a teen center. Burlingame Together community action planning conferences in 1995, 1996) 19971 1998 and 1999 all included large numbers of students and discussed teen issues and the development of a teen center at length. • The City Council convened two Blue Ribbon Teen Study Committees in 1996 and 1998 to study issues related to teens in the community. Following the second committee's report, the City Council authorized a full time Recreation staff position to work on youth programs and activities. • At the 1999 Burlingame Together Teen Conference a report was prepared for the Parks & Recreation Commission and the City Council, recommending that the City construct a new Youth Center and suggesting that Washington Park be considered as the first alternative site. A committee of young people worked for some time to develop a list of desirable programs and facilities to include in any youth center proposal. • The group of young people made a presentation to the Parks & Recreation Commission and two presentations to the City Council in 1999, requesting the development of a youth center. At the first Council presentation, Council Members asked for some modifications in the proposal. The Council accepted the group's second proposal and directed staff to proceed with securing a consultant architectural and planning firm to review Washington Park and any other suitable sites in Burlingame. That process is now underway. N*� 2 ABOUT THE PROPOSED YOUTH CENTER 7. Q: What do teens really need and why do we need a youth center? A: The person with the correct answers to these question could undoubtedly become a millionaire as a consultant in America. After many hundreds of hours of time was devoted to this topic by many young people and adults in the community, a list of facilities was developed by a group of teens to accommodate the wishes and needs of the community. The City Council reviewed that list of facilities and directed the hiring of a consultant firm to assist City staff and the Parks & Recreation Commission to look at alternatives for the development of a youth center that includes those facilities. 8. Q: How small can we make the community center to benefit everyone? A: City staff has found that the more types of youth center programs in other teen centers, the higher the chance that the center will be successful. The gymnasium is a large part of all the alternatives being reviewed. Following several years of investigation and visits to several Peninsula teen and community centers - some successful, some not - Staff believes that without a gym, the City can expect no better than a 50 or 60% chance of success for a youth center. Youth center alternatives that call for the Lions Hall to remain as it is, can be smaller with the elimination of specialized Lions meeting and storage areas. 9. Q: Do we really need another basketball gymnasium? A: The most successful youth centers include a gymnasium. School gym space is currently so tight that no players other than those on organized teams are regularly permitted to use the gyms. Young people are shut out of casual or relaxed gym use for most of the year in Burlingame. Recreation Division staff believes that, should the youth center concept evolve or change at some point in the future, the gymnasium is the one recreation facility that can be filled with community programs of many types for 14 hours a day, virtually year around. Over 1,000 Burlingame students participate in evening and weekend basketball programs in Burlingame each year. Several hundred students participate in organized volleyball on a seasonal or year around basis. There are currently not enough gymnasiums in Burlingame to accommodate all of these young people. 