HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2002.11.04BURLINGAME CITY COI]NCIL AGENDA
Rrcul.ln MBBrrNc - MoNunv, Novnnann*.4,2002
Pncr 1 or 3
1. CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
MINUTES - Regular meeting of October 21 & study meeting of
October 29,2002
CEREMONIAL
a. Presentation of Proclamation to Will Holsinger
recognizing his efforts for the "Unity in the Light" event
PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each
Adopt an Ordinance to reduce membership of the Civil
Service Commission from seven (7) to five (5) members
Public Hearing on Proposed2003 Assessments for San
Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and
Resolution continuing hearing to December 2,2002
Consider approval of a Resolution and amendment to
approve lease of property at 783 Califomia Drive for use as
a teen center
City of Burlingame
)
3.
4.
5.
Appeal of Request for Design Review, variances for side
setback and floor arearatio, and special permits for height
and declining height envelope for a first and second story
addition at T336 Carlos Avenue, zoned R-l
Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of master
signage program and sign variances for sign area and
height on the secondary frontage at 380 Lang Road, zoned
o-M
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(650) 558-7200
7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
Approval
Presentation
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
6.
a.
b.
c
d.
e.
7
8.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any
itemontheagendaoranyothermatterwithinthejurisdictionoftheCouncil. TheRalphM.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 ofcouncil to refer such matters to stalffor 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.
STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
lntroduce Ordinance to rezone the property at 350 Beach
Road from C-4 Waterfront Commercial to O-M Office
Manufacturing
a.Introduce
BURLINGAMB CITY COI]NCIL AGENDA
Rncur.ln MrBrrNc - Moxnav, Novnuntr*.4,2002
Plcn 2 or 3
b lntroduce Ordinance to amend Title 18 to remove certain
references to PEX and CVPC pipe and fittings in certain
water systems
Consider approaches to nuisances created by birds in
commercial areas, including prohibition on feeding of
animals and birds on public property or private property
without permission
Commissioner Appointments: Traffic, Safety & Parking
(2); Civil Service (1)
First quarter budget status report
9. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approve increase in the registration fee for recreation
classes from $3.00 to $6.00
Appointment of members of advisory board for San Mateo
County Tourism Business Improvement District beginning
with the 2003 term
10.
c. Amendment to special encroachment permit at 1427
Chapin Avenue, Burlingame Garden Center, and City
parking lot B-1
d. Cancel December 16,2002 Council meeting and approve
2003 City Council meeting calendar
e. Authorize City Attorney to join in Amicus Curiae Brief in
Bardenvs. City of Sacramento (292 F.3RD 1073 - 9th Cir;
at no cost to City
f. Authorize City Attorney to join in Amicus Curiae Brief in
San Jose Christian College vs. City of Morgan Hill (9th
Cir. 02-15693) at no cost to City
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
11. OLD BUSINESS
12. NEW BUSINESS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees, August
20 and September 17,2002; Traffic, Safety & Parking,
October 10,2002; Parks & Recreation, October 17,2002;
Planning, October 28, 2002
c.
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(650) 558-7200
Introduce
Discussion/consider introduction
of Ordinance
Discussion/make appointments
Discussion
Approval
d.
e.
a.
b
a.
BURLINGAME CITY COT]NCIL AGENDA
Rncur,,Ln MmuNc - MoNolv, Novruntrn 41 2002
Pacn 3 or 3
b. DepartmentReports: Police,September,2}}2
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 ofthe 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 rvrvu,.burlinqarne.ors. Agendas
and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING - November 18, 2002
Ctty of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(650) 558-7200
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting - Monday, November 4,2002
AMENDMENT
1of1
Please note: Item 8f) "Consider approval of a Resolution and amendment
to approve lease of property at 783 California Drive for use as a teen
center" was moved to 6c) under ttPublic Hearings"
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(650) 558-7200
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of October 2112002
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 at7.06 p.m.by Mayor Mary Janney.
2. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE TO THE TLAG
Led by Jack Erickson.
3. ROLL CALL
Council Present:
Council Absent:
Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony
None
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7,2002 Council meeting;
seconded by Councilman Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
il.ADOPT ORDINANCE #1697 AMENDING SECTION 13.24.015 TO REDUCE SPEED LIMIT
Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing was
closed.
Councilman Galligan made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1697 amending Section 13.24.015 to reduce the
speed limit on Occidental Avenue between Barroilhet Avenue and El Camion Real to twenty-five miles per
hour; seconded by Vice Mayor Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
1 October 21,2002
4. MINUTES
ON OCCIDENTAL AVENUE BETWEEN BARROILHET AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL
TO TWENTY.F'TVE MILES PER HOUR
DPW Bagdon requested Council hold a public hearing to adopt Ordinance #1697 amending Section
13.24.015 to reduce the speed limit on Occidental Avenue between Barroilhet Avenue and El Camino Real
to Twenty-Five Miles per Hour.
Mayor Janney requested CC Musso publish a sunmary of Ordinance #1697 at least 15 days before proposed
adoption.
5b. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF (A) RE,SOLUTION TO APPROVE LEASE OF PROPERTY AT
783 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND USE AS A TEEN CENTER. (B)UTION
AUTHO G TRANSFER OF $IOO,OOO IN CAPITAL FUNDS D ATED FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE RECREATION CENTER TO THE TEEN CENTER AND (C)
DIRECT STAFF TO FUNDING OPTIONS
Mayor Janney noted this item was discussed during the closed session and it was decided that Council
wishes further time to negotiate with the Proffitt Trust. Council is seeking community support and would
appreciate any suggestions, plans or contributions that any member of the public may make to support this
project.
DPR Schw artz notedbefore Council was a) a Resolution to approve the lease of property at 7 83 California
Drive for use as a teen center, b) a Resolution authorizing transfer of $100,000 in capital funds designated
for improvements to the Recreation Center to the teen center, and c) to direct staff to seek funding options.
Noted staff has met with the Parks & Recreation Commission and has identified many different steps that
will need to be taken between the time the project is approved by Council and the opening of the facility
such as: planning a teen conference, seeking out what the needs of the community are, working with an
architect and construction company, making sure there is teen involvement in every step of the process,
establishing a list of partners, and conducting a traffic and parking study. At the P&R Commission
meeting on Thursday, October l7th, Commissioners made a motion and approved a request to the Council
that the Commission be allowed to establish a blue ribbon committee that would find funds for the one-time
improvements, for the set up of equipment for the facility to open, and to cover the first few years of lease
payments (approximately $400,000).
Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. Will McGowan,3'7 Lorton, Steve Warden, 736 Acacia, Jack
Erickson, 1085 Rollins Road #310, Mara Kahn, I108 Edgehill Drive, and Steve Larios, 1536 Barroilhet, all
spoke in favor of the temporary teen center. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing
was closed.
It was again noted that at this time, Council is not ready to execute the lease for 783 California Drive; need
to have the community come forward over the new few months on methods to fund the temporary teen
center. Through direction from Council, staff will seek funding options such as subleasing the Depot and
portions of the temporary teen center.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
7. STAFF REPORTS
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes2
October 21,2002
AND CO CATIONS
a.INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO REDUCE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CTVIL SERVICE
COMMISSION FROM SEVEN (7)MEMBERS TO FIVE (5)MEMBERS
HR Director Bell requested Council reduce the membership of the Civil Service Commission from seven (7)
members to five (5) members.
Mayor Janney requested CC Musso read a summary of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony
made a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilman Galligan made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Coffey,
approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Janney requested CC Musso publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before
proposed adoption.
b.COMMISSIO APPOINTMENT CATION - 2: PARKS &TION _ 2)
EA Weber requested Council make appointments to the Beautification Commission (2) and Parks and
Recreation Commissio n (2).
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to reappoint the two incumbents,Latra Hesselgren and John
Webb, to the Beautification Commission; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by
voice vote, 5-0.
Councilman Galligan made a motion to reappoint Jack Erickson and Mary Lawson to the Parks & Recreation
Commission; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. RESOLUTION #1,13 -2002 AWARDING 2002 SIDEWAITK MAINTENANCE AND
RBSOLUTION #11 4-2002 TRANSFERRIN G $150"000 IN GAS TAX FUNDS FQR
CONSTRU OF CURB AND - cP 80700
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve Resolution #ll3-2002 awarding a contract fot the2002
sidewalk maintenance program and Resolution #l 14-2002 transferring $150,000 in gas tax funds for
construction of curb and gutter.
b. RESOLUTIO #II5.2OO2 APPROVING A STATE RE,VOLVING LOAN AND
AUTIIORIZING EST OF A CAPITAL RESERVE FUND _ WASTEWATER
TMENT
DPW Bagdon recommended Council adopt Resolution #115-2002 to approve a state revolving fund loan and
authorize establishment of a capital reserve fund - wastewater treatment plant improvements, city project
No.9948.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
J October 21,2002
C. APPROVAL OF ATTENDANCE AT OUT.OF'STATE CONFERENCE
DPW Bagdon recolnmended Council approve the attendance of two staff mernbers at an out-of-state
conference in Tucson, Aizona, for the Water Environment Federation (WEF) Conference on Capacity
Management Operation and Maintenance (CMOM).
d.WARRANTS NI)PAYRO LL
ACM Becker requested approval for payment of Wa:rants #85064-85576, duly audited, in the amount of
$2,853,278.49 (excludes library checks 85178-85230 & 85328-85333), payroll checks 150633-151075 in the
amount of $1,679,044.03; and EFT's in the amount of $430,698.13 for the month of September,2002-
e. STATUS ON THE FY ADVANCED PLANNIN PROGRAM
CP Monroe presented Council with a monthly update on the three advanced planning programs scheduled for
2002103
f. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR BEHAN'S IRISH PUB. 1327
BROADWAY UNDER GERARD MITCHELL
CA Anderson recommended Council approve amusement permit for Behan's Irish Pub under Gerard
Mitchell for a period of nine (9) months.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION #116.2002 FIXING TIIE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION
UNDER THE IC EMPLOYEE'S MEDI CAL AND HOSPITAL CARE POLICE
AND FIRE ADMINISTRATORS
HRD Bell recommended Council approve Resolution #116-2002 increasing the City's contribution towards
medical premiums effective January 1,2003 for employees and annuitants covered by the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Burlingame and the Police and Fire Administrators which represents the
Police Sergeants, Commanders and Assistant Fire Chiefs.
h.PTION OF 117-2002 YER'S C
UNDER THE EMPLOYEES'MED AND HOSPITAL CARE - BAMM &
IAFF. UNREPRESENTED/DEPARTMENT IIEADS
HRD Bell recommended Council approve Resolution #II7-2002 increasing the City's contribution towards
medical premiums effective January l,2OO3 for employees and annuitants covered by the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Association of Middle Managers
(BAMM), the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and the Unrepresented/Department Heads.
i. ADOPTION OF RE,SO LUTION #II8.2OO2 FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION
UNDER THE PUBLI EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT _ POA.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes4
October 21,2002
a.
AFSCME. AND TEAMSTERS
HRD Bell recommended Council approve Resolution #ll8-2002 increasing the City's contribution towards
medical premiums effective January l,2OO3 for employees and annuitants covered by the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Police Officers Association (POA),
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 2190 and 829, and the
Teamsters which represent dispatch employees.
j.APPROVAL TO OUT.OF-STATE
FC Reilly recofltmended Council approve out-of-state travel for members of the Burlingame Fire Department
Apparatus Committee to travel to Appleton, Wisconsin to take delivery on new fire apparatus.
9. COUNCIL CO MMITTEE
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
10. OLD BUSINESS
CA Anderson reported Council directed him regarding the following items discussed during the closed
SCSSTON
Threatened Litigation (Government Code $ 54956.9(bxl), (3XC): Claim of Riyad Salma; Claim of
Priscilla Landes; Claim of John Scopazzi
b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code $ 54956.8:
Receive Report of lease negotiations for 783 California Drive and instruction negotiators as appropriate
Agency Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Randy Schwartz, Larry Anderson
Negotiating Parties: Terry Horn on behalf of the Proffitt Trust
Under Negotiation: Lease of portion of property for teen center and other consistent uses
11. NEW BUSINESS
Councilwoman O'Mahony noted a constituent asked her why BFI crushes glass at 6:30 a.m. CM Nantell
noted there are certain days BFI picks up recycling and that the noise can't be avoided.
Vice Mayor Coffey requested staff supply Council with the status of the boat on Airport Boulevard.
Mayor Janney thanked Chief Missel for the extra police patrol at the banks in Burlingame.
CM Nantell noted there were two cameras taping this evening's council meeting.
CP Monroe noted there were two appeals; 1336 Carlos Avenue and 380 Lang Road. If the agenda allows,
the appeals will be heard on November 4th.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
5 October 21,2002
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Beautification Commission, October 3,2002; Planning Commission, October
t5,2002
b. Department Reports: Finance, September 2002
c. Anonymous Letter with Parks & Recreation's reply concerning the rose garden in Washington Park
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Janney adjourned the meeting at8:12 p.m. in memory of Alice Martg"l, the Millbrae resident who died
during a bank robbery at Wells Fargo on Buringame Avenue on October ll"',2002.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes6
October 21,2002
Ann T. Musso
City Clerk
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Study Meeting of October 29,2002
1 STUDY MEETING TO ORDER
A study meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council
Chambers. The meeting was called to order at5:02 p.m.by Mayor Mary Janney.
2. PLEDGE OF CE TO THE FLAG
Led by Ross Bruce.
3. ROLL CALL
Council Present:
Council Absent:
Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony
None
4.TRANSPORTATION PRESENTATION
DPW Bagdon introduced Howard Goode from the Transportation Authority. Mr. Goode introduced Keith
Meyer and Darrell Maxey. Together they discussed the Highway 101 auxiliary lanes project,
Broadway'Highway 101 interchange project, Broadway train station options, Burlingame train station
options, and the grade separation program.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS
R.R. Miller, 1105 Dufferin, asked to have the tracks be built above ground; Ross Bruce,1169 Broadway,
supported keeping the Broadway train station open.
6. CLOSED SESSION
Council convened to closed session at 7:00 p.m.
CA Anderson noted Council directed him regarding the following items:
a. Pending Litigation (Government Code $ 54956.9(a)): Faziola vs. City of Burlingame, San Mateo
Superior Court Case No. 417588.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
1 October 29,2002
I
L
b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code $ 54956.8: Receive report of
lease negotiations for 783 California Drive and instruct negotiators as appropriate.
Agency Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Randy Schwartz, Larry Anderson
Negotiating Parties: Terry Horn on behalf of Proffitt Trust
Under Negotiation: Lease of portion of property for teen center and other consistent uses
Council reconvened to open session at7:36 p.m. Mayor Janney adjourned the meeting at7:37 p.m.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Ann Musso
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes2
October 29,2002
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AliD CrrY COUNgTL SI]BMITTED
DATE:October 29.2002
APPROYEI)
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE Ltl4l02
6a
TO:6h*b rSt--<BY
rRoM: Robert BeIl, Human Resourpes Director BY
srlBJEcr: Adopt Ordinanee to Reduce Membership of the Civil
Members
Commission from Seven to Five
RECOMMEITTDATION:
The City Council should adopt the proposed ordinance to reduce the Civil Service Commission from serren
members to five members by:
1) Holding apublic hearing;
2) Adopting the proposed ordinance reducing membership of the Civil Service Connnission from
seven members to five members;
3) Instructing the City Clerk to publish a surnmary ofthe ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
DISCUSSION:
On October 21, 20AZ staff introduced an ordinance to reduce the civil service commission from seven (7)
members to five (5). Tonight, staff is recoilrmending Council hold a public hearing and adopt the proposed
ordinance.
Withfui the last year, there has been proposed legislation that would impact the way personnel boards and/or
civil sErvice conmrission mEmbers would be appointed. If passed, such legislation would usurp the Council's
ability to appoint conurunity members to serve on the Civil Serrrice Conrnission. Though the proposed law
was vetoed, evEry indication is the State will continue to be active in this area. Since there are vacancies on
the commission, staffreconunends the number of commissioners be reduced at this time as to not displace any
of the current corrnnissioners. Staffwill continue to stay apprised of any proposed legislation impacting the
Conrnission and continue to examine options and develop reconrnendations regading the City's Civil Service
System and Cornmission.
Attachment
Ordinance
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
t2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
r9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 3.48.010 TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
FROM SEVEN TO FIVE MEMBERS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The City's Civil Service Commission currently has 7 members, but it has been
increasingly difficult to obtain a quorum and the number of applications for vacant positions on the
Commission has declined. The Commission will continue to play a role in the interviewing process
for City employment as well as to hearing disciplinary issues that are appealed to the Commission
as provided in the Civil Service Commission Rules and memoranda of understanding with employee
associations and organizations.
Section 2. Section 3.48.010 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
3.48.010 Organwation - Terms of members - Compensation.
The civil service commission shall consist of five (5) members, appointed by the council.
They shall hold office for a period ofthree (3) years and until successors are appointed and qualified.
At the time of their application for the commission and throughout their terms as commissioners,
they shall be registered, qualified electors of the city. The members shall serve without
compensation, but all necessary expenses incurred by them when acting in their official capacity
shall be paid by appropriate action of the city council.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published in accordance with law and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.
Mayor
I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifu that the foregoing
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Burlingame on the 27" day
of October,2002, and the ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on
2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COLINCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\civilsvcmemb.pwd.wpd
-2-
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM # 6b
MTG.
DATE tt-4-2002
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
BY
DATE: October 28,2002
APPROVED
FRoM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager
650-558-7222
suBJEcr: Public Hearing on Proposed 2003Assessments for San County Tourism Business
Improvement District and Resolution Continuing Hearing to December 2,2002
BY
RECOMMENDATION:
A. Open Public Hearing
B. Adopt Resolution Continuing Public Hearing to 7 p.m., Monday, December 2,,2002
BACKGROUND: On October 7, Council adopted a resolution declaring the intention to impose assessments
for 2003 within the district. This hearing is required for the council to consider all oral and written testimony
from interested persons. The city has not received any protests regarding the proposed assessments. A new
hotel in Redwood City, the Marriott Towne Place Suites, was not reported in the October 7 report, so it is
appropriate to continue the public hearing to December 2 to properly notice this correction.
The proposed assessments, by city, are as follows:
CIry
Belmont
Burlingame
County of San Mateo
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Millbrae
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South San Francisco
Annual Assessment Per RoomRooms
563
3,778
329
503
585
1,321
1,271
539
368
1,920
2,936
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
22,377.60
672,343.20
8,789.40
92,772.00
60,993.90
196,916.40
1 17,639.00
35,758.80
15,508.80
225,929.00
39.75
177.96
26.72
184.44
104.26
149.07
92.56
66.34
42.14
117.62
115.34338639.40
TOTAL 14,113 $ 1,797,566.50$ 126.66
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution continuinghearing
Proposed Assessments
C: Anne LeClair, San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau
\- if
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2OO3 ASSESSMENTS
FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
TO DECEMBER 2,2OO2,AND INCLUDING THE MARRIOTT TOWNE PLACE
SUITES, REDWOOD CITY,IN THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, on October 7,2002,the City Council adopted Resolution No. approving the
annual report of San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and setting a public
hearing to consider the assessments for the 2003 Year for the District on November 4,2002; and
WHEREAS, following the adoption of that resolution, it was determined that a new hotel,
the Marriott Towne Place Suites had opened in Redwood City at the end of September, but the hotel
was not listed on Exhibit C to the adopted resolution; and
WHEREAS, while notice of the proposed assessments and public hearing has been given
to the Marriott Towne Place Suites, it was not strictly in accordance with the timing requirements
of the Streets & Highways Code; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure full notice has been given to the Marriott Towne Place
Suites, the public hearing should be continued to December 2,2002, at7:00 p.m.; and
WHEREAS, this continuance will not prejudice the rights of any person and in addition, the
proposed assessments for the Marriott Towne Place Suites will not have any effect on the
assessments of any other hotel,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as
follows:
1. The public hearing is continued to 7:00 p.m. on December 2,2002, in the Council
Chambers at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
2. Exhibit C to Resolution No. _ is amended to include the Marriott Towne Place
Suites, Redwood City, Califomia, as follows:
Name of Property Zone Categoryl
Assessment
#
Rooms
Annual
Assessment
Monthly
Assessment
Mariott Towne Place Suites A $54.00 95 $3,078.00 $256.50
I
{.t''i
3. Any person wishing to file a protest pursuant to Resolution No. 108-2002 may do
so until the close of the public hearing on December 2,2002. The Council will receive testimony
and evidence at the continued public hearing, and pursuant to Streets & Highways Code 5 36522,
interested persons may submit written comments before or at the continued public hearing, or they
may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.
4. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the continued public hearing by
mailing a copy of this resolution to the Maniott Towne Place Suites.
MAYOR
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certiff that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the_day of
2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COI.JNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COI.]NCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
C :\FILESWotelBid\hearingcont. res. wpd
2
Name of Property
Embassy Suites
Doubletree Hotel
SFO Marriott
Hyatt Regency SFO
Sheraton Gateway
Hilton Garden lnn
ParkPlaza (Crowne Plaza)
Ramada lnn
Red Roof lnn
Vagabond lnn
9urlingame Hotel
Country House
Hampton lnn & Suites*
Bay Landing.
,1*Aprox. Opening date Jan -
Name of Property
SM Marriott
Villa Hotel
Residence lnn
Hilton Garden
Homestead Village
Holiday lnn
Los Prados lnn
Holiday lnn Express
Hillsdale lnn
Howard Johnson
Super 8
Avalon
jFirestone Lodge
,San Mateo Motel
Coxhead House
Wingate lnn
Zone Gategory/Assessment . #Roomgt
l$
LL
l$
$
f$EisE
$
IE
t$]LlqtL
ANNUAL Assessment Month ly
Burlingame
San Mateo
5430I
54oof
54307-- - s?.oof
Room Total I
l
--f 340
390
A
A
iA
A
ln
la
lA
360.00
360.00
360.00
360.00
54.00
'180.00
54.00
36o.OO
9o.oo
54.00
132
312
144
212
91
4
130
476 $
228 $
73,440.00
84,240.00
148,824.00
170,424.00
87 264.00
14,256.00
67,392.00
7,776.00
6,868.80
2,948.40
1,?28.40
874.80
6,120-00
7,020.00
12,402 00
14,2'02.00
7,272.00
1,188.00
5,616.00
648.00
s7r40
245.70
116.70
iz go
2o1.eo
adi.oo
8,568.00
4,104.00
432.00
1,404.00
367.20
1,980.00
508.50
299.70
243.00
153.90
143.10
129.60
12.4.20
89.1 0
5.40
267.30
404
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
lA
ln
360.00
180.00
360.00
90.00
54.00
54.00
$
$
1
27
lA
14
ln-- lAl
l4
IA+
ln
A
A
tr
14 57
53
48
46
33
4
99
9201
A
tA
A
A
A
A
$
$
$
$
$
April2003
lZone+
-IA
3778
s
2,494.80
4,212.00
672,i43.20
828.00
Category/Assessment
$ 360 00
$ 360.00
Total
# Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assess
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54.00 i
54.00
54.00
54.00
I
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
Room Total
102,816.00 $
49,248.00 $
5,184.00 $
16,848.00
4,406.40
23,760.00
6,102.00
3,596.40
2,916.00
1,846.80
1,717.20
1,555.20
1,490.40
1,069.20
64.80
z,zot.ao
160
156
136
110
113
111
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Total
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS .-- YEAR 2OO3 EXHIBIT C
C-1 of 6 10t28t2002
I
T
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment
South San Francisco
Embassy Suites A
A
A
A
$360.00
54.00
312 $ 67,392.00 $
$
$
$
5,616.00
Comfort Suites $166 $5,378.40 448.20
Grosvenor Airport
Hilton Garden lnn
!nn $
$
360.00
180.00
360.00
180 00
90.00
360.00
90.00
206 $44,496.00
18,252.00
3,708.00
169 $1,521.00
4,032.00North$
$
224 $48,384.00 $
$
$
$
$
La Quinta lnn #659 174
111
323
152
197
34
$18,792.00 1,566.00
r Landing $5 994.00 499.50
Ramada lnn A $69,768.00 5 814.00
Residence lnn A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
$
$
8,208.00
6,382.80
684.00
Travelodge 54.00 $531.90
Airport lnn 54.00 $1 ,101 .60 $
$
$
91.80
Americana lnn Motel 54.00
180.00
17
198
49
$275.40 22.95
$
$
$
21,384.00 1,782.00
54.00
54.00
1,587.60
810.00
$
$
$
$
$
132.30
25
20
21
13
67.50
54.00
54.00
54.00
$324.00 27.00
lnn A $680.40
210.60
56.70
Hallmark House Motel A
A
A
A
A
$$17.55
Hampton lnn $54.00
54.00
100
51
30
3,240.00 $
$
$
$
$
$
270.00
Howard John sonA/agabo nd $$ 1 ,652.40$ 1,620.00
137.70
135.00lnn at Oyster Point $90.00
Quality lnn & Suites
Royal lnn
$54.00 45
17
117
20
$1 458.00 121.50
A
A
A
$54.00
54.00
54.00
90.00
$275.40 22.95
Motel6 $
$
$3,790.80
324.00
5,400.00
315.90
27.OOTravelers lnn $$
$Sheraton Four Points A
A
l$
$
=r
$
$
450.00
Ramada Limited 54.00
Room Total
1,458.00 121.50
2936
Total:$ 338,639.40
I f:
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS.-- YEAR 2OO3 EXHIBIT C
C-2 of 6 10t28t2002
A$
i-$
$
$
$
Name of Property
-
lWestin
lClarion
El Rancho lnn
Millwood lnn
T
Comfort lnn
Quality Suites Millbrae
Name of Property
Crowne Plaza
Marriott Courtyard
Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Month ly assess
I
Millbrae
Half Moon Bay
$
$
$
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
360.00
360.00
ry1,
360.00
180.00
Room Total
ry/Assessment
180.00
360.00
180.00
$
$
$
$
390 $
440 $
219
# Rooms ANNUAL
356 $
503
Iis
84,244.00
4,320.00
101 .60
$
$
$
$
$
7,020.00
360.00
95,040.00
7 095.60
1,879.20
3,240.00
196,916.40
76,896.00
15,876.00
92
3,888.00
46,980.00
5,832.00
626.40 $
1,1420
40.50
81.00
1,440.00
27.00
94.50
81.00
162.00
13.50
496.80
108.00
60,993.90
7,q?q:00
591.30
91.80
156.60
270 00
$
$54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
90.00
Room Total
$
$
$
$
$
2F.
7l $
6$
12i $
1$
Z3l $
8L $
585
Total: - $
34
58
100
80
321
I
1
Zone
A $
A $
Assessment
ANNUAL
$
$
Monthly assess
$6,408.00
$1,323.00
Monthly assess
324.00
3,915.00
486.00
52.20
93.60
3.38
6.75
120.00
2.25
7.88
6.75
13.50
1.13
41.40
9.00
Name of Propefty
Beach House lnn
Ritz Carlton
Half Moon Bay Lodge
Ramada Limited
Holiday lnn Express
Cameron's lnn
Total
# Rooms
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
54
261
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
81
29
52
6
40 $
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54.00
s4-oo
54.00 3
Mill Rose lnn &
Miramar Lodge
-Sin Benito House
The Gilchrest House
ZaOalta House
Half Moon Bay lnn
Garden
& Conf. ienter
54.00
90.00
Moon Dream Cottage
Old Thyme lnn
Plum Tree Court
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
Room Total
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2OO3 EXHIBIT C
C-3 of 6 10t28t2002
Total:t-
1471 $
Zone
$
I$
$l3
$
$
$
[$
$i$
lsEl:
Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessm(
Unincorporated County
Best Western Exec. Suites A $54.00 29 $626.40 $52.20
Costanoa Coastal Lodge B $90.00 172 $6,192.00 $516.00
Cypress lnn on Miramar Beach B $54.00 8 $108.00 $9.00
Farallone lnn B&B B $54.00 I $121.50 $10.13
Goose & Turrets B&B B $54.00 5 $67.50 $s.63
Harbor View lnn B $54.00 18 $243.00 $20.25
Harbor House B $54.00 6 $81.00 $6.75
Landis Shores B $54.00 8 $108.00 $9.00
Motorville Motel B $54.00 30 $648.00 $54.00
Pacific Victorian B $54.00 3 $40.50 $3.38
Pillar Point lnn B $54.00 11 $148.50 $12.38
Princess Port B $54.00 4 $54.00 $4.50
SealCove lnn B $54.00 10 $135.00 $11.25
Lodge at Sky Londa B $54.00 16 $216.00 $18.00
Room Total 329
Total:$8,789.40
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2OO3 EXHIBIT C
C-4 of 6 10t28t2002
l
Name Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms
360.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54 00
l
54.00
ANNUAL Assessment Monthly
Redwood City
San Bruno
HotelSofitel
Best Western lnn
H oliday lnn Express
Pacific lnn Hotel
Redwood Motor Court
Best lnn
Sequoia Inn
Super 8 Motel
Sequoia Hotel
IMarriott Towne
f
Hampton lnn
Name of Pro
Budget lnn
perty
Cable Car lnn
CalWest lnn
Summerfield Suites
Marriott Courtyard
Knights Rest
San Bruno lnn
Ritz Motel
Best lnn
lDaVs
lnn
IIA
IrA
1A
A
ln
4A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
19
26
27
50
55
52
68
90,504 .00
842.40
874.80
$
$
1,620 00
1,792.00
1,684.80
2,203.20
275.40
3,985.20
1 231.20
2,430.00
194.40 $
1,231.20
1,717.20
1,976.40
$
$
$
$
712.80
1,296.00
3,078.00
1 17,639.00
939.60 $
777.60 $
1,749.60
10,260.00
$
15,876.00 $
1,036.80
1,879.20
745.20
939.60
1,555.20
758.80
$7,542.00
70.20
72.90
135.00
148.50
140.40
183.60
22.95
332.1 0
102.60
202.50
16.20
102.60
59.40
108.00
143.10
256.50
164.70
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
Room Total
1100 i
54.00 i
7
3
1
2
IA
A
lniuites la
s4.oo t 22
54.00 40
$
$
Place S
53
95
61
1271
29
24
54
95
147
32
58
23
29
48
539
A
=
Zone
1A
lA
A
A
54.00
180.00
180.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
Room Total
78.30
64.80
145.80
855.00
1,323.00
86.40
156.60
62.10
78.30
129.60
Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUALt
A$IA I$
54.00
54.00 i
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
A
1n
A
$
$
$
$
$
Total:
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS..- YEAR 2OO3 EXHIBIT C
C-5 of 6 10t28t2002
frttrr,
igudget lnn
Capri Hotel
Pacific Euro
Comfort lnn
Days lnn
Garden Motel
Good Nite lnn
54.00
t
I
+
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2OO3 EXHIBIT C
ANNUAL Assessment
745.20
8,845.20
7,128.00
377.60$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,428.00
745.20
226.80
259.20
62.10$
$
$
$
$
$
$21.60
18.90
62.10
369.00
737.10
594.00
Belmont
-
Belmont Palms
Total:
$
$
$
$
$
ln
fA
A
A
A
A
Ki ngsway Motel
Category/AssessmentZone
23
23
82
563
273
132
14
16
$
$
Name of Property
Room Total
BelMateo Motel
Summerfield Suites
54.00
54.00
90.00
54.00
90.00
54.00
54.00
Econolodge Belmont
Holiday lnn Express & Suites
Motel6
ANNUAL
15,508.80$
1 80
6 00
939.60
2,700.00
939.60
3,628.80
Name of
San Carlos
Travel lnn
San Carlos Travelodge
lnns of America
225.00$
$
$
$
$
$
78.30
522.00
302.40
86.40
78.30
# Roomsment
50
Total:
$
$
$
$
$
$
A
A
A
A
A
A
29
368
29
32
112
116
C-6 of 6 10t28t2002
Property fzoni trlcomtort tnn
Oays lnn
90.00
54.00
90.00
54.00
54.00
54.00
+$
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYORAND CITY COUNCIL
October 30.2002
AGENDA -{l@ITIM #
MTG.
DATE Lt-4-O2
TO
BY
DATE:
FRoM: Parks & Recreation Director (55&7307)BY
AMENDMENT TO
APPROVE LEASE OF PROPERTY AT 783 CALIFORNIA DRIVE FOR
USE AS A TEEN CENTER
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council review, consider approval of the
lease and amendment at783 California Drive for use as a Teen Center.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council, at its September l6 and October 21,20A2 meetings, directed staffto pursue a
lease agreement for the property at783 California Drive for the purpose of hosting activities for
teenagers. Additionally, the Council approved the formation of a citizens' committee to raise
funds to cover the costs of the necessary initial improvements, start-up equipment and the first
two years of operating expenses.
Staff has worked with the realtor of the property to secure an amendment to the lease that would
allow the City to cancel the lease before March 31,2003. Because the City wrll not be fully
utilizing the facility during this period, the payments for the property have been halved.
Council should consider the following options or combinations thereot
l. Direct staff to proceed with entering into the lease and amendment
at783 California Drive for use as a Teen Center;
2. Continue to seek in kind labor and donations to minimize the use of
City funds for the tenant improvements and other capital needs;
3. Direct staff to work with the fundraising committee to see new revenues
to adequately cover the improvements, start-up costs and two years
of operational costs associated with the temporary Teen Center;4. Delay entering into the lease of 783 California Drive until necessary
funds can be identified;
5. Direct staff, in light of the current economic shortfall, to discontinue
pursuing an temporary Teen Center and instead use any revenue
increasing capacity to reduce subsidy need to fund existing
recreational programs.
srrBJECr: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION
BUDGET IMPACT:
The amendment limits the City"s potential financial obligation to the five-month period at a cost
of $12,750. It is assumed that if the City elects to continue with the lease payments, it would do
so with new funds identified by the citizens' fundraising committee.
Funds for this facility will be sought to cover the costs of the one-time improvements, start-up
costs, two years of lease payments and two years of operating expenses.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution approving lease agteement for 783 California Drive / lease agreement
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COTJNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PROFFITT TRUST FOR THE USE OF'783
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE LEASE AGREEMENT
AND FIRST ADDENDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHER-EAS, the Proffitt Trust placed the propefty at783 California Drive for lease, and the
City has been negotiating with the Trust for possible use of the property as a teen center and for
other community uses; and
WHEREAS, the Trust is willing to agree to an initial five month period at a reduced rental
amount so that the City might determine whether community funding will be available to construct
the improvements necessary to make the property fully functional for City purposes and to properly
operate the facility; and
WHEREAS, the lease agreement gives the community an opportunity to improve and
enhance services to young people in the City,
NOW, THERE,FORE,IT IS ORDERED:
l. The Lease Agreement and First Addendum attached hereto as Exhibit A are approved, and
the City Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement and the Addendum 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.
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 ol
,2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCTLMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
STAN DAR D IN DUSTRIAL/COMM E RCIAL MU LTI -TENANT LEASE.-G ROSS
AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION
lmR
Bo.lc Provlilonr ("Be.lc Provlelone").
1.1 Pirtlori-lhls Loaso ("Lcacc"), daled lor roloronco purposos orrly,Sepl-errtber 30, 2002.1U---, lo mado by
and BURLTNGAME
(collectively lhe "Partles," or individually a "Party").
1.2(a) Premlses: That certain portion of the Building, including all improvements therein or to bs provided by Lessor undor lhe tsrms oI this Leas6,
commonly known by the street address of 783 California Drive located in the City ol Burlingame
County ot San Mateo statso, California with zip code 94010 x&ximx&kil{ xtriuiIqt xd(r6r6u
hereto ("Premlses"). The "Bulldlng" is that certain building conlaining the Premises and generally described as (describe briefly the nalure of the Building):_a commercial- buildinq for two tena4tE, tbe premises contain approximately
5 750 Ct roun d floor sguare feet and approximately 2,A00 mezzan ine sguare feet.
ln addition lo Lessee's rights to use and occupy the Premises as hereinalter specified, Lessee shall have non-exclusive rights to the Common Areas (as dofined in
Paragraph 2.7 below) as hsreinafter specilied, but shall nol have any rights to the roof, exterior walls or utilily raceways ol the Building or to any other buildings in
the lndustrial Center. The Premises, the Building, the Common Areas, the land upon which they are locatod, along with all other buildings and improvemenls
lhereon, are herein collectively relerred to as the "lndustrla! Center." (Also see Paragraph 2.)
1.2(b) Parklng:unreserved vehicle parking spaces ("Unreserved Parking $paces");and sj.X (6)
reserved vehicle parking spaces ("Resetved Parklng Spaces"). (Also see Paragraph 2.6.)
1.3 Term: Two years and No months ("Orlglnal Term")r1 2002
("Commencemenl Deto") and ending ,Oc tob<1f---.3-Lr--2-Q-Q-A-. ("Explr6tton Dato"). (Atso soo Paragraptr 3.)
1.4 Early Possosslon: fl / d ("Early Possosslon Date"). (Also sse Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3.)
I XI lf this box is checked, this Lease provides for the Base Rent to be adjusted ,r,X&S&Sil#"Plas-, attached herero.
1.6(a) BaseRentPaldUponExecutlon: $5J-OOasBaseBentlortheperiod Nowemher 1 , 2002-Novemher 30, 2002
1.6(b) Lessee'sshareofCommonAreaOperatlngExpenses: fOrtV-eiqht percent( {g%)("Lessee'sShare")mthlDrmiDdry
k:{rrg*a<qerriEJpp(nsR9{1.t'xftgmbEagxaampale*EHsdp(atc$@tqaE0exDtlranuldhgw*xDo!(s(x[e]tmxdesa]ttrdilo(adrE{d0mxxx.
1.5 Baso Bent: $ 5r 100 - 00 per month ("Base Rent"), payable on tho-----f-ijf.Et-dayof each month commencing
Norzomlror 1 2002 (Also see Paragraph 4.)
1.7 Securlty Deposlt:("Securlty Deposlt"). (Also see Paragraph 5.)
1.8 Permltteduse: recreation and meeting facilitj-es and other reasonable uses
("Permitted Use") (Also see Paragraph 6.)
1.9 lnsurlng Party. Lessor is the "lnsudng Party." (Also see Paragraph B.)
1.10(a) Real Estate Brokers. The following real estate broke(s) (collectively, the "Brokers") and brokerage relationships exist in this transaction and are
consented to by the Parties (check applicable boxes):
I4tt
tl
Henry Horn &,Sons Incor porated represents Lessor exclusively ("Lessor's Broker");
represenls Lessee exclusively ("Lessee's Broker"); or
represents both Lessor and Lessee ("Dual Agency"). (Also see Paragraph 15.)
("Guarentor"). (Also see Paragraph 37.)
1.12 Addenda and Exhlblts. Attachsd horsto is an Addendum or Addenda consisling ol Paragraphs 49 lhrough
--L
6-, and Exhibits
A through
-,
all of which constitute a part of this Lease.
2. Premlses, Parklng and Common Areas.
2.1 Lettlng...Lessor hereby.leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby leases from Lessor, lhe Premises, for the lerm, at the rental, and upon all ol the terms,
covenants and conditions sot forlh in this Lease. Unless othenrise provided herein, any statement of square footage set forth in this Lease, orihat may have beei
used in calculating rental and/or Common Area Operating Expenses, is an approximation which Lessor and [essee agree is reasonable and th6 rental and
Lessee's Share (as delined in Paragraph 1.6(b)) based lhereon is not subject to revision whether or not the actual square footage is more or less.
2.2 Condltlon. Lessor shall deliver the Premises lo Lessee clean and free of debris on the Commencemenl Date and wananls to Lessee thal the existing
plumbing, electrical systems, lire sprinkler system, lighting, air conditioning and heating systems and loading doors, il any, in lhe Premises, other than lhose con'-
slructed by Lessee, shall be in good operating condition on the Commencement Date. ll a non-compliance with said wananty exists as of the Commencement
Date,.Lessor.shall, excepf as olherwise provided in this Lease, promptly atter receipt of writlen notice from Lessee setting lorth wilh specificity the nature and
ertenl ol su.ch non-compliance, reclify same at Lessor's.expense. lf Lessee does not give Lessor written notice of a non-compliance with ihis warianly within thirty
(30) days alter the Commencemenl Date, consction ol that non-compliance shall be lhe obligation of Lessee at Lessee's sole cost and expense.
. . 2.3 . Compllance wlth Cov_enenls, Restrlctlons and Bulldlng Code- Lessor warranls that any improvemenls (other than those constructed by Lessee or
at Lossoe's.direction) on or in lhe Premises whictr have been constructed or installed by Lessor or with Lessor's conseirt or at Lessor's clirsction shall bomply with
all applicable covenanls or reslrictions ol record and applicable building codes, regulations and ordinances in ellecl on the Commencement Dale. Lessoi lurthor
warrants to Lessee that Lessor has no knowledge ol any claim having been made by any governmental agency that a violation or violations of applicable building
codes, regulalions, or ordinances exist with regard to.the Prernises as ol the Commen6ement Date. Said wairanties shall not apply to any Alt'eiations or Utiliflnslallations (defined in Paragraph_7.3(a)) made or to be made by Lessee. lf lhe Premises do not comply with Said warranties, Leisbr sha( excepl as othenvis6
provid.ed in.this Lease, Uomptly alter receipt ol written notice lrom Lessee given within six (6) months l6flowing the Commencement Date'ana s6ning lorth with
speci,icily ths nalule and exlent of such non-compliance, lake such action, al Lessor's expdnbe, as may be reisonable or appropriate to reclify the rion-compli-
ancg. Lsssor makes no warranty thal lhs Permitted Use in Paragraph l.B is permitted lor the Premises under Applicable Laws (ds delined in Paragraph 2.4).