10. Q: Do we really need to accommodate wedding receptions? A: No, the City does not need to accommodate wedding receptions. What was intended at the February 15 meeting was to point out that - if the Lions Club Hall is removed or demolished - a community resource for wedding receptions will be lost. Some wedding receptions can be accommodated in the Rec Center. In no case would a wedding reception or party ever be permitted on a gymnasium floor. ll. Q: Will this facility accommodate youth with disabilities? A: All new or remodeled City facilities must accommodate people with disabilities. Providing new facilities, designed with accommodating the disabled in mind, will greatly enhance the City's ability offer programs for disabled persons of all ages. N%� 3 STUDY OF ALTERNATI VES 12. Q: Why not Burlingame High School or Burlingame Intermediate School as a site for a youth center? A. After at least six years of discussion about the potential for building youth center facilities on school campuses, both the high school and elementary district representatives have made it clear that their campuses cannot accommodate more public buildings or community use. 13. Q: What is the process of analysis of each site? A: As any possible alternative site is suggested, Callander Associates staff goes to the site, verifies measurements of the property, and analyzes the site against 16 criteria items. Any suggested site can be added to the list for review at any time. 1 I possible sites have been analyzed, to date, as a part of this process. (See attachment) 14. Q: Why can't a parking structure be built on Park Road? A: A parking structure can be built on Park Road. Any type of above ground parking structure at that site would then make it virtually impossible to construct any type of viable youth center on the site. Underground parking is a possibility, but three to four underground levels would be required to replace the surface parking lost and new parking for the center. EXISTING RECREATION CENTER 15. Q: Why can we not use the existing Rec Center? A: The existing Rec Center can continue in use. The building is 53 years old, was built in stages over the years, and is in need of major upgrades to remain safe, legal and effective. The Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council have wanted to expand facilities within the Rec Center to accommodate more programs and activities for senior citizens at such time as the building is upgraded or is rehabilitated, since the City has no senior center. The City Manager has asked that staff and consultants look at masterplan options that could allow (now or in the future) for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new Rec Center in a two story mode that would take up less park space and, hopefully, could be located farther from park neighbors and closer to Carolan Avenue. 16. Q: How much would it cost to redevelop the existing Rec Center? A: Current estimates are that it will cost $1 to $2 million to do the needed improvements and rehabilitation. The consultants conducting this study have been asked by the City Council to evaluate the existing Rec Center Masterplan and to consider the rehabilitation necessary in the Rec Center. No expansion of the existing Rec Center has been proposed. The intent is to make the existing Rec Center safe, legal and easier to use. IMPACTS ON WASHINGTON PARK 17. Q: What about the balance of open space and buildings? A: The Parks & Recreation Commission, City staff and project architects are firmly committed to preserve open space and reduce the footprints of buildings and other park hardscape (e.g., parking lots) in any preferred alternative. 0 18. Q: What happens to Washington Park open space in the various projects? A: Making the East Lane/North Lane street loop into park open space adds about 12,000 square feet of open space to Washington Park. • In Alternatives A. B-1 & B-2, park open space will be increased because parking is placed underground, the Lions Hall is removed and new buildings are two story with smaller ground floor footprints. • In Alternative C (new building adjacent to existing Rec Center), because the Lions Hall and existing surface parking remain, the new building causes a net loss in park open space. • In Alternative D (youth center at the existing Parks Yard), no park open space is lost. 19. Q: How many trees will really be removed in the park? A: That answer varies, according to the alternative being discussed. In all the alternatives that will be proposed to the Parks & Recreation Commission on March 8, six or less large mature trees would probably have to be removed. Additionally, lesser trees and shrubs would have to be moved to another location in the park or relocated. In all cases of removal, the City policy to replace at least one tree for each tree removed would be followed. The removal of any park trees or vegetation would be an issue for review by the City Council in any alternative. 