.. 2.4 . Ac_ceptance ol Premlses. Lessee hereby acknowledges: (a) lhat it has been advised by the Broke(s) to satisfy ilsell with respect to the condition ot
the Premises.(including but not limited to the otectrical and lire sprinkler systems, securily, environmental aspecls, ieismic arid earthquake ri:quirements, and com-
pliance. with the Americans with. Dis-abilities-Act_and applicable zoning, municipal, county, state and federal l'aws, ordinances and regulations dnd any covenants or
sttch invesligalion as il doems neceqsary.with relsrenco lo such mallers, is salislind wilh islerence lhorolo, and assumos alt responsibiiity therefore as th6 samerolale lo Lessee's occupancy of tho Pronlisos and/or tho torms ol lhis Lease; and (c) thal neilher Lessor, nor any ol Lessor's ageirts, has made any oral or writtenropresentations or warrantios with respect to said matters olher lhan as set lorlh in this Lease.
2.5 Les9ee as Prlor Orner/Occupanl. Tho wananlies ngde !y Lessor in lhis Paragraph 2 shall be of no lorce or etlect il immediately prior to ths dato settorth in PaEgraph 1.1 Lessee was lhe owner or occupant of the Premiaes. ln such event, Lesiee shall, at Lessee's sole cost and expense, 6oirect any non-com-pliance of the Premises with said wananties.
@ American lndustrial Real Estate Association 1993 MULTI-TENANT - GROSS
tnltlals:
may mulually designale in writing, a lee as set fo.th in a separate writlen agreemenl between Lessor and said Broke(s) (or in the event there is no separate written
agreemenl between Lessor and said Broke(s), the sum ot $-) for brokerage services rendered by said Broke(s) in connection with this transaclion.
1.11 Guarantor. The obligalions of the Lessee under lhis Lease are to be guaranteeO UV n / a
2.6 'Vehlclo Parklng. Lesseo shall be entitlod lo uss the numbor of Unreserved Parking Spaces arrd Raserved Parking Spaces specilier1 in paragraph
!.2(p) on lhose portions oJ tho Common Arsas dssignaled frorn time 10 tinio by Lossor for parking. Lesses slall not uso moro p?rXing spaies than said nuftL,br.
Paragrnph 40) lssuod by Lossor. (Also soo Paragraph 2.9.)
contractors or invitoos lo bo loaded, urrloaded, or parkorl in aroas oth€r tlian lhos€ dosignated bf L.essr:r lor such activities.
llon to.such oth.or Iighls and lemedies that it may have, lo r€nlove or tow away the vehicle involved and chargo tlro cost to Lessee, whic6 cosl slrall bu imniediatolypayablo upon demand by Lessor.
(c) Lessor shall at the Commencsment Dat6 of this Lease, provide the parking facilities required by Applicable Law.
2'7 Common Areac-Dellnltlon. Ths torm "Common Areas" is delinerl as all areas ancl lacilitie$ orrtside the Premises and wilhin tho extelior boundary
toes, including parking areas, loading and unloading areas, trash areas, roadways, sidewilks, watkways, parfway's, arivewdfs an'd landscaped areas,
2.8 Common Areos-Lessee's !!g!tt?. Lessor hereby grants lo Lessee, lor the benefit ol Lessoe ancl its employees, suppliers, shippers, contractors,
from.tirne lo time,.subject to any.rights, poy.6!s,and privileges reserved-by Lessor under lhe terrns hereof or under the terms of any rules and regulati6ns Jrroslrictions governing the use of the lndustrial Center. Under no circumstanies shall the right herein granlBd to us€ the Gommon Areas'be deemed tc, includo th6
Le_ssor's dosignated agent, which consent.may be revoked al any time. ln the ev-ent that.any unaulhorizdd storage sh'all 'occur'then Lessor shall have the right,without notic€, in addition to.such clthor rights and reme<lies that ii may havo, lo remove the froperty and charge ihe cost to Lessee, wSich cost shall be immerJi-alely payabls upon demand by Lessor.
2.9 Common Areas*Hules and Hegulatlons. Lossor or such otlrer pors.or(s) as l-essor nray appoint shall have tho exclusivo control and fitanagemonlol tho Common Areas and shall^have lhs righl, lrom tim6 to lime, to establish, inodify, dmend and enltjrcd reasonable Rules anci nogulations wittr r:especiifroreto
tomors, contractors and lnvitees lo so abids and contorm. Lessor shall nol be resporrsible to Lessee for lho non-compliance uiith'saicl'rulbi and'n,giriations Oyothor lessoes ol tho lnduslrial Conler.
2.10 Common Arcae--Changos. l-oucor shall hrtvo tlru riglrt, lrr I ossor's r;olo tllscroliol, fr()ll tlrn() lo lilno:
.. (a) 'Io make changes lo the Common Areas, including, wilhout limitation, changes in the location, size, shape and numbor o, driveways, snlrances,parking spacos, parking areas, loading and unloading areas, ingress, egrsss, direction ol trafJic, lantlscaped areas, wattwiys and utility racoways;
(b) To closs temporarily any of the Common Areas for maintenanco purposos so long as roasonable access lo lhe Premises romains avaiiabrlo;
(c) To designate other land outsids ths boundaries of the lndustrial Contor to bs a part of tlre Commorr Areas;
(d) To add additional buildings and irnprovements to tho Common Areas;
. (e) To uss the Common Areas while engaged in making addilional improvements, ropairs or alteralions lo th6 lndustrial Cont6r, or any portion thorod;and
{l) To do and perform such olher acls and make such.other changes in, lo or with respsct to tho Common Areas and lndustrial Cenler as Lessor may,ln the exercise ol sound business judgment, deem to be appropriate.
3. Term,
3.1 Torm. The Commencement Date, Expiration Date and Original Term of this Lease are as specilied in Paragraph 1.3.
- 3.2 . E_arly Possesslon. ll an Early Possession Date is. specilied in Paragraph 1 ..1 a.!d if Lessee totally or partially occupies the Premises atter the EarlyPossession.Date bul prior lo the Commencoment Date,..lhe obligation to pay Base Aent shall be abaled tor th6 periocl ot ductr eirty oicupancy. Ail oiher terms ofthis Loase, however,.(including but not limited lo the obligalions to.pay Lesseo's Share of Common Area Operating Expenses ana io carr the'insurartce requiiedby Paragraph 8) shall be in eflect during such period. Any such early possession shall not atfect nor advancd the Eipiraiion Date ot tfre-Or:ifiiiral Terrn.
. ^ 3.3 Delay ln.Possession, ll for.any-reason Lessor cannol deliver possession of the Prernises to Lessee l)y the Early Possession Dale, ll ono is specilied
herein, be obligated to pay rent or perform any other obligation ol Lessee under the terms oi this Lease unlil Lessor delivers floislniion oi llre premises to
mences, il possession is.not tendered to Lessee when required by lhis Lease and-Lessee does nbt terminate thisiease, as atoresaid, the-perioct free of thd oblij-ation to.pay Base Rent, if any, that Lessee would otlreruviie havaenjoyecl shall run from lhe date of delivery oipossession and continue fora periocl equal to tlieperiod during which the Lessee would have othenrvise enjoyed undei the terms hereof, but minus any days'ol d'elay caused fry tf'" iCr., "hrng". or omissions ofl-essee.
4. Rent.
Period during the.lerm hereof which is for less lhan one lull rnoirlh shall be prorated basecl upon the actuil nlinrber of days of the monthlnv.lr;. p;;;;ffi;ib;;J
Rent and othor.charges shall be made to Lessor at ils address statet, herein or to such omdr persons or at iJih other addresses as L.essor may lrom lime to timedesignate in writing to Lessee.
4-2 Common Area Operallng Expenses._Lesseo shallpay lo Lossor_during lhe term hereol, in addilion to lho Base Rent, Lessee,s Sharo (as spocilied irrParagraph l'6(b)) of all Common Area oporating Expenses, as hereinafter defined, -during each calendar year of ltre terrn ol this l-ease, iri accordance with the fol-lowing provisions:
(a). "Common Area Operatlng Expenses" are defined, lor purposes of this Lease, as all costs incurred by Lessor relating to the ownership and oper-ation ot lhs lndustrial Center, including, but not limited to, lhe following:
(i) The operation, repair and mainlenance, in neat, clean, good order and condition, ol the follouring:
. (aa) The_Comp.o.l4*tt ln9$a!nO parking-areas, loading.and. unlgading areas, trash areas, roadways, sidewalks, walkways, parkways, drive-ways, l8ndscapod areas, striping, bumpsrs, irigalion systems, Common Area lighting laciliti6s, fences and gatos, elevators and roof.
(bb) Extorior signs and any tonant directories.
(cc) Fire deteclion and sprinklor systsms.
(ll) l'ho cosl o, walor, 0as, eloclrlclly and Irrlopllono lo sorvlctr llro Cornrrron Aroas.
(iii) Trash disposal, property managemenl and securily services and tho costs of any environrnental insp€clions.
(iv) Rsserves set aside lor maintenance and repair ol Common Areas.
(v) Any increase above lho Base Real Property Taxos (as delined in Paragraph 10.2(b)) tor the Building and the Common Areas.
(vi) Any "lnsurance Cost lncrease" (as defined in paragraph 8.1 ).
(vii) The cost of insurance carrisd by Lossor with rospocl lo tho Common Areas.
(viii)Any deductible portion ol an insured loss concerning lhe Building or the Common Areas.
(ix) Any other services to b€ provided by Lessor that are staled elsewhere in this Lease to be a Common Area Operaling Expense.
- . - (b) Any Common Arsa Operating Exponsos and Real Pfopsrty Taxos that are spocilically altributable to tho Building or to any othsr building in the
tonanc€ lhereof, shall be oquitably allocatod by Lessor to all buildings ln lhs lndustrlal Cent6r.
.(9) rye inclrlsi6n of the improveme.nts, facililies and services set forth in Subparagraph.4-.2(a) shall not be deomed to imposo an obligation upcrn
services, or Lessor has agroed elsewhero in this Loase to frovido lhe same or sorno of thsm.
(d) Lessee's Share ol Common Area Op-erating Expensos shall bo payable by l-essoe within len (10) days atter a reasonably detailed statement ofactual.elpenses is pres_ented.to L€ss6e by Lessor. At Lessor's'option, however, air amount rnay be estirnatedoi t-e6sor rroni tim. io tiinLil l""."u's Share ol
tl}l.^C-"jT-on Area_Operating Exp_ense's and.the satne shail be payable To.n!!ty or quarlerly, as t-eisoi shaiioesignate, auiinj iicir tz-montt period ol rheLoase term. on the same day as the. Base Renl is due hereunder. Lessor shall deliv-er to Lesseswithin sixty (60) days Sfter the expiration ot each calendar year ar€asonably-dstailedstatement showing Lessee's Share of the actual Common Area Operating Expenses inlJrrelj during the precoding year. l, Lossee,s paym€ntsundBr this Paragraph a.2(d) during said preceding year exceed Lessee's Share as indicated 6n siia staternJni, [""sor-stratt 'be creoit]eri the amount ot such over-
MULTI.TENANT-GROSS
@ American lndustrial Heal Estate Association tgg3 *2-
lnlllals:
payment against Lesseo's Share ol Common Area Operating Experrses nexl becoming due. ll Lessee's payments under lhis Paragraph 4.2(d) during said preced-
ing year wsre less lhan Losse6's Shars as indicated on said slat€milnt, Lessee shall pay to Lsssor the antount ot the deficioncy within tsn (10) days att€r delivery
by Lessor lo Lessee of sald stalement.
5. Securlty Deposlt. Lessee shall deposit with Lessor upon Lessee's execution hereol the Security Deposit set forth in Paragraph 1 .7 as security lor Lessee's
laithlul porformanco ol Lessoe's obligations undcr this Loase- lf Lessoo lails to pay Base Rent or olher ront or chargss duo hereundor, or othorwiso Dolaults unddr
this Lsase (as delined in Paragraph 13.1), Lessor may use, apply or retain all or any portion ol said Security Doposit lor lhe payment of any amount due Lessor or
to reimburss or compensale Lessor for any liability, cost, expense, loss or damago (including allorneys' fees) wlrich Lossor may sufler or incur by reason thereol. lf
Lessor uses or applies all or any portion of said Security Deposit, Lessee shall within ten (10) days after wrilten request thereforo deposit monies with Lessor su'ffi-
cient lo restore said Security Deposit to the lull amount required by this Lease. Any time the Base Rent increases during the lerm of this Lease, Lessee shall, upon
writlen requesl lrom Lessor, deposit additional monies with Lessor as an addition to the Security Deposit so that the lotrl amount of the Security Deposit shall ai all
times bear the same proportion to lhe then currenl Bas6 Bent as lhe initial Security Deposit bears to the initial Base Rent sot forth in Paragraph 1.5. Lessor shall
not be required to keep all or any part ol the Security Deposit separate from its general accounts. Lessor shall, at the expiration or earlier terminalion of the terrl
hereol and after Lesses has vacated tho Premises, rehrrn to l-essee (or, at Lessor's option, lo the last assignee, if any, of l-essee's inlerost hereir]), that porlion ol
be held ln trust, to bsar interest or olhel incremenl lor its use, or to bo prepaynlent for any monies to be paid by Lesseo undor this Leasb.
6. Use.
6.1 Pormltted ttse.
(a) Lessee shall use and occupy the Premises only for the Permitted Use set forth in Paragraph 1.8, or any other legal use which is reasonably conrpa-
Iable therelo, and for no other purpose. Lesseo shall not use or permit the use of the Premises in a manner lhat is unlawful, cleates waste or a nuisance, or that
disturbs owners and/or occupants ot, or causes damage to lhe Premises or neighboring premises or properlies.
(b) Lessor hereby agrees to not unreasonably withhold or delay its consent to any written request by Lessee, Lessee's assignees or subtenanls, and
by prospective assignees and subtenants of Lessee, its assignees and subtenanls, for a modilication of said Permitted Use, so long as lhe sarne will not impair tire
stltlctural.inlegrity of the improvements on the Premises or in the Building or the mechanical or electrical systems therein, does not conflict with uses by other
lessees, is not signi,icantly more burdensome to the Premises or the Building and the improvemenls thereon, and is otheMise permissible pursuanl to this
Paragraph 6. lf Lessor elecls lo withhold such consent, Lessor shall within five (5) business days aftfir such request give a wrilteri notification.of same, which
notice shall include an explanalion of Lessor's reasonable objections to the change in use.
6.2 HazatdousSubstances.
MULTI.TENANT--GROSS
@ American lndustrial Real Estate Associalion 1993
(a) Heportable Uses Hequlre Consent. The term "Hazardous Substance" as used in this Lease shall mean any product, substance, chernical,
or in combinalion with other materials expecled to be on the Premises, is either: (i) potentially injurious to the public heallh, safety or weltare, the environnrbnt, or
the.Premises; (ii) regulated or monitored by any governmental aulhority; or (iii) a basis lor potential liability of Lessor to any governmental agency or lhird party
under any applicable statute or conlmon law lheory. Hazardous Substance shall include, but not be limited to, hydrocarbons, pelroleum, gasoline, crude oil oi arry
products or by-products thereof. Lessee shall not engage in any activity in or about lhe Premises which conslitutes a Beportable Use (as hereina{ter detined) df
Hazardous Substancos without tho oxpress prior wrillon consent rif Lossor and conrpliance in a tirrely nrarrner (at Lessec's solo cost anrj Oxpense) with itll
customary materials reasonably required to be used by Lessee in the nornral course ol the Permitted Use, so long as such use is not a Reportable Use and does
may (but without any obligation to do so) condition its consent lo any Beportable llse o{ any Hazardous Substance by Lessee upon'l-essee's giving Lessor such
additional assurances as Lessor, in its reasonable discretion, deems necessary to protecl itsell, the public, the Premises and the environmenl against damage,
termination) ol reasonably necessary protective modilications lo lhe Premises (such as concrete encasemenls) and/or the deposit ol an additional Security Deposit
under Paragraph 5 hereof.
(b) Duly to lnlorm Lessor. ll Lessee knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that a Hazardous Substance lras conte to be locate(l in, on, under cir
about the Premises or lhe Building, olher than as previously consenled to by l-essor, l-essee shall immediately give [-essor written notice thereof, together with a
msntal authority or privale parly concerning the presence, spill, release, discharge ol, or exposure to, such l-lazardous Substance including but not limited lo all
su.ch documents as may be involved in any Fleportable Use involving the Premises. Lessee shall not cause or permlt any llazarclous Subslance to be spillecl or
released in, on, under or about the Premises (including, without limilation, through the plumbing or sanitary sewei system).
(c) lndemniflcatlon. Lessee shall indemnify, protect, delend and hold Lessor, its agenls, enrployees, lenders anrl ground lessor, if any, and the
sultants' lees arising out ol or involving any l'lazardous Substance brought onto the Prenrises rry or for Lessee or by anyone uncler t-essee's contr-ol. Lessee's
ment entered into.by Lessor and Lessee shall release Lessee from its obligations under this Lease with respect to llazardous Substances, unless specificaiiy so
agreed by Lessor in writing at lhe time of such agreement.
..- 6r.3 ..Lessee's Compllancewith Requlremenls. Lessee shall, at l-essee's sole cost ancl expense, fully, diligenlly and in a timely nlanner, comply with lill
failure by Lessee or the Premises to comply with any Applicable Requirements.
6.4. lnspectlon; Compllance with Law. Lessor, Lessor's agents, employees, contractors and designated represenratrves, ancl the hokjers of any mort-
gages, deeds ol.lrust or ground leases on the Premises ("Lenders") shall have the right to enter the Premises ai any lime in the case o[ an emergency, and othep
wise at reasonable times, for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the Premises and lor veritying compliancsby Lessee with this Lease a;d aii Applicabte
Requirements (as delined in Paragraph 6.3), and Lessor shall be entitled to employ experts and/or constiltarrls in connection therewittr to a(lvise Lesdor with
on or from tlre Premises. The costs and expenses of any such inspections shall be paid by the party requesting same, unless a Default or Breach of this Lease try
Lessee or a violation of Applicable Requirernents or a conlamination, caused or materially conliibuierj tb by Lessee, is founrl lo exist or lo be imntinent, or unlesltheinspection ls requested or.ordered by a governnrenlal authority as ths result of any such existing or imminenl violation or contamination. ln such case, Lessee
shall upon request reimburse Lessor or Lessor's Lender, as the case may be, for the costs and expehses ol such inspeclions.
7. Malntenance, Repalrs, Utillty lnstallatlons, Trade Fixtures and Alterations.
7.1 Lessee'sObllgatlons.
. (a) S_ubject to the provisions of. Paragraphs 2.2 (Condition), 2.3 (Compliance with Covenants, Restrictions and Building Code),7.2 (Lessor's
Obligations), I (Damage or Destruction), and 14 (Condemnalion), Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole cost and expense and at all times, keep t-he Premises and everyparl.thereof in good order, condition.and repair (whether or nol such portion ol the Premises requiring repail or tho means of repairing th6 same, are reasonably 6r
readlly accessible to Lessee, and whelher or not the need for such repairs occurs as a result oi Lessee's use. any prior use, ttie eleirenls or lhe age of such [or-
pursuant to Paragraph 7.2 below. Lessee, in keeping the Prernises in goot.l order, condition and repair, shall eierciSe and perfornt goocl nraintenanc6 practices.
Lessee's obligalions shall include restorations, replaCemenls or renewals when necessary to keep tlte Frremises and all impioventent! thereon or a part ihereol ingood order, condition and slate ol repair.
(b) Lessee shall, at Lessee's sole cost anct expenso, procure and mainlain a conlract, wirh Sopies to l.essor, in customary form and srlbstance for andwith a conlraclor specializing and experienced in tho inspection, mainlenance and service o, the heating, air conditioning and ventilaiion systent {or the premises.
However, Lessor reserves ths right, upon notico to Lessee, to proclrre and nraintain lhe contract for tlie heating, air co-nditioning and ventilating systems, and il
Lessor so €lects, Lossee shall roimburso Lessor, upon demand, ,or llto cost thersof.
_ (c) ll Lossee fails.to porlorm Lossoe's obligations under this Paragraph 7.1, L.essor may enter upon the Prenrises after ten (10) days'prior writterr
notice to Lessee. (except in .the case of an emergency, in which case no notice shall be required), perform such obligations on Lessed's 'belrilf, 'and put tnePremises in good order, condition and repair, in accordance with Paragraph i 3.2 below.
7.2 -Lesg_or's Obllgatlons. Subiect to the provisions of Paragraphs 2.2 (Condition), 2.3 (Compliance with Cov€nants, Restrictions and Building Code), 4.2(Common Area Operating Expenses),6 (Use),7.i (Lessee's Obligaiions),9 (Dhmage or'Destructiori) and 14 (Condemnalion), Lessor, subject to reiirburseinelt
fire sprinkler and/or standpipe and hose (if located in the Common Arbas) or other autonlatic lire exlinguishing system including fire alarm ani/or smoko detectiori
*3*
lnltlals:
syslsms and oquipmant firo hydranls, parking lols, walkways, parkways, driveways, landscaping, fences, si13ns artd utility systems sorving the oomniorr Areas anrlall parts thereol, as well as pr6viding the servlces ior wnich thire is atommon irea operalffi;;;il #rsirint to.paragraph 4.2. t-essor shal not be obliuatod
7,3 Utlllty lnltsllatlono, Trado Flxturos, Allorellons"
(a) Deflnltlons; Consent Hequlred. Tha term "Utllity lnslsllations" is used in this l-easo to referto all air lines, power panels, electrical distribr]tion,
made by Lessee that are not yet.ownerl ty Lessor pursuant to.Paragrapli 7.+1a1. t-eiu5" si,ali not'niar": nor cause to be made any Alieratiofls or Ulility
tive cost thereol during the term of this Lease as extende'd does ri'ot exC6eo oi,sdo.oo.
(b) Consent' Any Alteralions or Utility lnstallations that Lessee shall desire lo make ancl which require tlre consent of the Lessor shall be prcsentrjd to
be done in a good and workmanlike manner,'with qood antj srttici"nt rai"iiiir, ,ro ue in comptiinde wiin'ar Applicable Ftequirenients. Lessee s1a1 prorirptly
and one-half times the €stimated cost ol such Alteraiion or utitiry tnstitriiion. ----
(c) Llen Protectlon. Lessee shall pay when due all claims lor labor or materials lurnished or alleged ro have been furnished to or for Lessee at or foruse on lhe Premises, which claims are or may be secured by any mechandb;r ili;;i;;;.;; ti;;6ui,;i'iil pr*rnis", or any intereslherein. Lessee shal giveLessor not less than ten (10) clays' notice pridr to the comm6nceinent of anrwork in, on, oi iooui l# p;;;i;;s, and Lessorsliall trive'tiie right to post noticils ot
to Lessor in an amount equal to one and one-ha-lt tirnes the a*ount oisrcn
"oni"stu,t
lien clalni "r ir"*"rd, ioernnifying Lessor against liability for the same, asrequired by law lor the holding oi the Premises free lrom the etfect ol suctr tien oicraim. rn aoaiiion, iusoi iluy require Lessee to pay Lessor,s allorneys,fees andco$ts in participating in such action il Lessorshall decide it is to its beslinterestio'Oo so. --- -- '
7.4 Ownershlp, Removal, Surrender, and Restoratlon.
(a) Ownershlp' Subjecl to Lessor's riohl lo require thoir renroval and ro cause Lessee to becorne the owner lhereof as hereinafrer provirled irr this
earlier lerminalion of lhis Lease, become the proferty of less6r dna reri'iln ,pin'the premises anJ u" iiiir"nl"r"d wilh the premises by Lessee.
(b) Bemoval, unless otherwise agreed in writing,.Lessor may require.thal any or all Lessee-owned Alterations or Utilily lnslallatiotls bo rernovetl by
any time of all or any part of any Alteralions or Utility lnstallationimade *itr,orl-tn" required;ilert;i aeii;;
(c) $urrender/Hestoratlon, Lessee shall sunender lhe Prernises by the end of the last d6y of lhe Lease term or any earlier termination date, clc,n
ground water contaminalod by Lessee, all as may tiren.bo-requiroo oi applitatrr" Beqi;refi;G ;d,,;;;;e practico. Lessee,s Trarje Fixrures shail remain rhepropertv ol Lessee and shall be removed by Less5e subject to iis onrigitiofiio repii, ano r"sioie-th; p;;;il;;"r this Lease.8. lnsurance;lndemnlty.
8.1 Payment ol premlum lncreases.
required to be carried bv Lessor pursuant to Paragraphs a.ziui, g.3rai i.o gi(;i l"hequireii lnsu;;;;';i, -ovor
and above rhe Base premiurn, as hereinailer
(b) Lessee shall pay any lnsurance cost lncrease. to.Lessor pursuant to-Paragraph 4.2. Premiums for policy periods commencing prior lo, o[ extendirgbeyond,thetermofthisLeadeinal[oeproratedtocoincioJwiiith;;;,5;pili;g"ioin,Tieil;,i",jtrjii",Ji'E*piration.Date.
8.2 Llabllltylnsurance.
(a) carrled by Lessee' Lessee strall obtain ancj keep in force during the lL'rm of this Lease a commercial G.eneral Liability policy of insurance protrrrlt,ing Lessee' Lessor and any Lende(s) whose names have beeir proviaeJio Ltsiee in writing 1ar "aJri""ii insureds) against clairnd tor'bodity injury, personatinjury and property damag6. baserJ ufon, involving or aiising-o-ut;itli;;;";rhp, use, occripincy or mainlenance oi thl prenrises and a1 areas appunen,int
lnsured-Managers or Lessors of Premises" endorsement ind cont-ain tfie'nmenaineniof the pollution E;ar;t;" endorsement for clanrage causec, by heat, srn(,I(eor fumes from a hostile fire' The policy shall nol conlain any inlra-insurecr exctJsions,as between i;i;;Jil;;;^r or organizations, bur s1a1 irrclude coverage for
required by this Lease or as carried by Lessee shall not, t'o*ev.r,lifrii tne riioiiitv or Lessee nor retieie-[eiiee of any obligation hereunder. Ag insurance ro trecarried by Lessee shall be primary to and not conlributory with any similar insura'rrce carried uv r-osioi *iii-" in"urun"e shall be considered excoss insuraricsonly.
(b) carrled by Lessor. Lessor shall also maintain liability insurance described in.P_aragraph 8.2(a) above, in arJdition to and not in lieu ol, the insur-ance required to be maintain€d by Lessee. Lessee shall not tio nanreil as arr addilit-ural insurutl llrcruin.8.3 Property lnsurance-Bullding, lmprovemenls and Rental Value.
(a) Bulldlng and lmprovements. Lessor sha.ll obtain and keep in force^during the term of this Lease.a.policy or policies in the name of Lessor, withloss payable lo Lessor and to an! Lende(s), insuring against lo;i oi Jarifi" ioii u"nr.nriies. sJctr insurii,ce sirarr ba lor full replacenrent cost, as the s.me s'allexist trom time to time, or the amount req'uiied by a"ny lende(sl, ourin nd&eni more tnanii,;;;;;;;ti; r'easonabte ano arairar:le iiir*aut" vatue .rereot if,
an increase in the annual Droqgly insurinco corerige inrount by a tacnor or'noi Lss than the adiusted U.s. Departnrent of Labor consumer price rndox lor A,tjrban consumers ror rhe iity heaiest to wh.'re the piemisos are rocarod.
(b) Henlal Value' Lossor shall also obtain and koop in lorce cluring tho tcrm of lhis Lease a policy or policios in the name ol Lessor, with loss payat;lt:
Lease is lerminalod bv reasol ol an.insured loss, ttro perirrciol iirdomnity Ior sticli coverage slrall be extendld beyond tho ctate 6tii,e completion o{ rupairs or
provision in lieu ol any co-insurdnce clause, and th6 amount of "or"iag" "1lult
o, i.ti,pt'u-.] i"*Jii t" ,dir*,i-riie project.g rental income, Reat property Taxes,
(c) Adlscent Premlses' Lessee shall pay for any increase in the premiums lor lhe property insurance ot the Building and for the common Areas orolher buildings in the lndustrial center if said incredsd is caus'ed by Lessee's aiis, omission", ,;"'o;;;;ird;n"yti 1'," premises.
MULTI-TENANT4ROSS
@ American lndustrial Fleal Eslate Associalion 1993 I
lnltlals: _-..-
(d) Lessee's lmprovements. Since Lessor is tho lnsuring Party, Lessor shall not be required to insure Lessee-Owned Alterations and Utility
lnslallations unloss lhe item in quostion has become ths property ol Lessor under ltre lenns ol lhis Lease.
8.4 Lessee's Property lnsurance. Subject to the requirements ol Paragraph 8.5, Lessee at itg cost shall either by separate policy or, at Lessor's oplion,
by endorsement to a policy already carried, maintain insurance covorago on all of Lesseo's personal propErty, liade Fixtures and Lessee-Owned Alterations and
Utility lnstallations in, on, or about th6 Premises similar in coverage to lhat carried by Lessor as the lnsuring Party under Paragraph 8.3(a). Such insurance shall be
Iull replacement cost coverage wilh a deductible nol to exceed $1,000 per occurrence. The proceeds lrorn any such insurance shall be used by Lesseo for the
replacement ol personal property and the resloration ol Trad6 Fixtures and Lessee-Owned Alterations and Utility lnstallations. Upon request trorn Lessor, Lessee
shall provide Lessor with written svidence that such insurance is in force.
8"5 Insurance Pollcles. lnsurancs required hereunder shall be in cornpanies duly licensed lo transact business in the state where the Premises are locat-
ed, and maintaining during the policy term a "General Policyholders tlating" ol at leasl B{-, V, or such olher raling as may be required by a Lender, as set lorlh in
fied copies ol, or certificates evidencing the existence and amounls of, the insurance required under Para0raph 8.2(a) and 8.4. No such policy shall be cancelable
nish Lessor with evidence ol renewals or "insurance binders" evidencing renewal thereof, or Lessor may order such insurance and charge the cost lhereof to
Lessee, which amount shall be payable by Lessee to Lessor upon demand.
8.6 Walver ot Siubrogation. Without affecting any other rights or remedies, Lessee and Lessor each hereby release and relieve lhe other, and waive lheir
enlire riEht to recovel damages (whether in contracl or in tort) against the other, for loss or damage 10 their property arising out ol or incidenl to the perils requrred
lo be insured against under Paragraph B. The effect ol such releases and waivers of the righl to recover damages shall not be limited by the amount ol insurance
carried or required, or by any deductibles applicable lhereto. Lessor and Lessee agree to have their respeclive insuranoe companies issuing propefly damage
insurance waive any right lo subrogation that such companies may have against Lessor or Lessee, as lhe case may be, so long as lhe insurance is not invalidated
thereby.
8.7 lndemnlty. Except for Lessor's negligence and/or breach of express warranties, Lessee shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the
Premises, Lessor and its agents, Lessor's master or ground lessor, parlnels and Lenders, from and againsl any and all claims, loss ol rents and/or damages,
occupancy of the Premises by Lessee, the conduct ol Lessee's business, any act, omission or neglect of l-essee, its agents, conlraclors, employees or invitees,
and out ol any Default or Breach by Lessee in the perlormance in a timely manner of any obligation on Lessee's part to be performerj under tltis Lease. The fore-
going shall include, but not be limited to, the delense or pursuit of any claim or any action or proceeding involved therein, and whether or not (in the case ol clairns
made against Lessor) litigated and/or reduced to.iudgment. ln case any action or proceeding be brought againsl Lessor by reason of any of the foregoing mattors,
Lesseo upon notice from Lessor shall derend the same at Lessee's expense by counsel reasonably satisractory to Lessor and Lessor shall cooperate with Lessee
in such delense. Lessor need not have lirst paid any such claim in order to be so indemnified.
8.8 Exemption of Lessor from Liability. Lessor shall not be liable lor injury or damage to lhe person or goods, wares, merchandise or other properly ol
Lesses, Lessee's employees, contractors, invitees, cuslomers, or any otlrer person in or about the Premises, whelher such damage or injury is caused by or
the lailure by Lessor to enforce tho provisions of any other lease in the lndustrial Center. Nolwithslanding Lessor's negligence or breach of llris Lease, Lessor shall
under no circumstances be liable for injury to l.essee's business or lor any loss ol income or profit lherefrom.
S. Damage or Destructlon.
9.1 Deflnltions.
(a) "Premlses Partlal D&mage" shall mean damage or destruction to the Premises, other than Lessee-Owned Alterations and Utility lnstallations, the
rspair cost ol which damage or destruction is less than filty percent (50%) of the then Replacernent Cost (as defined in Paragraph 9.1(d)) of the Premises (exclud-
ing Lessee-Owned Alterations and Utility lnslallations and Trade Fixtures) immedialely prior to such damage or destruction.
(b) "premises Total Oestruclion" shall mean damage or destruction to the Premises, other than l-essee-Owned Alterations and Utility lnstallations,
the repair cost of which damage or destruclion is fifty percent (50%) or nrore ol lhe then Fleplacement Cost ol the Premises (excluding Lessee-Owned Allerations
Owned Allerations and L,tility lnstallations and Trade Fixlures ot any lessees ol the Building, the cost of which damage or destruclion is lifty lrercent (50%) or niore
ol the then Replacement Cost (excluding Lessee-Owned Alterations and Utility lnstallations and Trade Fixlures of any lessees ol the Building) o, the Builcling slrall,
at the oplion of Lessor, be deemed to be Premises Total Destt'uction.
(c) "lnsured Loss" shall mean damage or destruction to the Premises, other than Lessee-Owned Alterations and Utility lnstallations and Trade
Fixtures, which was caused by an event required lo be covered by the insurance described in Paragraph 8.3(a) irrespective of any deductible anlounts or coverage
limils involved.
(d) "Replacement Cost" shall mean lhe cost to repair or rebuild lhe improvemenls owned by Lessor at the time ol lhe occurrence to their conditiotr
existing immediately prior thereto, including demolition, debris removal and upgrading required by the operation of applicable building codes, ordinances or laws,
and without deduction lor depreciation.
(o) "Hazardous Substance Condltlon" shall mean lhe occurrence or discovery of a conrlition involving lhe presonco of, or a conlanlination by, a
tlazardous Substance as de{ined in Paragraptr 6.2(a), in, on, or under the Premist.rs.
in full force and erfect. ln lhe event, however, lhat there is a shortage of insurance proceeds and sucl.r shortage is due to the fact lhat, by reason ol the uniilue
nature of the improvements in lhe Premises, full replacement cost insurance coverage was nol cornmercially reasonable and availabte, Lessor shall have no obiig-
ation to pay for lhe shortage in insurance proceeds or lo lully restore the unique aspects of the Premises unless Lessee provides Lessor with the funcis to cover
and effect. ll Lessor does not receive such funds or assurance within said period, Lessor nray nevertheless elect by writlen notice to L.essee within ten (10) cirys
irt fttll force and effect. ll Lessor does not receive such funds or assurance witlrirr such ten (10) day period, and if Lessor does not so elect to restore and repair,
then this Lease shall terminate sixty (60) days following lhe occurrence ol the damage or destruclion. Uflless otherwise agreed, Lessee shall in no event have any
righl to reimbursement from Lessor lor any funds contributed by Lessee to repair any such damage or destructiolr. Prernises Partial Damage due to flood or eartlr-
quake shall be subiect to Paragraph 9.3 rather than Paragraph 9.2, notwithstanding that there may be some insurance coverage, but the net proceecJs of any such
insurance shall be made available for the repairs if made by either Party.
. 9.3 Partial Damage-Uninsured Loss. ll Premises Panial Damage that is not an lnsured Loss occurs, unless caused by a negligent or willful aci ol
Lessee- (in wttich event l-essee shall make the repairs at Lessee's expense and this Lease shall continue in hrll force and effect), Lessor rnay at Lessor's option,
either (i) repair such damage as soon as reasonably possible at Lessor's expense, in which event this Lease shall continue in lull force ancl eifect, or (ii) givd writ-
ton notice to Lessee within lhirly (30) days after receipt by Lessor of knowledge of the occurrence of such darnage ol Lessor's desire to terminate this l.base as of
the date sixty (60) days lollowing the date o, such notice. ln the evenl Lessor elecls to give such notice ol Lessor's intention lo terminate this Lease, Lessee strall
have the right withln ten (10) days alter lh€ receipt of such nolice to give written notice to l.essor o{ Lessee's commitmenl to pay for the repair of such clamage
totally at Lessee's expense and without reimbursement from Lessor. Lessee shall provide Lessor with the required funds or saiisiactory assurance thereof witliin
thirty (30) days following such commitment frorn Lessee. ln such event this Lease shall conlinue in full force and ettect, and Lessor shall proceecl to make srrclr
repairs as soon as reasonably possible alter lhe required tunds are available. lf Lessee does not give such notice and provide the funcls or assurance thereot with-
in the limes specified above, lhis Lease shall terminale as ol the date specilied in Lessor's nolice of termination.
9.4 Total Deslructlon. Notwithslanding any olher provision hereof, il Prernises Total Destruclion occurs (includirrg any deslruction required by any autho-
havo tho right to recover Lessor's damages from Lessee excepl as roleased and waived in Paragraplr g.7.
9.5 Damage Near End of Term. lf at any time during the last six (6) months of the terrn ol lhis Lease there is damage lor which the cost to reirair
exceeds one month's Base Rent, whether or not an lnsured Loss, Lessor may, at Lessor's option, terminate this Lease efleclive sixty (60) rlays following the date
ol occurrence of such damage by giving writlen notice lo L.essee of L.essor's eleclion to do so within thirly (30) days alter the date of occurrerice of such-danrage.
(a)_oxercisingsuch oplion, and (b) providing Lossor witll any shortage in insurance proceeds (or adeqlrato assuranca thereof) needed to ntake llre repairs orr or
cover any shortage in insurance proceeds, Lossor shall, at Lessor's expenso ropair suclr damage as soon as reasonably posslblo and lhis Lease slrall continuo in
full lorce and eftect. lf Lessee lails to exercise such option and provide suclr funds or assuranco during such period, then this Lease shall terminate as ot the date
set lorth in the firsl senlence o, this Paragraph 9.5.
9.6 Abatomont of Rent; Lesaee'8 Remedlos.
(a) ln the evont of (i) Premises Partial Darnage or (ii) Hazardous Substanco Condition for wltich Lessee is not legally responsible, the Base Bt;nt,
diation or resloration continues, shall be abated in proportion to the degree to which Lessee's use of lhe Premises is impaired, buthot in excess ol proceeds lrorn
insurance required to be carried under Paragraph 8.3(b). Except for abatement of Elase Flent, Conrmon Area Operating Expenses and other charges, it any, as
atoresaid, all other obligations of Lessee hereunder shall be performed by Lesse€, and Lessee shall have no claim againat Lessor tor any damage srttered by rea-
son of any such damage, destruction, repair, remediation or restoration.
tnlilals:
MULTI.TENANT-€ROSS
@ American lndustrial Real Estate Association 1993 -5-*
(b) lf Lessor shall b6 obligated to repair or rastore the Premises under lhe provisions ol this Paragraph 9 and slrall not common(,e, in a substantial and
on a dat€ not lels than sixly (60) diys following the giving of such notice.'lf Lessse gives such notice lo Lessor and such l.erlders and such repair or restoratiorl is
al work on the Prernises, whichever occurs tirsl.
9.7 Hazardous Substance Gondltlons. ll a Hazardous Substance Condition occurs, unless Lessee is legally responsible therelor (in wirich case Lessee
shall make the investigation and romediation thereol required by Applicable Boquirernents and this Lease shall conlinue in full lorce and effeut, but subject to
Lessor's rights underParagraph 6.2(c) ancl Paragraplr 13), Lessor may at Lessor's option ei{her (i) invsstigato and remediate such l-lazardous Substanco
Condition, if required, as soon as reasonably posslblo at Lessor's expense, in which ovent this Lease shall conliilue in full lorce and effecl, or (ii) if the eslimated
cost to invesligats and remediate such condition exceeds twelve (12) times the then lflonthly Base llont or $100,000 whichever is gleater, Oive wriiton notice to
Lsaso as ol the date sixty (60) days lollowing th€ date ol such nolice. ln the event Lessor elects to give such notice ol Lessor's intention lo terminate this Lease,
Lessee shall havo the right wilhin ten (10) days after the receipt of such nollce lo give written notice lo Lessor ol l.essee's commitment to pay for the excess costs
of (a) investigalion and remedialion ol such llazardous Subslance Condition to the extent required by Applicable Requirements, over (b) an amount equal to
twelvo (12) times the then monthly Base Henl or $100,000, whichever is greater. Lessee shall provide Lessor with the funds required o, Lessee or satisfactory
assurance thereof within thirty (30) days lollowing said commitment by Lessee. ln such event this Lease shall coniinue in full force and effect, and Lessor shall pio-
c€sd to mako such investigation and remediation as soon as reasonably possible after the required funds are available. lf Lessee does not give such notice and
provids tho required lunds or assurance thoreof within tho time period specified above, this Lease shall terminate as ol the date specified in Lessor's nolico ol l0r-
mination.
9.8 Termlnatlon--Advonce Payments. ljpon lermination of this Lease pursuant to this Paragraph g, l-essor shall return to Lessee any advance payment
made by Lessee to Lessor and so much of Lessee's Security Deposit as has not been, or is not then required to bo, used by Lessor under the terms of this Leas6.