20. Q: Will the trees to be planted on Arbor Day be removed? A: Absolutely not. FACILITIES IN WASHINGTON PARK 21. Q: What happens to Carriage House, Lions Hall and Parks Yard in each alternative? A: No change is proposed to the Carriage House in any new proposal. #A, #B-1 & 2 all call for the inclusion of Lions Club facilities in any new Youth Center structure. The Parks Yard remains as is in all proposals except #D, where it would have to be relocated somewhere else in the City. All three of these buildings have short comings as to their use and physical condition. 22. Q: What happens to kids playground and City memorabilia? A: The existing playground equipment in Washington does not meet Federal ADA guidelines and must be replaced. This replacement is expected to cost from $150 to $250 thousand. The playground remains in the same location in #A and #D. It will be reconstructed in new locations in #13-1 & 2. An undesirable feature of #C is that there is no good place left in the park for a new playground and a playground will have to be "shoehorned" in somewhere in a less than desirable arrangement. None of these alternatives suggest any changes in the City's Carriage House or in the space used by the Burlingame Historical Society. 23. Q: What is the total square footage of the playground area in each alternative? A: There will be no change in the total playground square footage in any of the alternatives proposed. Playground areas that are more age specific have been found to be more effective and would be included in any new design 5 24. Q: Where are the outdoor basketball courts in each alternative? A: Courts are clearly shown on each alternative. 25. Q: Will the maintenance property be consolidated? A: (The assumption is that this question refers to the Parks Yard behind the baseball diamond grandstand.) City staff and the Parks & Recreation Commission would gladly see the Parks Yard moved to another location in the City where the yard could operate more efficiently. The City Manager has expressed an interest in someday seeing the Parks Yard moved to another location and the present yard converted to passive park open space. To date, no location or source of funding has been identified for such a move. TRAFFIC - PARKING - SAFETY 26. Q: Has there been a traffic study done? A: No, traffic and parking have not been studied yet. Until the City Council is able to focus on one or two alternatives it is difficult to study traffic and parking impacts. The size and location of any new buildings; the removal of any existing buildings or parking lots are all unknowns at this time and will affect traffic and parking. 27. Q: Can Burlingame Avenue handle the traffic this will cause? A: It appears as though alternative #D will have no traffic impacts on Burlingame Avenue. #C will definitely impact the 800 block of Burlingame Avenue. #A will not relieve the area around the existing Rec Center and will move the underground parking area entrance east to approximately the location of the current Lions Hall. #13-1 & 2 should relieve traffic and parking in the area of the existing Rec Center and east by moving the Rec Center and underground parking lot entrance to the west. In all plans with underground parking, traffic and parking may be increased on Burlingame Avenue but could see reductions on other side streets near the existing Rec Center. 28. Q: Is this facility location a poor choice considering the impact on neighbors, traffic and noise? A: #C and #D will increase impacts on neighbors. #A and #B 1 & 2 move traffic, noise and other impacts on neighbors out of the current Rec Center area and closer to Carolan Avenue. Other proposals will be reviewed on March 8 which reduce impacts on park neighbors. 