9.9 Walver ol Statutes. Lessor and Lessee agree that the terms ol this Lease shall govern the pflect of any damage to or destruction of the Premises and
the Building with respect to the termination of this Lease and hereby waive the provisions of any presenfor tuture statute to the extent it is inconsistent herewith.
10. Real Property Taxes.
10.1 Payment ol Taxes. Lessor shall pay the Real Property'laxes, as delined in Paragraph 10.2(a), applicable lo lhe lndustrial Center, arrd oxcept as oth-
Oporatlng Exponsos ln accordancs wlllr the provlslons ol Paragraph 4-2.
10.2 Real Propefiy Tox Deflnltlons.
(a) As used herein, the term "Real Property Taxes" shall include any form ol real estate tax or assessment, general, special, ordinary or exlraordi-
nary and any license fee, commercial rental lax, improvemenl bond or bonds, levy or tax (other than inheritance, personal income or estate taxes) imposed upon
lion, amsndment oI transler thereol, and whsther or not contemplaled by the Partios.
(b) As used herein, the term "Base Real Property Taxes" shall be the amount of Fleal Property 1axes, which are assessed against the Premises,
Building or Common Areas in the calendar year during which the Lease is executed" ln calculating Real Property 'laxes for any calendar year, tl]e Real Property
Taxes lor any real estate tax year shall be included in the calculation ol Real Property Taxes for such calendar year based upon the number ol days rvhich such
calendar year and lax year have in common.
10.3 Additional lmprovements. Common Area Operating Expenses shall not include Beal Properly "[axer; specified in the tax assessor's records and work
sheets as being caused by additional improvements placed upon lhe lndustrial Center by other lessees or by l-essor for the exclusive enjoynrent of such otlier
lessees. Nolwithstanding Paragraph 10.1 hereol, Lessee shall, however, pay to Lessor al the time Common Area Operating Expenses are payable undor'
Paragraph 4.2, the entirety of any increase in Real Property Taxes il assessed solely by reason of Allerations, Trade Fixlures or Utility lnstallations placed upon the
Premises by Lossoo or at Lessee's requost.
10.4 Jolnt Assessmenl, lf the Building is not separately assessed, Real Properly Taxes allocated to the Building shall be an equitable proportion of rhe
Fleal Property Thxes lor all of the land and improvements included within the tax parcel assessed, such proportion to be deterrnined by Lessor front the respective
valuations assigned in the assessor's work sheets or such other intorrnalion as may be reasonably available. Lessor's reasonable determination thereof, in [JOodlaith, shall be conclusive.
assessed and billed separately from the real property of Lessor. lf any of Lessee's said property shall be assessed with L.essor's real property, Lessee sliall pay
clganing of lhe Premises, togelher with any laxes thereon. ll any such utililies or services are not separately metered lo the Premises dr separately billed to the
Premises, Lessee shall pay to Lessor a reasonablo proportion to be determined try Lessor of all such charges jointly metered or billed with other premises in ihe
Building, in ths manner and within the tinre poriods sot forth in Paragraph 4.2(d).
12. Asslgnment and Sublettlng.
12."1 Lessor's Consent Requlred.
(a) Lessee shall not voluntarily or by operation ol law assign, transler, morlgage or otherwise transler or encunrber (collectively, "assi0n") or sublet all
or any part of Lessee's inlerest in lhis Lease or in the Premises withoul l-essor's prior written conserl given under arrd subject to the tern]s ol Paragraph 36.
(b) A change in the control ol Lessee shall constihrte an assignment requiring Lessor's consent. I'he k-ansfer, on a cumulalive basis, ot twenty-tive per.
cent (25%) or more of the voting control of Lessee shall conslitule a change in conlrol {or this purpose.
(c) The involvement of Lessee or its assets in any transaction, or series ot transactions (by way of merger, sale, acquisition, financing, refinancing,
transfer, leveraged buy-out or otherwise), whether or not a forrnal assignment or hypothecation of this Lease crr Lessee's assets occurs, which resulG or will result
in a reduction of the Net Worth ol Lessee, as hereinafter defined, by an amount equal to or oreater than twenty-five percent (25%) of such Net Worlh ol l-essee as
it was represented to Lessor at the tinle of full execution and delivery ol this Lease or at the time ol the most recent asslgnorenl lo which Lessor has consented, or
considered an qssignment of lhis Lease by.Lessee to whicfr Lessor nray reasonably witlrhold its cclnsenl. "Net Worth of Lessee" for purposes of
-ihis
I ease slrall
be the net wonh ol Lessee (excluding any Guarantors) established urrder generally accepted accounting principles consistently applied.
_ _ (d) An assignment or subletting ol Lessee's interest in this Lease witliout Lessor's specific prior written consent shall, at Lessor's option, be a Delault
mined by Lessor,.or.one hundred len percenl (110%) ol the Elase Flenl then in effect. Pending determination ol tlre new lair rnarket rental value, il dispirtert fy
Lessee, Lessee shall pay.the amount set lorth in Lessor's Notice, with any overpayrnent crediled against lhe next installment(s) ol Base Rent coming duc, ancl ani
event ol such Breach and rental adjustment, (i) lhe purchaso price of any option to purchase the Premises held byLessee shall be subject to siniilar adjustmenl to
the then lair market value as_reasonably determined by Lessol (wilhout tlre Lease being considered an encumbrahce or any deduction ior depreciation br obsoles-
same ratio as the new rental bears to the Base Rent in etfect irnmediately prior to the ad.iustment specified in Lessor's Notice.
(e) Lessee's remedy for any breactr ol this Paragraph 12.1 by Lessor shall bo limilsd to compensatory damages and/or injunctive reliel.
12.2 Terms and Condltlons Appllcable to Asslgnmert and Sublettlng. i
. . (91 Flegardloss ol Lessor's consent,.any assignmenl or srrbl€lling slrall not (i) be elfectivo withouf lhe oxpress writton assumption by s;uch assigneg orsublessee o, tle obligations of Lessee under this Loase, (ii) release Lessee of any obligations hereundor, nor (iii) aitor lho prinrary liabiiity of Lessee for tfe pay-
ment ol Base Ronl and other sums due Lessor hereunder or for the perfornrance of any other obligations to be p'eriornred by'Lesseir under'this Lease.
(!) Lessor may accept any renl or performance of Lessee's obligations frorn any person other than Lesseo penrJing approval or rlisapproval o{ an
ol Lessor's right to oxsrcise its retnedies for the Delault or Elreach by Lessee of any of lhe ldrrrs, covenants or coriditions of this Lease.
(c) The consent of Lessor to any assignment or subletting shall not constitute a consent to any subsequent assignment or subletting by Lessee or toany subsequent or successive assignment or subletling by the assignee or sublessee. l]owever, Lessor nr'ay cons6nt to subiequent sublettings-ani assignmertts
ol lhe subloase or any amendmsnts or modilicatlons ther€lo wilhout nolifying Loss€e or anyone elso liable uhd€r this L6ase or ths sublsaso aid without o'btainingth€ir consenl, and such action shall not r6liev6 such persons lrom liability undor this Lease 6r lho subleaso.
MULTI.TENANT-GROSS
tO American lndustrial R€al Estate Association 1993 -6*
lnltlals:
(d) ln the Evenl of any Delault or Breach ol Less.ee',s. obligalion under this Lease, Lessor may proceed clireclly against Lessee, any Guarantors or any-
any other person or entity reiponsible therefor to Lessor, or any security held by Lessor'
(e) Each request ,or consent to an assignment or subletting shall.bo in writing, accompanied by information relevant to Lessor's delermination as to the
linancial and operational responsibility and appropriatenus or il*'pioirJseo asslonee di rruGriur, inchiding but rtot limiled to the inlended use atrd/or reqtrired
modification ol the premises, il any, togerher with a noniJ,,na"rr-rJ.rJpo"it ol $.1:000 or ten p"rc"t,li (10%) o-l,lhe nronthly Base.Bont applicablo to the podion ol
thg premisss which is rne srioiect'diin"e proposeo a"rlgn;;ni;isuut'"r.", whic'hever is grdaler, as'reas6nable consideralion for Lessor's considering and pro-
cessing th6 roquesl for consent. Lassee agrees to provicte Lessor with such other o[ additio-nal informalion and/or docunrentation as may be reasonalrly requested
by Lessor.
(t) Any ass(1noe ol, or sut)lossoo undor, this l..oaso shall, bry roason ol acceplino such assignment or entering into such sttblease, be deemed, lor lhe
or suUeale to which Leisor has specilically consented in writing
(g) Tho occurrsnce of a transaction described in paragraph. l2.2(c) shall give.Lessor the right (but not the obligation) to require that the securily
Deposit be increased by an amount equal to six (61 timeJihe'il "n-,fi#ttrv
atie Rdi; ind Le.sor may m-akeihe actual receipl by Lessor of the security Deposit
inciease a condition to Lessor's consent to such transaclion'
(h) Lessor, as a condilion to giving ils consent to any assignment or..subletting, may require that the amount and ad.iuslment schedule ol tho rent
payable under this Lease be adjusterl to what is rnen tni'mir[eivitue"anolor aaluitrnenticnedule dor property similar to the Premises as lhen conslituted, as
determined by Lessor.
12.3 Addltlonal Terms and condlilons Appilcahte to subletttng. Tho lollowing tenns and conditions shall apply lq any. subletting by Lessee ol all or any
part oiine ireriies and striil uJaeemea includeb'in att sJnieases uncleithis Lease whether or not expressly incorporated therein:
(a) Lessee hereby assigns and translers to.Lessor all ol Lessee's interest in all rentals ancl income arising ,rom any sublease of all or a portion ol the
premises heretofore or herealter rna6e by Lessee, and Lessor rnay corlect such.reniind income and apply sarne loward Lessee's obligations uncier this Lease;
any other assignment or ,r.i-' iiur"iru ro L"iioi no.uy-rea's,in oitne collection 6r tn"i"nG from a sublessee, be deemed liable to the sublessee for any lailure of
Lessee to perform and comply with any of Lessee's oorig;Lns to such sublessee under such sublease. Lessee hereby irrevocatrly aulhorizes arrd directs any
such sublessee, upon receipt ol a written notice lrom relsriitaiins that a Breach.exists in the_ performance of Lessee's obligations under this Lease, to pay to
Lessor the rents and other charges due and to become iru ,n.rui tfr" rubte"se. sublessee shall 'rely uqon any such stalemeniancl request from Lessor and shall
pay such renls and other charges to Lessor withorr uny ot rigurion o, iignt to inquire as io wnefter suth'Breacti exists and notwithstandlng any nolice trom or clainr
lrom Lessee to the contrary. Lessee shall have no rigr't ;i'Elaim'again"sr such Lublessee, or, until the Breach has been cured, against Lessor, for any such renls
and other charges so paid by said sublessee to Lessor.
(tD ln tho ovent of a Breach by Lessee in the pertormance of its obligations under this Lease, Lessor, at ils option and without any obligation to do so,
lesseo to such sublessor o, ioi dn-y ottt", prior defaults or breacl res ol such sublessor ut tdet strclt sttblcase'
(c) Any matter or thing requiring the consent of the sublessor under a sublease shall also require the consent of Lessor herein'
(d) No sublessee under a sublease approved by Lessor shall further assign or sublet all or any part of the Pfemises without Lessor's prior written consent'
(e) Lessor shall deliver a copy of any notice ol Default or Breach by Lessee lo the sublessee, who shall have the right to cure lhe Default o{ Lessee
wilhin the grace period, if any, specified in such notice. iri" runi"ssuu shall lrave a right of reimbursement and oflset from and against Lessee lor any such
Delaults cured by the sublessee.
13. Delault; Breach; Remedies.
13.1 Default; Breach. Lessor and Lessee agree lhat if an anorney.is consulted by Lessff in connection wilh a Lessee Default or Breach (as hereinalter
defined), $350.00 is a reasonable minimum sum per *dh d.i*r"nie ioiregar serriier ind costs in the preparation and service of a notice ol Default, and that
by Lessee to observe, comply with or pertorm any ot tne t6ilns, ior"ninrr, conclitioni?rules applicable to.Lessee under this Lease' A "Breaclr" by Lessee is
delined as the occurrence di'il;;.; d;orJ oJ tire- totrJwing Dbiarrb, ;"d, where .a grace period ior cure alter notice is specified hereirr, lhe f ailure by Lessee to
cure such Def autt prior to rhe expiration of the applicabl;gff" pd;,i, hnrrlnirr entife"Less6r to pursue the remeclies set lorth in Paragraplrs 1 3'2 and/or 13'3:
(a) The vacaling of the Premises wilhout the intention to reocctlpy salne, or lhe abandonment of the Premises.
(b) Except as expressly otherwise provided in this Lease, the railure by Lessee to make any payment ol Base Rent, Lessee's Share of Common Area
operating Expenses, or any other monetary.paymurt r"qrii".r-to 6e maoe uy Leisee trereunder as afici when due, the failure by Lessee to provide Lessor wilh
reasonable evidence ot insrlrince oiiui"ri tJo.ia requir-et-rno*, this l-ease, br the failure ol Lessee to lullill any.obligalion under tlils Lease which endangers or
threatens life or property, *i!?"
"1.n
lriiri6 ioniinu". roii p"iioa oitrree (i) days lollowing written notice thereof by or on behalf o{ Lessor lo Lessee'
(c) Except as expressly otherwise. provided in lhis Lease, the failure by Lessee to provide Lessor with reasonable written evldence (in duly execuled
on behali ol Lessor to Lessee.
(d) A Defaulr by Lessee as to the terms, covenants, conditions or provisions ol this [-ease, or of the rules adopted under Paragrapll 40 hereof lhat are
than thirty (30) days are reasonably requirod lor irs crre, tien it'rnuti roi oo on"me.r ro bb a Breach ot lhis Lease by l-esseo if Lesseo commences such cure witll'
iiiiiii ir,irtv iSol-riiyperioo and th-ereaiter diligently prosectrles suclr cure to completion.
(e) The occurrence ol any of the lollowing events: (i) lhe-making by Lessee of any general arrangentent or assignment lor lhe benelit ol creditors; (ii)
same is dismisserl witnin si"xtifooiorvil; tiiit the appoinlment ol a trustee or receiver lo take possesiion.of substantially all ot l-essee's assets located at the
ani shall nol affect the validity of lhe remaining provisions'
(t) l-he discovery by Lessor that any linancial statement ol Lessee or of any Guarantor, given to Lessor by Lessee or any Guarantor, was materially
talse.
(g) lt rho pertormance ol Lessee,s obligations under this l-ease is guaranteed: (i) the death. ol a Guarantor, (ii) the terminalion ol a Guarantor's liability
when coupled with the then exisling resources or r-"ssiel'"q,,iru oiLi."".i. the combined iinancial r€sources of Lessee and tlre Guaratltors that existed at the
lime of execution of this Lease.
the bank upon which it is drawn, Lessor, at irs own optio'n, miy-reqr:ire_all futlre payments to be.macle.under tl-ris Lease by Lessee to be made only by cashier's
oxercise ol any right or remedy wlrich Lessor may llave by reason ol such Breach, Lessor may:
(a) r.€Irminat€ t-essoo,s riglrl to possossion of the premisos try any lawft.rl rneans, in which case this l-ease and the lerm hereof shiill terlninale and
at the time of award ol the amount referred to in proviiiJn liit or irr" i**"diately pieceding sentence st'ati ue computed by discounling such atnount at the dis-
count rate of the Federal Fleserve Bank of san Francisco dr ihe Federal Resery'e'Bank Diitrict in which the Premides are located al llre time of award plus one
percent (l%). Efforts by Lessor to mitigate damages ""r""J u/I".r"""is Delault or Breacn ol this Lease shall not waive Lessor's right to recover damages under
this paragraph 13.2. l, termination of tfiis Lease iE "ot.i".a tt rlrgrr ine provisional remedy of unlawful delainer, Lessor shall have th€ right to recover in such pro-
[llULTI-TENANT_GROSS
(O American lndustrial Real Estato Association 1993
lnltlals:
---
ceedino lhe unpaid ront and damages as are recoverable.theroin, or Lessor may.r.es.eye tho right ro recover all or any parl thereof i' a separate suit lor such rent
(b) continue the Loase and Lessee's riqht to poss€ssion in.etfect (in califorrria under calilornia civit code section 195 1.4) after Lessee,s Br€ach and
lalions on assignment and subletting in lhis Lease are reasoiable. Acts rrl nrainienar:rce oi p;dril;r6;:';liorts to relet the prenrises, or the appointment of areceiver to protect the Lessor's intereist under lhis Lease, shal nor
"onsiitrte
a iuir;il;liiloi til;-i;JJ.ji'iiiir..t to prossession.
(c) Pursue any other remedy now or l'lereafler available lo Lessor under lhe laws or judicial ciecisions of lhe stat€ wherein the premises are located_(d) Tho expiration or termination ol this Lease and/or the terrninatiorr ol Lessee's right lo possession shall not relieve Lessee from liability under anyindemnily provisions oi this Lease as to matters o""riring oiiiciriUi;;;il'ili;renn hereo, or by reasbn of Lessee,s occupancy o, tho pre,rses.13'3 lnducement Recaplure tn Event ol Breach. Any agreemenl by Lessor for free or abated rent or other charges applicable to the premises, or for lhegiving or paying by Lessor to or lor Lessee of any cash or orn'er 6onus,-irirt"rint or consideratio, tor iJisee's entering into this Lease, a1 ol wlrich concessions
and conditions ol this Lease to be perlormed or ouJerved by 6;;;;ri;g r;;ierm her6of ur il L *rnn i*y be extended. Upon the occurrenc.) of a Breach (as
waiver bv Lessor ol the provisions br thls Piragraph i 3.3 unless ip"iiri.iiri l" siri."ii'i^ ir"ii,is';;'il.H ;f;,, rirne of such acceprance.13'4 Lale charges' Lessee hereby acknowledges thal lale payment by Lessee to Lessor of renl and other sums due hereunder will cause Lessor to incur
accounting charges' and late charges which may be imposeJ rpoii r".r"irryi"t.,,b te,nrs ot arry ground rease,.nrortgage or deed ot rrust covarirg rhe premises.
parties hereby agree that. su-ch late charge represenls a fair and reasonabl'e-- eblimate ol the costs i esJor will incur by roasoil of late payiont by l.esr;eo.
lgjf,,l?;1ffi:"#Jyj,[iig:?n$,?i"i.]:i:],i;"U,",H"Fii"iri,d FiiJdiiph 4 1 or any orheiprwisioh or'tri's Lease io tr,o ionii",y, eao" neniii,Ji, it
13 5 Breach by Lessor' Lessor shall nol be deemed in breach of this Lease unless Lessor fails within a rcasonable time lo perlornr an obligatiorr requiredto b€ perlormed by Lessor' For purposes of this Paragraph t3.5, a rJaioiiuG riro shall in no "ruri o" iesr ilrarrthirty (30) rl;rys aier receipl try Lessor, ancJ bv
14' condemnatlon' lf the Premises or any porlion lhereof are taken under the power of erninentdnmain or sold under lhe rlrreat of the exercise ot sai4 power (all
Lease shall remain in full lorce and eflect as to th; oortionbt the PrerniieJierai,,ing,-e*";ptir'rt tii"'eiJ;"nent shal u" i"ar""J inlli-.ur" proporrio, as rhe
lo the exlent ol its net severance damages received, over ancl above Lessee's sirire or tire regal and oli,uiu*1iunu*, inourrerj by Lessor in the condemnation mat-ter' repair any damage to.the Premises caused by such conuemnatLnirrnoiti'l"rr"" shall"be ,r"pon.iut6 io, ilre payment of any anrount in ext;ess of such netseverance damages required lo complete such repair.
15. Brokers'Fees.
15'1 Procurlng cause The Broke(s) named in Paragraph 1.10 is/are tholprocuring cause ot this Lease.15'2 Additlonal rerms' unless Lessor and Broke(s) have otherwise agreed in u,rriring, Lessor agrees that: (a) il Lessee exercises any oprion (as clefinerJ in
then as to any ol said transactions, Lessor shall pay said arole4ij j ree in u""oioin"" wirh rhe sch;dudoJ";;id l3ioker(s) in effect at the tinre of ,re execution oflfris Loase-
'15'3 Assumptlon ol obllgallons' Any buyer or transloree of Lessor's intsre-st in this Lease, whether such transter is by agreemonl or by operalinn of law,
and ils succossors.
15'4 Fepresentsllons and warranlles. l-essee. and Lessot eaclr reprosent and warrant to the other that it has had no dealings wilrr any person, Iirnr, bro-
action' Lessee and Lessor do each'hereby agree ro in6emnify, pror"it, o"i"nJ "ni t oio'rt " otner narrnl,jsi-rrom and against liability tor:compensalion or charges
16. Tensncy and Flnanclal Statements.
16'1 Tenancy stalement' Each Party (as "Respondln-g Party") shall wirhin.ten (10) days after written notice from the other party (the .,RequestlngParly") execute, acknowledge and detiver ro rire Requ6*ing Firly;ttit;;";;il;wriring in i f";';;;;il;l;ihe rhen mosr currenr..Tenancy srarement,,,orn
lhe Requesting Party.
16'2 Flnanclal statement' ll Lessor dosires to finance, relinanco, or sell the Prenrises or lhe Buirding, or any part thereol, Lessee and all Guarantors shall
il:lJ:3fl::i:fli!",i11??ff];fl*'"i'j;",1,i#:: y^.".",xi;ir'[#fi,lr:n:,w$: k1;ngti?i]i",iii,,;;-;i;;,;#i;i;,ffi;; sha, b6 ;ililil ;i,
17' Lessor's Llablllw' The term "Lessor" as used herein shall nlean the owner or or,vners at the time in question of the fee title to the premises. ln the event of a
l*r,Y#[:?j'jl'.' The invaliditv of anv provision of this Lease, as determined by a courr or comperent iurisdicrion, shail in no way aftect rhe varidiry of any orher
Premises are localed olus four peicenl (4%) per annJm, but nol exceeding'ir,o ,,i;*iinun rate ail6wed by taw, in aaaiton to lhe potenlial lat€ charge provided tor inParagraph 13.4.
20' Tlme ol Essence' Time is ol lhe essence with Iespect to the performance of all obligalions to be porformed or observed by the panies undor lhis Lease.21' Rent Dellned. All monetary obligations of Lesseo lo Lessor under lha lerms of this Lease are deemed to be rent_22' No Prlor or other Agreements; Broker Dlsctalmer. This Lease contains all agreemenrs belween the parties with respect to any maler mentioned heroin,and no other prior or conlemporaneous agreement or rnoersianJr,,s;;]i;;';;;;tii6. L"rro,. ana fessee eaci'iepresenrs and warrants ro lhe Brokers that ir hasmade, and is relying solelv u'pon,. its-own Investigationis to t,e ;;f;; qr;lit; Jri"iu"r", and financiat r€sponsibitity ol the other party to this Lease and as ro thonalure' quality and charactei of the Premises. Biokers have no responsi'billty'with respect thereto or witn leipect to any detault or bieach hereof by oither parly.Each Broker shail bo an inrended third party oeneri"iuw oilno p-roriJloni Ji i'f,i"'prrutrnpn zz.
MULTI.TENANT-GROSS
'@ American lndustrial Real Estate Association 1993 -a-
lnltlals: ._--
23. Notlces.
ZS.1 Noilce Requlrements. All notices required or permitted by this Lease shall be in wriling alg IaI be delivered in person (by hand or by mossenger or
courier service) or maf be sent by regular, certilidd or regibtered mail or U.S. Postal Service lxpress Mail, with postagelcrepaid, or by tacsimile transmission dur-
ing norntat business h'ours, ancl shall-be deemed sutficieitly given if served in a manner specitied-in this^Paragraph 23. The addresses.,noted adjacent to a.P.arty's
adl'dress lor notice purposes, except that upon Lessee's taking p6ssession ol the Premises, llre Prenlisos shall constituto Lessee's address for the purpose of mail'
ing or dolivering n.iticbs to Lossei. A copy ol all notices reqiriied or permitted to be given to Lessor hereunder shall be concurrontly lr'ansmitted to sucll parly or
parlioe at srrch-adclrossos a$ L.e$sor rnay lrom limo lo lirno trt.iroaflor tlosignillo by wrilltltl nolico lo I os$oo.
receipt card, or il no delivery date is shown, thb postmark lhereon. lf sent by regular mail, the nolice shall be deemed given forty-eight ('18) hours after the same is
addr6ssed is required her6in and mailed with iostage prepaid. Notices delivered by United States Express Mail or ovefnight.couriet that guaranlees next day
delivery shall be deemed given twenty-lour (24)'hours afier belivery ol the sarne to the United States Postal Service or courier. .ll any notice is transmitled by fac-
simile fransmission or similar means, ihe saine shall be deemed served or delivered upon telephong or facsimile confirmation of recelpt ol the trarlsmission there-
of, provided a copy is also delivered via delivery or mail. ll notice is received on a Saturday or a Sunday or a legal holiday, it shall be deemed received on the nexl
business day.
24. Walvers. No waiver by Lessor of the Delault or Breach ol any term, covenant or condilion hereof by Lessee, shall be deemed a waiver o{ any otller term,
covenant or condition hereof, or of any subsequent Default or Breach by Lessee ol the same or any other term, covenant or contlition hereof. Lessor's consent lo,
or approval of, any such act shall noi be deehed to render unnecessary the obtaining of Lessor's consent to, or approval ot, any sttbsequent or similar act by
Lesdde, or be con;trued as the basis of an estoppel to enlorce the provision or provisions of this Lease requiring such consent. Regardless ol Lessor's knowledge
ol a Delault or Breach at the lime of accepting rent, the acceplance of rent by Lessor shall not bo a waiver of any Default or Bl'each by Lessee ol any.provision
hereof. Any payment given Lessor by Lessee may be acceptbd by Lessor on account of moneys or damages due Lessor, notwithstanding any qualifying.slate-
ments or c|ridit'ions mede by Lessee-in connectiori therewitli, which such statements and/or conditions shall be of no lorce or effect whertsoever unless specifically
agreed to in writing by Lessor at or before lhe time ot deposit of such paymenl.
25. Eecordlng. Either Lessor or Lessee shall, upon request of the other, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other a short form ntemorandum of this Lease
lor recording purposes. The Party requesting recordation shall be responsible for payment of any lees or taxes applicable thereto.
26. No Rlght To Hotdover. Lessee has no right to relain possession ol the Premises or any part thereol beyond the expiration or earlier lermination ol this Lease.
ln the event lhat Lesseo holds over in violation of this Paragraph 26 then the Base Rent payable Irom and after the time ol lhe expiration clr earlier termination ot
this Lease shall be increased to two hundred percent (200%) of the Base Rent applicable during the mdrth, irnmediately preceding such expiralion or earlier termi-
nalion. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a consent by Lessor to any holding over by Lessee.
27. Cumulatlve Remedles. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies al
law or in equity.
29. Blndlng Eflect; Cholce ol Law. This Lease shall bo binding upon tho Parties, their personal representativos, successors and arsigtrs artd be governed by
the laws ol the State in which the Premises are located. Any litigation between the Parlies herelo concerning this Lease shall be initiatetl in the county in which lhe
Premises are located.
30. Subordlnatlon; Atlornment; Non-Dlsturbance.
30.1 Subordlnatlon. This Lease anrJ any Option granted hereby shall be subjecl and subordinate to any ground lease, mortgilge, deecl ot trusl, or olher
the Lenders holding any such Security Device shall have no duty, liability or obllgatinn to perform any of the obligalions of Lossor under this Lease, bul tlrat in lhe
evenl of Lessor's derault with respect to any such obligation, Lessee will give any Lender whose name and address have been lurnisherl Lessee in writing for suclr
purpose notice ol Lessor's default pursuant to Paragraph 13.5. lf any Lender shall elect to trave this Lease and/or any Option granted horeby superior to the lien o{
its Security Device and shall give wrilten nolice thereof to Lessee, lhis Lease and such Options shall be deemed prior to such Security [)evlce, notwithstanding the
relative dales ol lhe documenlation or recordation thereof.
gO.2 Attornment. Subject to the non-disturtlance provisions of Paragraph 30.3, Lessee agrees to attorn to a Lender or any olher party who acquires ownei'
ship of the Premises by reason ol a foreclosure of a Securily Device, and that in the event ol such foreclosure, such new owner shall not: (i) be liable lor any act or
against any prior lessor, or (iii) be bound by prepayment of more than one month's rent.
30.3 Non-Disturbance. With respect to Security Devices entered into by Lessor aller the execution ot this lease, Lessee's subordination ot this Lease shall
be subject to receiving assurance (a "non-disturbance agreement") lrom the l.ender lhat Lessee's possession and this Lease, including any optiotis to extend the
term hereol, will not be disturbed so long as Lessee is not in Breach hereol and atlorns lo the record owner ol the Premises.
30.4 Self-Executing, The agreements contained in this Paragraph 30 shall be effective without the execution of any turther documents; provided, however,
lhat upon writlen request lrom Lessor or a Lender in conneclion with a sale, financing or refinancing of Premises, Lessee and Lessot shall execute such turthet
writings as may be reasonably required to separately document any suclr subordination or non-subordination, attornment and/or non-dislurbance agreernenl as is
providod lor horoin.
after delined) in any such proceeding, aclion, or appeal thereon, slrall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees. Such lees lnay be awarded in tlre sanre strit or
tation, a Party or Broker who substantially obtains or defeats the relie, sought, as the case may be, whether by compronrise, settlement, judgmenl, or the abandon-
ment by the other Pany or Broker ol its claim or defense. The attorneys'lee award shall nol be cornputed in accordance with any court fee schedule, but shall be
vice ol notices o, Default and consullations in connection therewilh, whether or nc,[ a legal action is subsequently comrnenced irr conneclion wilh such Default or
resulting Breach. Broke(s) shall be intended lhird party beneliciaries ol this Paragraph 31.
gency, and olheMise at reasonable times lor the purpose ol showing lhe same to prospective purchasers, lenders, or lessees, and making such alterations,
repairs, lmprovements or additions to ttre Premises or lo the Building, as Lessor may reasonably deem necessary. Lessor rnay at any time place on or about lhe
lhe Premises any ordinary "For Lease" signs. All such activities of Lessor shall be wilhout abaterrent of rent or liabillty lo Lessee.
Lessor's prior written consent. Notwithstanding anything to the conlrary in this Lease, Lessor shall not be obligated to exercise any slandard of rcasonableness in
determining whether to grant such consent.
34. Signs. Lessee shall nol place any sign upon the exlerior of lhe Premises or the Building, except that Lessee may, with Lessor's Jrrior written consent, install
(but nol on the root) such signs as are reasonably required to advertise Lessee's own business so long as such signs are in a location designaled by Lessor and
not unreasonably interfere with the conduct of Lessee's business; Lessor shall be entitled to all revenues from such adverlising signs.
35. Termlnatlon; Merger. Unless specilically staled otherwise in wriling by Lessor, lhe voluntary or other surrender ol this Lease by Lessee, the mutual ternrina-
interest, shall constihrte Lessor's election to have such event constitute the termination of such interest.
36. Consents.
(a) Excopl for Paragtaph 33 horeol (Auctions) or ils olherwiso provirled herein, wherever in lhis Lease lhe consent of a Parly is required lo an act by or
lecls', attorneys', engineers' and other consultants'fees) incurred irl the consideralion of, or response to, a request by Lessee lor any l-essor consent pedaining to
constitute an acknowledgment that no Default or Breach by l-essee of this Lease exists, nor shall such €onsent be deemed a waiver ol any then exisling Delault or
Broach, oxcopt as may bo olherwiso spocifically stated in writing by Lossor at lho tirno of suclr consont.'
(b) All condilions to Lessor's consent authorized by this Lease are acknowledged by Lessee as being reasonable. I'he faih"rrs to specity heroirr any
particulal condition to Lessor's consent shall not preclude the impositions by Lessor at the tinle of consent of such lurther or oltrer conditions as are then reason-
able with reference to the particular matlor tor which consent is being given.
37. Guarantor.
37.1 Form of Guaranty. ll there are to be any Guarantors ol this Lease per Paragraph 1.11, lhe form ol the guaranty to be sxeculed by each suclr
Guarantor shall be in the form most recently published by lhe American lndustrial Fleal Estate Association, and each such Guaranlor slrall have the same obliga-
tions as Less€e under this lease, including but not limited to the obligation to provide the Tenancy Statemenl and information required in Paragraph 16.
lnltlEls:
MUUTI.TENANT--GROSS
@American lndustrial Real Estate Association 1993 *9-
37.2 Addltlonal Obllgatlons of Gusrantor. lt shall constitute a Dolault of the Lessse under this Lease if any such Guaranlor lails or ref uses, upon reason-
time to timo be requosted by Lessor, (c) a l"onancy Statement, oa (d) lvritten confirnrarion lhat the guaraniy ii stil in offect,
38.. Qulel Poosegslon, Upon paymonl by.Lossoo ol tho ront for ths Promises ancl tho porformanco of all of tho covenants, condilions anrl provisions on Lessss,spart lo.bo obssrved and perlorntod under tlris Lease, Lessee shall havo quiet possessi6n ol the Premises tor the entire terh hord, sibi;;ito all of the provl;6a
of this Lease.
39. Optlons.
39.1 Deflnltlon. As used in this Lease, tho word "Optlon" has the iollowing meaning: (a) the right to oxtend the torm of this Lease or to r€new this 1eass or
Premises or the right ol lirst relusal to loa;.s other propeny of Lessor or tho righl ol first offer to loaso other propetly of Lessor; 1;; the right to purctraio iiie
. 39.2 Optlons Personal to Orlglnal Lessee. Each Option grantecj to Lessee in this Lease is personal to the original Lessee named in paragraph 1.1 hereot,
a part ot an assignment ol this Leaso or soparately or apart thorefrom, and no Option rndy be sefaratod froni itris Loaio in any manner, Ui ioJorvation or othorwiso.
^^.,!-1q^ ^T.l!!lpll !qt]ons. ln the event that Lessee has any multiple Options to extend or renew this Lease, a later option cannot be oxercised unless rhe priorOptlons to oxlond or rensw lhis Lease have beon validly exercised.
39.4 Eflect ol Delault on Optlons.
. .(a).Lessee shall have no right to exercise an Oplion, n^otwithstanding any provision ilt the granl of Option to the contrary: (i) during the period com-mencing with the giving of any nolice of Delault under Paragiraph 13.1 and contiriuing rjntil the noticed detiutris cured, or (ii) cluring the'fierioo 6f time any moire-
[-ease, or.{iv).in lhe €vont that Lessor has giv6n to Lessee thrEe (3) or more notices o, separate'oeiiutt; Jil6r i,aiagrapr' i3.iir;i;g ih; twetve (12) month peri-od immedialely preceding the exercise ot tlie Option, whether or rioi the Defaults are cured. ;
-- -
(b) The period of time within-which an Option may be exercised shall not b6 extencled or enlaiged hy reason ol Lessee's inability to exercise an O,tionbecause of the provisions of Paragraph 39.4(a)
. ("1 All rights-of -Lessoe underlho provisions o, an Option shall terminate and be of no lurther lorce or effect, notwithstanding L.essee,s due and timoly
notices of separalo Defaults under Paragraph 13.1 during a'ny twelve-('|2) month peiiod, whether ornoiirre oeiiuits ai,j cureo, oTliiij ir r-"sie" commirs a Breachof this L€ase.
msasures, and that Lessor shall have no obJigation whalsoever to proviie-same. Lessee assumes all responsibility tor ttte proiectidn of tne prenrises, Lessee, itsagents and invilees and their proporty from the acts ol third parties.
42. Beservatlons. Lessor reseryes the right, from. time to tirn6, lo granl,.without the consent or. joinder of Lessee, such easements, rights ol way, utility raceways,and dedications that Lessor deems necessary, and to cause the redordation of parcel map_s ano'reJtri"tioni, io rong as such easenieriis, rigirts ol way, utility r ace-ways, dedicalions, maps-and restrictions dohol reasonably inlerfere with lhe use of llre'Premi."iiv irri* i-".se" ugr""u to sign any documents reaso*ablyroquested by Lessor to effectuate any such easement fighti, dedication, rnap or restrictions.
43' Pertormance Under Protest. ll at.any time a dispute shall arise as to any arnount or sum oi money to be paid by one party to the other under the provisionsh€reof, the Party against whom the obligaiion.to.pay ihe money is assertecl sirall have_the right ro makb paymLnt "unoer proiult; anf*.h"paynrent shal not beregarded as a volunlary payment and tfiere shali survive the right on the parl of said Party io instiiuiei[liioriecovury ol such sum. lf ir shafl be adjudgecl thatthero was no..legal obligation on th€ parl of said. Perty_to pay suih sum or ahy part thereof, daicr earty shariue ,niitteo to recovor such sum or so much thereof as itwas not legally required to pay under the provisions 6, this lease.
'14' Authorlty. ll either Party hereto is a corporation, trust, or general or limited partnership, each individual executing this Lease on behalf of such entity rcpre-senls and warants thal he or she is d.uly authorized to executdand cleliver this Lease on iis behalf. lf Lessee is a cofuoration, trust or partnership, Lessde shait,within thirty (30) days after request by Lessor, deliver to Lessor evidence satisfactory to Lessor of jucn zutrioriiy.
-
45..- Gonfllct' Any conflict between the printed provisions of this Lease and the typewritten or handwritten provisions shall be conrrolled by the typewritten or hand-writlen provisions.
46. Offer. Pr€paration of this Lease pY eittrer Lessor or Lessee or Lessor's agent or Lessee's agent and submission ol sarne to Lessee or Lessor shall not bedeemed an otter lo lease. This Lease is not inlended to be binding until executei ancl delivered uy iff faiiiJs-frereto.
47. Amendments. This Lease may be modified only in writing, signed by_the parties in interest al the time of the modification. The parries sha[ amend this Leasefrom tims lo limo to refloct any adiustmsnts that ar-e mado t6 th6 Base'Renl'or olhor ront payable under this Leaso. As long as they do not materially chang€Lossee's obligations horeundor, Ledsee agrees to make such reasonabls non-monotary mooiti'caiions to ttris t-eiiJas may ue roixrniu( roquiieo by an irrstituti.nal
ol such mulliple parties shall b€ tho joint and iovorai rbsponsibility ol all p€rsons or entidios namorl hs1bil as such Lossor or Lossee.
MULTI.TENANT-GROSS
@American lrdustrial R6al Estale Association 1993 -1$-
lnllLl$:
LESSOR AND LESSEE HAVE GABEFULLY READ AND BEVIEWED THIS LEASE AND EACH TERM AND PROVISION CONTAINED HEREIN, AND BY THE EXECUTION OF TI{IS LEASE
srow rHErR TNFoHMED AND voLUNTARy coNsENr rnrneio. fifFlRTrES HEREBy eacm iHnr,lr rHE l|{E_M !!39E_ ls- EIE-0.-UI-E!,THE TERMS oF Tl-lls LEASE
ARE coMMEBcrALLy REASoNABLE AND EFFEcTUATE THE truiinr mo punposE oF LESSoR AND LESSEE wtTH RESPECT To rHE PREMISES.
IF THIS LEASE HAS BEEN FILLED IN, IT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR YOUR ATTORNEY'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL. FURI'IIER, EXPERTS SIIOULD BE CON-
suLTED To EVALUATE Tt{E cor,rorlo'r,i tiFrge FRoprnrv roR rHr poSstslE pREsENcE oF ASBESToS, UNDERGHOI.JND_STORAGE TANKS oR HAz-
ARDous suBsrANcES. ruo RrpnEsefuieriofi on nrcor',rurENDATroN ts MADE By rnE AMERIoAN INDUSTHIAL REAL ESTATE ASSoclATloN oR BY
THE REAL ESTATE BRotcRs on rnari bot.tinedrons, ncer.rrs on ruplovEEs AS To llE LEGAL suFFlclENCY LEGAT- EFFEcr, oF TAx coNSE-
ouENCEs oF THts LEASE oR rHr iiinr'rsnciior,r ro wHrcH I RELATES; rlq f4ElEis_s.l]l!! ffELY SOLELY l"lPoN THE ADVICE oF TllEln owN
couNSEL AS To rHE LEGAL AND rnx CorusEoueruCes or rurs rElsr. ir rHe sustect pHoPERry ts tN A srATE orllEn THAN cALlFoHNlA, AN
arronrlrv rnol,r irte srarE wHERE THE pRopERTy ls LocATED sHouLD BE O0NSULTED.
Tho parties hereto have exocuted this Lease at the place and on the dates specified above thek respective signatures.
Exocuted al:Executed
on:
By LESSOH:
THE PROT'FTTT TRUST
Name Printed:
By:
Titln:C/o Ileiiry ttorrr &.1. rrcorir()r'a t, ecl
Address: 405 Pri mrQse R -#300Burlingame, CA 9401 0
Telephone:(550)348 -1 051
BFOKER:
Ex€culed
on:
By:
Name Printed:
Telephone: (
Facsimile: (
By LESSEE:
THE CTTY OF BURLINGAME
on
o,c
'C
B
.g
o'n
.9
E
o)d-
f,oE!:
B
E
o
C(i
.E't,{)()3D
d,
ar
0,
(,o>(t
E
a)
C)
0)a
0)C
o
(sil
o
ri(,
Toa
0)
c(r,
"{
tro
(U'at
o
rtl
!.f
(d
a
IU
6o(t
-6
af,'o
.C
c(lto
0)
E
-o
(v)oo)
@
on
By:
By:
Name Printed:
By:
By:
llamo Prinlod:Namo Printsd: _-
Ttlo: ,-.
Telephone: (
Facsimile: (
BHOKER:
Executed al'
Name Printed:
'Iltlu
Telephono: (
Facsimilo: (
TNDUSTRIAL REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION, 345 So. Figueroa Sl., M-1, Los Angolos, CA 90071. (213\ 687'8777.