29. Q: How many parking spaces are in underground parking? A: In the alternative where the existing Lions Hall parking lot is removed, it is suggested that new parking garages should accommodate approximately 110 cars per level. Any new lots constructed under just one new building (#C) would accommodate approximately 50 cars per level. �'" 6 30. Q: Is there a need for this much parking? A: The main attempt by staff and consultants has been to try and reduce parking problems in the area of the existing Rec Center by adding new parking located closer to Carolan Avenue. Eliminating the existing Lions Hall and Rec Center staff parking lots creates the need for at least 89 replacement parking spots before any new users are served. A new Youth Center will probably not attract a large number of cars in its capacity as a youth center, since high school juniors and seniors with cars are less like to be regular users of the center. 31. Q: What would be the impact of underground parking on traffic, drug dealing and homeless persons? A: Problems like this which may currently exist in and around Washington Park will continue to require police action. A well lit and well used underground parking structure in an area with supervised programs and activities would appear to be less attractive to nefarious persons than are existing dark and landscaped areas in the park. 32. Q: Who would supervise the underground parking? A: Heavy use and good lighting are probably the best security measure in a parking area. Evening or special event security can be arranged. Questions and answers prepared by: Jo W. Williams Parks & Recreation Director 7 N*� 6 CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME r_' PARKS &RECREATION DEPARTMENT U LINGAME 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 ?'o•AT•D Telephone (650)r558� 300 • • Parks / Trees (6150) 558-7330 Fax (650) 696-7216 E-mail: burlrecC aol-com March 9, 2001 TO: FROM SUBJECT: Persons Attending the February 15, 2001 Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting 04A� �tJohn W. Williams, Parks & Recreation Director Review Process - Alternatives for Youth Center and Other Recreation Facilities On Monday night, March 5, 2001 the Burlingame City Council heard from several members of the public regarding the current study of alternatives for the possible development of a youth center in Burlingame and the possible redevelopment or improvement of some existing City recreational facilities. The Council discussed the matter and asked that the City Manager and Mayor return to the Council at its March 19, 2001 meeting with names of proposed participants for a 10 or 12 person study committee to examine this process, to study possible alternatives further and to report back to the Council with any recommendations regarding the process or possible project alternatives. The committee will be composed of Washington Park neighbors, representatives of several groups with an interest in any possible project, City Commissioners and City staff. The Council is expected to approve the naming of a study committee on March 19 and I anticipate that Parks & Recreation Commission Chairman Ed Larios will be asked to serve as study committee chairman. At this point, 1 am not clear as to the process that might be followed after the committee has completed its work. The City Council may choose to refer the matter back to the Parks & Recreation Commission for further review and for the Commission's recommendation. The Council may wish to take some further action of its own accord after receiving the committee report. Parks & Recreation Department staff will keep you advised. Please feel free to contact Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz or me if you have any further questions about the study committee or the project in general. (Our new e-mail addresses are JWilliams or RSchwartz@burlin ag me.org}. Enclosed, please find the information that was promised you at the February 15 Commission meeting. Note that, as a result of input received at the Commission meeting, several of the alternatives enclosed have now been removed from active consideration. The study committee, however, may wish to review any or all of the alternatives presented to date. enclosures � C C ALTERNATE SITES SELECTION CRITERIA —lop. 0 o�����oaa�� o� m �a� •��� o� o�� '��a °' ��ti�a'D�a� m �� �w,�mo°'o o a�o���',�,�,aao D O (D6 a a�y�4' ���a��r��,�,�oo a,y���'Qofia' D ai 9,410 11 a ,Qa A Close proximity to schools B Close proximity to Cal Train station C Close proximity to Sam Trans bus route D City owned property B Site area large enough P Close proximity to downtown G Does not cross major freeway H Close proximity to other recreation I Located near residential area J Not located in commercial area K Close proximity to major street access L Room on school grounds for building M Site has some parking N Site has adequate parking O Low impact on neighbors P Site large enough for 809/o success �..___.. City of Burlingame DES Architects + Engineers Callander Associates m411 Alternate Sites Matrix Community Center/ Lions Hall J IS IV ' �Jyy {y L 7J. by M.'':,•'- e' /`�. r 1. 4 ��• i�°,k d. N ' .74" SAN FRANCISCO BAY h�• PIMA � r;: �� Or IRRORT y! rTr I � MUF ti HLVU ' rF� t ,ivey' y.,inr ii; .� ".a,:..sF/'Rye.'��^•�.,.�yy,,��,�- .$v Ky2r.:t <.; .t, {e, , .,.. `fix' w''�• .��`+,�lr..`F, +'riiB ., OR A "kY ,'y, ° "FH'w/Aa/ y\.'^4�'' 09 �'4 J:. ,+p .ly,�,,l,et°Q',:'�t 4 � d Ja Nv:1 CIO �� 1v��N�� \L'•Q1%.�41 d �i ,.'.i :.vr• .r 'A(W ,., ;. i 5 hF,�'ZF -,,N \�j ;.'r ^/ r 5,, \0 'F• �F iiI 1 4 l 4t� Ye Y AI ;. J"� r. Ti Qhi 4g ..� . ,H„ V, 'w. " : • �.r !�' �P /yy� y� �,.�Awa '"', r•., a... , F r W' �, t �Y�. �f $ �'j(i ,r,y ` ^. �`. . SI•`�.�Y,� } .,r; s, rKKN ,hi�''� Y u, ;�4,',a� yt ✓�_ �a �'�' �v� ��. ``,. Q�,y, �y/a.. Ali % + :k �Q, �} \ 'l,'L` } l' _ IAI h '1. "ILLS$�k©�JR`sl"1'- �`` e�W sT., t 411 �. F r �.�`y � -. [� � '+l /FfS7Y �� .a.•. � A � ! C.OIf • T�k� ar 6i °4e .'i 1 t' J.rr r, 4 ` .c Qf' .1'.'. @�� \��(' ,p. . *A ., ri ,y 4 ,CIF=. A. p �i r . � <t> ` 4/. m x F V' TTT"'"'+ c LtiJ+1°i' , v,:a y •%�T" r�'. i 1 F`Si V yp iir' y w•. IAlp IM.W 75 ',• ;c ya ,w ` q„ S •�}. � �.•,. r a ! 1 F vt0� COIIl7pY fLLk +s', •1 `br 4 va MAt:AL I'r /• IT a 4Yr, c 9URL1NG4Ml (j 9 4 1r * y � ,! 1 7 '.r '% tYJ r , 7 a 4 -VA •Q tW r,SAM M ', p �.n 'L/•�r+4'}' tt iY .: , , COWRY CLUB '; � ��" °b �'! � ` r.'+r �µ �Q ,c ^...Lq �•rtr•r dLA'WSF PA :L' w Tj�,.. , ��.' +• c�, i..... (cr+r nl a.. �� v(C :iY' ', E Y v� pf t m: 4� �, �4 �7.• (APP C.:. W 4 b. a P�' I �`, a� n '!' ,� gdr,l s4 -� J . PE• pV �. Hlit7l♦ Y •_ City of . i DESArchitects +Engineers Callander Associates LEGEND SONOOLO GAL TRAIN STATION SAMTRANS M)S MOVIES r b ALTER/UM SITE LOCATION uDO/WTOM GOME GOMItRGIAL AREA F. I RESIDENTIAL AREAS Alternate SitesNicienity Map Burlingame Community Center MEETING ROOM, Lg. 1400 MJ- (a0%0) MEETING STORAGE ROOM Sm. 4w u. 4w SP. �> l�o'soo'/ LIONS STORAGE STORAGE t4M *Y. 4W&L B RLINOAHf City of Burlingame WEIGHT ROOM &~ of. Maxw) M 57VPIO 100001. KITCHEN _ tisKo9 _ 61. WaCMI tssoo) OAL.L.ERIA 100 OP. taosw) wrKs am oo NP u• uo u. I JDO sip. i �� -- 1 TV/ GAME/ CAREER HANGOUT ACTIVITIES CENTER HO�AEyJORK/ aoo wr. h0). &CO'JI• COMPUTER hfflb) lass) (2&X4&) 112P0j. 0 6' v 20, Buildin Uses DES Architects Engineers Callander Associates Community CenterlLdons Hall 00,034 OECD. MBLR 13, 2000 7 O r 71 a 7 L t� r nine. wrM trots oe enter City of Burlingame DESArchitects +Engineers Caitander Associates 0U 02< XCEMBER 11, 70CA BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL FIELD' "m ffur B. U R L I N Q EXISTING SITE PLAN 09 Rio_ Q N lPARKS YARD u. ooLERNON WAY iL W. O P. FI O X A O � O f O4 W. SOFTBALL FIELD OO G O\ U G M. O4 M. /����, mL- r� /�_�1:__� t. C' XORD WAY E N U E 7 Site Plan Teen Center/Community CenterLLions Hall L � Y ;y „I N 1 GRA ENT PLAZ u j VIM�� rt, I DES I� 1 I 5a \ R1A. V 1 i raw,FV44 s �t mIF— aviw CITY OF BURLINGAME Z:;�O\ SCALI:1=3o- SITE PLAN 1= I o� in .1 ON PARKS YARD 4 n �7�(j ty �• � � s ►►n .� r _.MCI r Ilk 11_ I■■J I■ I I®■I I■■I � ��4 I■.i �.) I■■I i�■I - \ •I F. .' 1l L O RTO N AVE N U E PARK R O AD e �c CITY OF BURLINGAME SCALESITE PLAN COMMUNITY CENTER I'Lf'L� SCHEME E i I' / mpe iI�� � p PEE V x r a z DR1v � ,FOR HIGHLAND AVENUE r- L O R T O N A V E N U E MCITY OF BURLINGAME SCALE 1-30' SITE PLAN COMMUNITY CENTER �!"f. ..J SCHEME F