MULTI.TENANT--€ROSS
@ American lndustrial Heal Estate Association 1993 -11*
lnltlals:
)
I
nrl^.T'd^.
Facsimile: (
l
performs all t,he terms, covenants and condit,ions of this Lease
including t,he palrment, of rent, and only in that event, Lessor hereblr
grants to Lessee- an option to renew Lhis Lease for an additronal
leriod of two (2) years from November 7-, 20A4 through Occober 3L,
iOOe. Rent for the first year of this option period (November L, 2CO4
t.hrough October 3l-, 2OO5) sha1I be Lhe sum of $5,41-1.00 per month;
rent for the second year of this option period (November l, 2005
through October 31, lOOe) shall be the sum of $5,573.A0 per month.
fn ord.er t.o exercise this option, Lessee shall give Lessor a not,ic= in
writing of this int.ention to exercise this option prior to June 30,
2004.
49. Annua 1 Rent Chanses.The monthly rent for the Lwelve (12) moni'h
period beginning November L,2003 shaLl be the sum of #5,253.00 per
month.
50. First Opt ion to Extend. In the event Lessee faiLhfully and fu11y
5L. Second Option to Extend. Provided Lessee exercises the first
opt,ion to extend, and Lhrat Lessee has faithfully and ful1y perforrns
att the terms, covenants and conditions of the first opti'cn period,
including the pay"nent of rent, then Lessor hereby grants Lo Lessee a
second option Lo renew this Lease for an additional period of two i2)
years from November L, 2A06 through October 31, 2008. Rent for the
f i-rst year of this second opt.ion period (November L, 2005 through
october 31, 2oo7) shall be the sum of i6,498.00 per month; rent for
Lhe second year of this second option period (November 1, 2007 thrcugh
October 31, 2008) shall- be the sum of $6,693.00 per m.onth.
In order to exercise this option, Lessee shall give Lessor a notice in
writing of this intention to exercise this option prlor to June 30,
2046.
52. Third Option to Extend. Provided Lessee exercises the first and
second options to extend, and that Lessee has faithfully and fully
performs all the Eerms, covenants and conditions of the first and
second option periods, including the payment of rent, then Lessor
hereby grants to Lessee a third optj-on to renew this Lease for an
additional peri-od of two (2) years from November L, 2008 through
October 31, 201-0. Rent for Lhe first year'of this third option period
(November L, 2008 through October 31, 20A9) sha1l be the sum of
i7,314.00 per month; rent for the second year of this third option
period (November 1, 2009 through October 31, 2010) sha1l be Ehe sum of
$7,533.00 per month.
In order to exercise this option, Lessee shaI1 give Lessor a not.ice in
writing of this intention to exercise thj-s option prior tolTune 30,
2008.
53. Coqsnon Area Expense. Lesseets common area expense shall
specifically exclude the expense of capj-ta} i-mprovements, such as
major roof repairs or replacement, parking lot repaving, sidewall
repairs, and repairs or replacement of unexposed common plumbing.
54. Reserved Parking Spaces and Comrnon Driveway. With reference to
Paragraph 1.2 (b) , l-.,essee's parking spaces shall be the six (6) mosLeasterly parking spaces in the parki-ng area, whtch park:;lg area lelocated along the southern portion of Lessor's properLy. Lessee shall
lre=p i=ss=e's 31y t.6\ parl.-rrr.g s?tac?s :r-,d. the aan.rna- j1q-r3'^r:.-'z F.r+= nf
debris and shail be responsible fcr the maintenance of Lessee,s six(5) parking spaces and the common driveway beyond ordinary anC
expected wear and tear.
Exhibit tAr is att,ached to visually iIl-ustrate the leased premises andthe parking spaces and common driveway.
55. Mediation of Disputes.Lessor and Lessee agree to mediate any
dispute or cLaim between them arisinE out of this contract or anyresulting transact.ion before resorting to arbitrati-on or court acLion.
MediaE.ion is a process in which parties at.tempt to resolve a disputeby submitting it to an impartial, neutral mediator who is authorizedto facilitate Lhe resolut.ion of the dispute but who is not, empoweredto impose a settlement on the parties. Mediation fee, if tsfly, shal1be divided equally among the parties rnvolved. Before the mediationbegins, the parties agree to sign a document limiting theadmissibility in arbitration or any civil action of anything sard, dnyadmission made, and any documents prepared, in the course of themediation, consistent. with Evidence code LL52.5. rf any party
commences an arbitration or court actj-on based on a disput,e or claimto which this Paragraph applies without first attempting to resolvethe matter through mediation, then in the discretj-on of thearbitrator(s) or judge, t.hat party shall not be entitled to reccverattorneyr s f ees even if they would ot.herwise be available to t.hacparty'in any such arbitration or courL action. However, the filing ofa judicial action to enable the recordlng of a notice of pend.ingaction, for order of attachment, receivership, injunction, or oiherprovisional remeCies, sha1l not in itself constitute a loss of Lheright to recover attorneyrs fees under this provision. The folJ-owingmatters are excluded from the reguirement of mediation hereunder: (a)an unl-awful- detainer action, (b) the filing or enforcernent of amechanj-c's l-ien, and (c) any matter which is wit.hin the jurisdictionof a probate court.
56. Arbj-tration of Disputes.Anlr d.ispute or claim in law or equity
between Lessor and Lessee arising out of this contract or anyresulting transaction which is not settLed through mediat.ion shall- bedecid.ed by neut.ra1, binding arbitration and not by court action,except as provided by carifornia law for judicial review orarbitration proceedings. The arbitration shall be conducted. inaccordance with the rules of the JudiciaL Arbitration and MediationServices, Inc. (JAMS). In all other respects, the arbiLration shal-Ibe conducted in accordance with Part fII, Title 9 of the CaliforniaCode of Civil Procedure. .Tudgment upon the award renCered by thearblLrator (s) may be entered in any court having jurisdictlon thereofThe parties shall have the right to dJ-scovery in iccord.ance with Codeof Civil Procedure L283. 05 -
/
The parties agree that t.he following procedure sha11 gover:r the makingof t,he award by the arbitrator: (a) a Tentative Award shal1 be made bythe arbitrator within 30 days following submlssion of the natter to
Ehe arbitrator; (b) the Tentative Award shal-l explain the :actual and
1ega1 basis for the arbitratorrs decision as to each of the principalconcroverted issues; (c) t.he Tentat.ive Award sha1l be in w=j-tingunless the parties agree otherwise,. provided, however, thai if thehearing 1s concl-uded within one d"y, the Tentative Award may be madeoraI1y at the hearing in the presence of the parties. Witain 15 daysafter the Tentative Award has been served or announced 1 drt! party mayserve objections to the Tentative Award. Upon objections being timelyserved, t.he arbiErator may ca]l for additional evidence, oral orwritten argument, or both. If no object,ions are filed, the TentativeAward shaII become final without furt.her action by the parties orarbi-trator. Within 30 days after the filing of objections, t.hearbitrator shall either make the Tent,ative Award final or nodify orcorrect the Tentative Award, which shall then become final as modifiedor corrected.
The fo]l-owing matters are exciuded from arbitration hereunier: (a) an
unJ-awfu1 detai-ner actj-on, (b) the filing or enforcement of amechanic's Iien, (c) any matLer which is within the jurisd:-ction of aprobate or small claims court, and (d) an act.ion for bodi17 injury orwrongful death. The filing of a judicial action to enable therecording of a notice of pendrng action, for order of aLta:ament,receivership, injunction, or other provisional remedies, s:ral1 notconstitute a waiver of ihe right to arbitraLe under t.his p=ovision.
NOTTCE: BY INITIALLING IN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE AGREEING TO I{AVE
A]VY DISPUTE ARISING OI.IT OF THE MATTERS INCLIIDED IN THE IA-R."ITR.ATION OFDISPUTES' PROVISIONS DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AS PROYIDED BY
CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING UP ANY RIGHTS YOU MIG}{T ?OSSESS TO
HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR JURY TRIAL. BY INITTALLINGIN THE SPACE BELOW YOU ARE GIVTNG UP YOUR JUDICIAL RIGI{TS !O DISCOVERY
A}TD APPEAL, I]'NLESS TI{OSE RIGHTS ARE SPECTFICALLY INCLUDED IN THEIARBITRATTON OF DISPIIIES' PROVTSTON. IF YOU REFUSE TO STIBIIIT TO
ARBITRATION AFTER AGREEING TO THIS PROVISION, YOU MAY BE CCMPELLED TO
ARBITRATE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDTJRE. YOIIR AGREEMENT TO THTS ARBITRATION PROVISION IS VOLUNTARY.
WE HAVE READ A}.TD T]NDERSTAND THE FOREGOTNG AND AGREE TO SUB}IIT DISPUTESARISING OUT OF THE MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE 'ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES I
PROVISION TO NEUTRAL ARBITRATION.
,z
I
1
2
J
Zt
5
6
7
9
4
B
H
H
z
a
E
(J
U
s
\
$
\a
\
83 CaL ER.
/-- { 2i.J-1.q./
77V Cnrlt DR
DRT UE u) A
a--- ,:l:
L)=?tr. -^I U::\iIIY
Spaces
10
11
12
I
I
I /c +/-
,1
e.{
\$
o
o{
r'.{
c.{
t
X
,7z.s:
ExHIBIT 'AI
It
II
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
F]RST ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT
Reference is hereby made to that certain Lease dated September 30,
2002, by and between THE PROFEITT TRUST, Lessor, and THE CITY OF
BURLfNGAME, Lessee, covering the premises commonly known and
designated as 783 California Drive, Burlingame, California.
WHEREAS, the Base Rent is the sum of $51100.00 per month for theperiod November 7t 2002 through October 31, 2003, and
WHEREAS, Lessee and Lessor desire to reduce the monthly Base Rentpayable for the five (5) month period commencing November 7, 2002
and ending on March 31, 2003 by $2,550.00 per month,
Now THEREFORE, The monthly Base Rental shalr be $2,550.00 for theflve (5) month period November l, 2002 through March 31, 2oo3(which is a $2,550.00 per month reduction). On April I, 2003, thepayment of the monthly Base Rent of $5r100.00 shall resume.
It is further agreed that Lessee has the unilatera1 rlght to cancel-this Lease effective rTanuary 7t 2003 through March 31, 20a3.Thus, said cancellation date can not be prior to January 7, 2003.To effect cancel-lation Lessee must deliver to Lessor a notice inwriting at least five (5) days prior to the effective cancell-atlondate. If Lessee has already paid rent for the month in which thecancel-lation occurs, Lessor agrees to refund to Lessee that portionof the unused rent.
No other terms or conditions
altered bereby.
of the original Lease Agreement are
AGREED
LESSOR:THE PROFFITT TRUST
By
AGREED
LESSEE: THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
By:
By:
DATED: October 30, 2002
By
STAFF REPORT @J
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 11.4.02
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SI]BlVtrTTED
DATE OCTOBER 25-2002
APPROVED
FROM:CITY PI,A
srrBrDcr: APPEAL Or REQUEST FOR DESIGN REVIEW,CES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND
FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING
HETGHT ENVELOPE T'OR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1336
CARLOS AVEIYTTE, Z0NED R-l
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated
for the record. The Council's action alternatives include:
a. Approve the request as proposed by resolution with conditions;
b. Deny the request; or
c. Deny the request without prejudice and return the project to the applicant and Planning Commission
for redesign and additional review.
Conditions to be considered at the public hearing:
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped
-seitember
24,2002, sheets A-l through A-7, and that any changes to building materials,
exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an{ amendment to this permit;
2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would
include addin! or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or
changing the ioof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof
ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
4. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall prorid" architeciural certification that the architectural details such as window
iocations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional
involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of
perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;
that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staffwill inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
BY
BY
5
APPEAL OF REQUEST FOR DESIGN REWEW, YARIANCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO' AND SPECAL PERMTTS
. F,RHEIGHT AND DE.LIMNG HEIGHT ENw;oiE FzRA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT T336 CARLOS AVENW, ZONED
R-r.
'wLti)t1tv ttDtv'|tt ltlovember 4' 2002
6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at alater date the floor area ratio, side
setback variances as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void;
7 . that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Recycling Specialist's, and the Chief Building Inspector's
May 6, 2002 memos shall be met; and
g. 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'
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on october 15, zooz,the planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-2-1 (Cers'
Brownrigg, Keele dissenting, C. ost;ling absent)-to d.-ry without prejudice the applicant's request for a first
and second story addition at 1336 Carlos-Avenue. In their action th" Co*-issioners noted: floor area ratio
variance is excessive, many houses with attached garages and high ceilings follow the regulations, see no
hardship on the property; character of the house is changing by adding. two times the floor area' massive
addition at the rear of a historical home, there are large roomi pioposed in this house that can be reduced to
bring down overall floor area; plans are greatly improved, matches existing house, but 496 SF variance is too
large, need to reduce.
Further commission comments: disagree with fellow Commissioner, project is greatly improved, especially
north elevation, rolled edges on n.ri roof is an improvement; agree with design review recommendation,
garugeis setbackru..ro,igt, detaching itwill take away originaf design undcharacter and affect historical
value of house, will also oI.rpy the limited green space at rear; if project denied new application may come
forward for demolition of this structure; drariatic improvement over previous, preserves historical quality of
this home.
with regard to direction to the applicant, the commission noted that adding a ceiling in the living room to
reduce floor area ratio is ridiculous; do noi want to dictate where applicant takes offfloor area, that is up to the
applicant; can reduce plate heights on addition to reduce bulk of this house; to grant this floor area ratio
*iiur"" would set precedent for other older or unique houses.
BACKGROUITTD:
The applicant, Eric Johnson, is requesting. design review, side setback and floor area ratio variances, and
special permits for height and declini"j rtlignt Jnvelope f:or a first and second story addition to the existing
house at 1336 Carlos Avenue, zoned {-1. The property at 1336 Carlos Avenue has an existing single-story
house with an attac.hed garageand two accessory structures (a trellis and l shed) at the rear of the property'
The applicant is proposing to demolish the accessory structures, add to the first floor at the rear of the existing
house, and add a second story. with the proposed additions, the floor area on the lot will be 3516 SF (0'59
FAR) where 3020 sF (0.50 rAR) is the *u*i*.r* allowed. The applicant is requesting an FAR variance to
exceed the maximum allowable FAR by a96 sF. A portion of ttie existing living room where the ceiling
height exceeds L2 feet, a total of 205 SF, is included in the FAR calculations'
The existing first floor has a non-conforming left- side setback, with 3'-11" where 4'-0" is required by the
current code. m. propored addition to the rJar of the first floor will match the existing 3'-11' side setback'
The applicant is requesting a side setback variance for I inch. The applicant is requesting a special permit for
a proposed height of 33,-3-u where a height between 30-'-0. and 36'-0'i iequires a special permit. The design of
the home also requires a special permitlor an encroachment into the declining height envelope of 46 sF( 3'8'
w x 12,-6,,1) on the left side. wiitr the proposed additions the number of bedrooms will be increased from two
1
APPEAL OF NNQTNST FOR DESIGN REWEI,T, VARUNCES FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND SPECIAL PERA/TIS
FOR HEIGHT tlNO OnCUtttNC HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORAFIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1336 CARLOS AItsNUE, ZONED
R-1. NoYember 4, 2002
to four. The existing attached garage provides the required single covered parking space on site. All other
zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
. Design Review for first and second story additions,
. Floor area ratio variance (3,516 SF (0.59 FAR) proposed where 3,020 SF (0.50) is the maximum
allowed);
. Side setback variance (3'-1 1' proposed on the left side where 4'-0" is required);
Special permit for height (33'-3" proposed where a height between 30'-0" and 36'-0" requires a special
permit); and
Special permit for exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope (left side encroaches by 46 SF
(3'8"wx12'-6"1)).
Design Review
After referral by the Planning Commission at the Design Review study session for this project, the project was
reviewed by a design review consultant. Revisions were made to the plans to address the comments made by
the Planning Commission and the design reviewer. Based on these revisions, the design review consultant
recommended approval of the design review application. (See Planning Commission staffreport attached for
the Planning Commission's direction to the design reviewer and for the Design Reviewer's comments.)
StaffComments
Staffwould note that, in this case, upholding the Planning Commission's action would allow the applicant to
make design changes and resubmit the project to the Planning Commission without paying additional fees.
The findings for variances and special permits, and the criteria for design review are attached following this
staffreport.
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives and Findings for Variance, Special Permit and Design Review Criteria
Monroe letter to Eric Johnson, October 22,2002, setting appeal hearing
Christi and Eric Johnson letter to City of Burlingame, October 17,2002, requesting appeal
Planning Commission Minutes, October 15,2002
Planning Commission StaffReport, October 15,2002 with attachments
City Council Resolution
Public Notice
Plans, date stamped September 24,2002
2
2
a
J
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
l. 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.
City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for
the record.
City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the
application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission;
when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without
prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would
like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction
about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning
Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council
should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the
Planning Commission.
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 ofthe 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 properry will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of
sxisting and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity.
Special Permit Code Criteria
The planning commission may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, from the
applicant and the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds:
(a) the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new
construction or additional are consistent with the existing structuregn and with the existing street
and neighborhood;
(b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish material and elevations of the
proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and
neighborhood;
(c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by
the city; and
(d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is
necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the
removal that is proposed is appropriate.
2.
3.
4.
5.
DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA
The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance Nol 1591 adopted by the Council on
April20, 1998 are as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the
neighborhood;
Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure
Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
1336 Carlos Avenue, Design Review, Side Setback and FAR Variances, and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height
Envelope for a first and second story addition
/.ffi'W
Plming Departnqt
CiryHall-501 PriroRoad
Budiogme, Califomia 9,1010-3997
October 22,2002
Eric Johnson
1336 Carlos Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Johnson,
At the City Council meeting ofOctober2l,2002,the Council scheduled an appeal
hearing on your project at 1336 Carlos Avenue, zoned R- I . A public hearing will
be held onNovember 4,2002 at 7:00 p.m. inthe Council Chambers, 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you
have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
il'lnafrrlnun W--
Tcl. (650) 558-7200
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MIWs
APPLHRCC.acc
c City Clerk
October 17,2002
To:
From:
Re:
Thank you,
EONORABLE UAYOR AI{D CITY COTINCIL:
PLEASE SET APPEAL HEARING F1OR
NOVEIAER 4, 2OO2 COIINCTL UEL:IrNG
REGARDING T336 CARLOS AVENUE. THANK YOU
ANN UUSSO. CITY.'CLERKCity of Burlingame
Christi & Eric Johnson
1336 Carlos Ave
We would like to appeal the decision made regarding 1336
Carlos Ave at the October 15e planning commission
meeting.
RECEIV[N
acT 2 1 ?002
CIIY OF BURLINGAiVIt
PLANNING DEPT
Ciry of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
Commission
disagree with
6.
really like project as approved, but understand
in exterior materials
October 15,2002
's position;
good much, support
project;be practical, applicant all options to make tile roof shake roof will work
moved to continue to action calendar when the changes have been revised
o Revise transom at rear to round;
. Add the bay window to match the bay window; and
o Evaluate of the shake roof with overall design of the house.
The seconded by C. Brownrigg.
called for a voice vote motion to continue this item to when the requested
have been submitted to the Department. The motion on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling
). Appeal procedures were This item concluded at7;55
1336 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT
ENVELOPE AND HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ERIC JOHNSON,
APPLICANT; DAVE SIEGERT, DESIGNER; RALPH JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Reference staff report October 15,2002, with attachments. Planner Barber presented the report, reviewed
criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration.
Commission noted that the table shows no change to the height, where the staff report calls out a t 33'-3"
height. Planner Barber confirmed height requested is 33'-3", table is not correct.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Eric and Christy Johnson, property owner, was present to answer
questions. He has lived at this property for several years. Living room ceiling is over 12 feet in height
which penalizes them 205 SF toward floor area. If he constructs ceiling in living room would get additional
205 SF, but would like to keep house in original state. Garage is currently attached but setback quite a ways
from front property line and appears detached. If he detaches the garage he gets 400 SF more floor area. All
the houses in the area have more floor area than what he will be building. Existing house is only 2 bedrooms
and 1 bathroom, family needs more living space. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the project:
. Concerned with floor area, many houses with attached garages and high ceiling follow the
regulations;
. FAR variance is excessive, see no hardship on the property;
. Character of the house is changing by adding two times the floor area, massive addition at the rear
of a historical home, scale back plans;
o There are large rooms proposed in this house that can be reduced to bring down overall floor area;
and
. Plans are greatly improved, matches existing house, but 496 SF variance is too large, need to
reduce.
v
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 15, 2002
Commission discussion: disagrees wilh fellow Commissioner, project is greatly improved, especially north
elevation, rolled edges on new roof is an improvement; agree with design review recommendation, garage is
setback far enough, detaching it will take away original design and character and affect historical value of
house, will also occupy the limited green space atrear; ifproject denied new application may come forward
for demolition of this structure; dramatic improvement over previous, preserves historical quality of this
home.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application for the reasons stated in the discussion, by resolution, with
the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a2-4-l (Cers.
Auran, Boju6s, Vistica, Keighran dissenting, C. Osterling absent) roll call.
Further Commission discussion: can maintain design without being so big; many houses have similar
limitations but adhere to floor area limits; historical quality of existing house is not a hardship, no special
circumstances; looks like addition to historic home; no hardship to justiff such a large floor area ratio
variance; adding a ceiling in the living rcom is ridiculous; do not want to dictate where applicant takes off
floor area, that is up to the applicant; can reduce plate heights on addition to reduce bulk of this house;
setting precedent for other houses .
C. Auran moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Visitica.
Chair Keighran called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a
4-2-1 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keele dissenting, C. Ostering absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:30 p.m.
7. 2115 HALB DRIVE_R.l _ APPLICA DESIGN REVIEW FORA
NEW TWO-STO SINGLE FAMILY G AND DETACHED GARA (RICHARD
HARBER,AND PRO JAMES CHU, CHU DE & ENGR. INC,
HURIN
staff report October 15,with attachments. Planner Barber the report, reviewed
and Planning conuuerrtS. Nine conditions were for consideration.
Keighranopened hearing. fuchard Harber,, explained that sinking the house
is a problem because not be built as designed, this was not until the project was
to the Building Commission asked why changing slate roofing material.
stated that he wanted slate roof, was a with the architect. There are 2 slate
roofed lna 4 block area of this house, most have composition shingles.
why the house designed with the finished 2 feet above grade if this is a flat are there
tall heights. Applicant stated that he 8'-4" plate heights, but there an error by the
in his design. Applicant noted that he come forward with these changes faith and is not
and the publicany variances or exceptions on property. There were no further
was closed.
Chair Keighran moved to approve application for the reasons resolution, with the following
conditions: 1) that the project be built as shown on the plans to the Planning Department
A.1 through,4..6 and L-l
6
asked
date stamped October 1,plans), which show revisions from
Item # lO
Regular Action Calendar
PROJECT LOCATION
1336 Carlos Avenue
Item #
Regular Action CalendarCity of Burlingame
Design Review, Side Saback and FAR Variances, and Speciul
Permitsfor Height and Declining Height Envelopefor First and Second Story Additions
Address: 1336 Carlos Avenue Meeting Date: l0ll5/02
Request: Design review, side setback and FAR variances, and special permits for height and
declining height envelope for first and second story additions (C.S. 25.57.010;25.54;
25 .28.03 5,c; 25.28.060,a,1 ; 25.52).
Summary (revised project date stamped September 24,2002): The property at 1336 Carlos Avenue
has an existing single-story house with an attached garage and two accessory structures (a trellis and a
shed) at the rear of the property. The applicant is proposing to demolish the accessory structures, add
to the first floor at the rear of the existing house, and add a second story. With the proposed additions,
the floor area on the lot will be 3516 SF (0.59 FAR) where 3020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum
allowed. The applicant is requesting an FAR variance to exceed the maximum allowable FAR by 496
SF. A portion of the existing living room where the ceiling height exceeds 12 feet, a total of 205 SF, is
included in the FAR calculations.
The existing first floor has a non-conforming left side setback, with 3'-11" where 4'-0" is required by
the current code. The proposed addition to the rear of the first floor will match the existing 3'-11" side
setback. The applicant is requesting a side setback variance for 1 inch. The applicant is requesting a
special permit for a proposed height of 33'-3" where a height between 30'-0" and 36'-0" requires a
special permit. The design of the home also requires a special permit for an encroachment into the
declining height envelope of 46 SF( 3'8" w x 12'-6" 1) on the left side. With the proposed additions the
number of bedrooms will be increased from 2 to 4 and the existing attached garage provides the
required single covered parking space on site. All other zoning code requirements have been met.
The applicant is requesting the following:
a Design Review for first and second story additions;
o Floor area ratio variance (3,516 SF (0.59 FAR)) proposed where 3,020 SF (0.50) is the maximum
allowed);
Side setback variance (3'-11" proposed on the left side where 4'-0" is required);a
a Special permit for height (33'-3" proposed where a height between 30'-0" and 36'-0" requires a
special permit); and
Appticant: Eric Johnson APN: 027-153-260
Property Owner: Ralph Johnson
Designer: Dave Siegert Lot Area: 6000 SF
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-l
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing
structures provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50ozo of the floor area of the
structures before the addition.
Design Review , Two Variances and Two Special
Permits for First and Second Story Additions
l3i6 Carlos Avenue
a Special permit for exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope (left side encroaches by 46
SF (3'8" w x 12'-6" l)).
* Existing structure is nonconforming in side setback (3'-11" existing where 4'-0" is required).t* Side setback variance required (3'-11" proposed where 4'-0" is required).*x* FAI{ variance required (3637 SF (0.61 FAR) proposed where 3020 SF (0.50) is the maximum
allowed).**** Existing structure is nonconforming in side setback (3'-6" existing where 4'-0" is required).
Staff Comments: See attached.
Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July
22, 2002, the Commission had the following concerns about the project (July 22, 2002, Planning
2
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ',D
SETBACKS
Front (lstflr):
(2ndJlr):
no change
34'-8"
20'-8"15'-0"
20'-0"
Side (left):
(right):
3'-1 1" **
no change
3'-11" *
3r_6r ****
4r_0rr
4r_0il
Rear (lstflr):
(2nd Jlr):
34'-0t'
36'-8"
53'-6"15'-0"
20'-0"
Lot Coverage:2223 SF
37%
1988 SF
33%
2400 sF
40%
FAR:3516 SF ***
0.59 FAR
2193 SF
0.37 FAR
3020sF
O.5O FAR
Parking:no change 1 covered
(10'x 20')
1 uncovered
(9'x 20')
1 covered
(10'x 20')
1 uncovered
(9'x 20')
# of bedrooms:4 2
Height:
r2.g/ 7 tr
uo-Cmsng(
left side encroaches by
46 SF (3'8" w x 12'-6" l)
29',-6"30'-0"
DH Envelope:complies see code
Design Review , Two Yariances and Two Special
Permits for First and Second Story Additions
1336 Carlos Avenue
Commission Minutes)
. why doesn't addition have angles like the existing house;
o addition looks stuck on; looks like an addition to the house when it should be continuation of
the existing house; addition is not consistent with the existing house;
. concerned with FAR variance request, FAR is over by 600 SF, looks massive; just because
garuge is attached and there are areas with ceiling height over 12 feet, does not mean you don't
have to follow code; even if you take off 205 SF of floor area that is counted in ceiling height,
still lookingat a400 +SF variance; see no need for a floor arcavarrafice;
. concern with size and mass;
o addition to house appears to have two different styles merged together-bottom has half timbers
and the top has siding; roof lines and pitches are not consistent;
. have syrnpathy for large peaks with this design;
o do not encourage detaching garage;
. call out arched windows; and
. house has good fagade now with a box at the rear.
The Commission moved to refer this item to a design review consultant.
Design Reviewer Comments and Conclusions: A meeting was held with the applicant and the design
reviewer on July 3L,2002. Based on the comments from the Planning Commission and the design
reviewer, the applicant submitted revised plans date stamped September 24,2002. The following
revisions have been made to the original plans:
o the pitch of the second story roof has been increased from 8:12 to 12:12 to be consistent with
the existing steeply pitched roof over the living room and to concentrate the mass of the second
story in the center of the lot; with the revise plans the applicant is requesting a special permit
for the increased roof pitch, which creates a roof ridge with a height of 33'-3", where a height
between 30'-0" and 36'-0" requires a special permit, and the height on the original plans
matched the existing height of 29'-6";
o the applicant is proposing rolled eaves on the second story addition at both side elevations to
match the existing rolled eaves at the front elevation of the house;
o the roof pitch of the gabled stairwell dormer at the left (north) elevation has been increased
from 8: 12 to l2:12 to be consistent with the existing steeply pitched roof over the living room;
with the revised plans the applicant is requesting a special permit to exceed the limits of the
declining height envelope, which encroaches by 46 SF (3'-8" w x 12'-6" l) on the left side,
where the previous application complied with the declining height envelope limits;
o the rear dormer on the left (north) elevation has been changed from a gable dormer to an
eyebrow dormer;
. a dormer with rolled eaves and a balcony have been added to the right (south) elevation;
o the window styles and vents have been altered on the second story addition at the front and left
aJ
Design Review , Two Variances and Two Special
Permtts for First and Second Story Additions
1336 Carlos Avenue
a
(north) elevations; and
the applicant has reduced the request for a FAR variance of 617 SF over the maximum allowed
to 496 SF over the maximum allowed (from a total of 3637 SF (0.61 FAR) to 3516 SF (0.59
FAR).
1
2.
J
4.
5
The design reviewer's comments, date stamped September 1.2,2002, are attached. The design reviewer
recommends approval of the design review application.
The design review consultant also notes that this property has an existing residence with a unique
"storybook" design. The consultant feels that the FAR variance requested by the applicant is justified
because detaching the existing attached garage, which would give the applicant an additional 400 SF
bonus, and removing the existing vaulted ceiling in the living room, which adds an additional 205 SF
to the floor area calculations because it is counted twice, would be detrimental to the "storybook"
architecture of the residence.
Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted
by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows:
Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
Respect for the parking and garage pattems in the neighborhood;
Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure;
Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Required Findings for Variance: ln order to grant a variance the Planmng 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;
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
4
Design Review , Two Variances and Two Special
Permits for First and Second Story Additions
1336 Carlos Avenue
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.
Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for height, the Planning Commission
must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d):
(a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition
are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) the variety of roofline, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new
structure or addition are consistenl with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and
(d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and
is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is
proposed is appropriate.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative
action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review, variances, and special
permits, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following
conditions should be considered:
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped September 24,2002, sheets A-1 through A-7, and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment
to this permit;
that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which
would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of
the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;
that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as
window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed
professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building
5
I
2.
aJ
4.
Design Review , Two Variances and Two Special
Permits for First and Second Story Additions
5
Erika Lewit
Planner
c: Eric Johnson
I 336 Carlos Avenue
6.
-
8
Department;
that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the
architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built
according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the floor area ratio,
side setback variances as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become
void;
that the conditions of the City Engineer's, the Recycling Specialist's, and the Chief Building
Inspector's May 6, 2002 memos shall be met; and
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.
6
Property Owner:
Applieant Name:
Designer:
Project Address:
Planner:
Dote of Review:
Design Guidelines
Design Review Comments
City of Burlingame
Johnson Residence
Eric Johnson
I)ave Siegert Architecture & Design
1336 Carlos Avenue
Erika Lewit
12 September 2002
1.COMPATIBILITY OF THE ARCHMECTI]RAL STYLE WITH THAT OF
THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE I\-EIGHBORHOOD.
This is one ofthe most unique micro-areas of Burlingame. This block houses the
5 "Storybook Houses" that look like they are straight out of Snow White. This
house is the second of this block of structures.
There are a few small bungalows remaining on the street across from this
residence. There is also a split-level home circa 1960's, and other varieties of
styles in the area.
The most predominate style, thouglr, is the "storybook". As requested by the
Planning Commission, the addition should be as charming as the existing house.
RESPECT FOR THE PARIilNG AFID GARAGE PATTERNS IN THtr
NEIGHBORHOOD.
The area has a variety of garage installations. This particular residence has an
attached garage that is set back from the front elevatiorq tucked into the side of
the house. It is an excellent location, and will be retained through the new
construction, as encouraged by the PC. If this were to be detached, the owners
would be allotted another 400 square feet in the overall scheme.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MA.SS AND
BULK OF' STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
The designer has worked very carefully to retain the existing architecture of the
structure. The most notable consistent design aspect ofthe construction is the
rolled roof, which is echoed at the proposed addition. The existing living room
has an e;<traordinarily steep rooflceiling, which adds to the character of the house.
The designer incorporated a steeply pitched roof in the second floor roofline.
There are several dormers articulated into the roof adding more interest to the
design. Some arched windows have been incorporated into the scheme.
Materials are utilized in a manner similar to the original construction.
)
3.
4.
Johnson Residence
1336 Carlos Avenue
Page2 of 3
6.
INTERTACE OT'THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE
STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTMS.
Since this residence is located between two similar structures, it is important to
retain the consistency of design. This design sets back the proposed addition on
the front and north elevations, reducing mass of the proposed addition. The
neighbor to the left, 1340 Carlos Avenue should feel little impact from the
proposed addition, due to setting the second floor plane back from the first floor
exterior walls.
The south elevation is set to the rear of the yard, with a driveway and garage in
between. There should be little impact on the 1332 Carlos Avenue residence to
the right.
The rear elevation is nicely articulated with windows and a gable.
LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF
STRUCTTJRAL COMPON-fl NTS.
The two street trees are very small, which is in keeping with the minimal
landscaping in the neighborhood. There are really bushes between the neighbors
Fortunately, there is no need to cover bad design.
5.
IN THE CASE OF AN ADDruON, COMPATABILTY WmH THE
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF IHE EXISTING
STRUCTURE AS REMODELED.
As previously mentioned, the proposed design thoughtfully incorporates the
existing architecture of the residence.
COMMENTS:
There seemed to be two major issues of concern from the PC. One was incorporating the
existing charm and architecture of the original design, and as I have discussed,I feel the
designer has addressed this concern.
The other main concern was the FAR variance. This is a unique situation due to the
architecture of the existing residence. According to the revised FA& a detached garage
allows the homeowner an additional400 square feet. The design would not be as
charming by detaching the garage, therefore, due to special circumstances, I feel the
owners should be allowed that additional square footage.
Another area of calculating square footage, is the additional 205 square feet counted,
which are inaccessible at the steep pitch of the living room. This is once again, part of
the uniqueness ofthe house, which the owners and designer have worked carefully to
retain.
Therefore, due to the uniqueness of this residence, it is unfair to place standard
procedures and parametres on the design. I would like to see the 605 square feet be
allotted for this proposed design.
Johnson Residence
1336 Carlos Avenue
Page 3 of3
Over the past23 years I have enjoyed driving past these 5 "storybook houses". I have
worried about the inevitability of additions to the structures. I feel this proposed design
enhances the charm ofthis cottage, and am thanldul for the consideration these owners
have taken for their proposed addition.
,Jo(fi dilrw
Catherine J.M. Nilrheyer U
City' of B urlingame P I annin g Commission Minutes July
the approved Planning plans; and 9)project shall meet all the of the
California and California Fire 998 edition, as amended rty of Burlingame.
The motion by C. Auran.
called for a vote on the motion to approve.
absent). Appeal were advised. This item
IX. DESIGN TUDY ITEMS
1336 CARLOS AVENUE _ ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK
AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (ERIC
JOHNSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RALPH JOHNSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (63
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Commissioner Osterling recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet of the project,
and stepped down from the dias.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked if the house has any historic
value, staff stated that they would research fuither to find out if it was designed by a well known architect.
Commissioner asked if area over 12 feet in height counts twice toward the floor area, and if so, how much of
the area in this project is over 12 feet in height. Staff stated that only the area of the plane at 12 feet in
height counts toward floor area, not the area of the floor below; there is 205 SF in the plane at 12 feet in
height and is counted.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Eric Johnson, property owner of 1336 Carlos Avenue stated
that he has lived in this home for 12 years and is active in his neighborhood. It sounds like a lot of square
footage, however there is no FAR credit for an attached garage, so there is a 400 SF bonus to other
properties. Not interested in detaching the garage due to the sloped roof of the garage that ties in wilh the
house. The front bedroom is actually an office, so house has 3 bedrooms. The garuge is setback 60 feet
from the curb, and 30 feet from the face of the house; some people actually thought the garage was already
detached. Have to walk out of the house to get into the garage. Want to keep storybook look of the house,
don't want to be penalized for the garage or high ceiling. Commission asked why addition does not have a
rolled roof consistent with the rest of the house; owner stated that it costs too much and would not allow for
gutters, and that could cause serious water problems. Owner stated he would match existing roof pitches on
the house but that it would require a special permit for declining height envelope, and he changed the pitch
because he wanted to come in with as few requests as possible.
Commissioner comments on the design;
o existing house is beautiful, addition should enhance the existing house;
. why doesn't addition have angles like the existing house;
o addition looks stuck on; looks like an addition to the house when it should be continuation of the
existing house; addition is not consistent with the existing house;
. addition should be just as charming as the house;
. concerned with FAR variance request, FAR is over by 600 SF, looks massive; just because garage
is attached and there are areas with ceiling height over 12 feet, does not mean you don't have to
follow code; even if you take off 205 SF of floor area that is counted in ceiling height, still looking
at a 400 +SF variance; see no need for a floor areavaiance;
motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers.
at 8:43 p.m.
5.
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 22,2002
. concem with size and mass;
o addition to house appears to have two different styles merged together-bottom has halftimbers and
the top has siding; roof lines and pitches are not consistent;
o have sympathy for large peaks with this design;
. do not encourage detaching garage;
o call out arched windows; and
. house has good fagade now with a box at the rear.
Design review process will help with addressing these issues; doing this addition right will help preserve the
demolition of this house in the future. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to design review. The motion passed on a
voice vote 5-0-1-1(Cmsr. Osterling abstaining and Cmsr.Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
C. Osterling took his seat at the dias
6.2115 HALE D
STORY SING
_ ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR
FAMILY DWELLING AND DET
INC., APPLICANT AND
IGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO
GARAGE (CIilJ DESIGN AND
ENG
loss ofgreen space.
Chair Keighran called for a on the motion to place this item on
been revised as directed.passed on a voice vote 5-1-1
action is advisory and not
HARBER, PROPERTY OWNER)
is at maximum
elements are nice but concerned the size of this house,
consent calendar when plans had
dissenting and C. Vistica
Keylon briefly presented the project There were no questions of staff.
ChairKeighran opened the public Richard and Maureen Harber, 1434 Col Drive, property
owners were available for that they want to enhance the and are not asking
for any variances for this proj proJ ect is within the allowable FAR. N Yaus, property owner of
2I2l Hale Drive, to the the subject property, stated that she problem with the design but
expressed concem over cfthedemolition and the construction hours. Shejust
leased her property to tenant that has a small child. There no other comments from the floor and
the public hearing closed.
C. Auran motion to place this item on the at a time when the following revision has
been made plan checked:
articulation is needed on the right break up massa
The was seconded by C. Osterling.
on the motion: nice design;'t support motion, there is no
FAR, tired of whole lot being taken
absent). The Planning
6
This item concluded at 9:1 lp.m.
ROUTING FORM
DATE: May 6,2007
TO:_City Engineer
_Chief Building Official
Fire Marshal--7y' Recycling Specialist
_S.. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Request for design review for a first'and second story addition at 1336 Carlos Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: OZ7 -153-260.
STAFF REVIEW:7007
(*-
Ar""*tt,;++
a_
,JJ
n F/vuwruru
.J"
l/'-o'o<4 r/'"m\ &'/'
(/v
,r.rr* ;(,( b- o'f"-t\t
db4,L +l^-'/ Lt
l,( (^* 0e
v
Reviewed By:Date of Comments:SAA
DATE: May 6,2A02
TO:
FROM: Planning Staff
tcrtt Engineer
_Chief Building Official
_Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
SUBIECT: Requesr for design review for a frrst and second story addirion at 1336 Carlos Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 077'153').60.
STAFF REVIEW:6,ZOOZ
ROUTING FORM
{" [^;4\r,,,*-rMw
J4^.,,
Reviewed By:\/ J,Date of Comments:
ffi,kwT
ROUTING FORM
DATE: May 6,2007
TO:_City Engineer
/Ct i"t Building Official
_Fire Marshal
_Recycling Specialist
_Sr. Landscape Inspector
_City Attorney
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Requesr for design review for a first'and second story addition at 1336 Carlos Avenue,
zoned R-1, APN: 027'153'760.
STAFF REVIEW:6 2002
,RA fi 6urr.<s /0{<€ /{ R€Q ui€€D ,37 6oDs
Reviewed By:Date of Comments:5=6.'a==-
*
{+
t 1 ,' r
oEil L Oy . UA I t Vr AUnL.tlYlrAtrtr rLAl\lIllIlJ i auu ot o d /:JU i JUIt-C/ -UZ t 1, l lrfir rEgE o/ e
CIty Brlia3arc l{rnnine DcprtEtd St}l Prisucc Bood F(6J0} 558-7250 F(650) 69e3?90 wuffihdtngzmc'org
APPLICATIONT0THEPLA$ININGCoMMISSI(}N
ofeppllcrdon: Ileeign
SPcchl
tl/
Rovicw z\-
Pcrmit--O&rr-Earocl
CityISanfiiP:,,'){fl'[el
Phono v.'3'{oroe;
3,/1.-iJf)
7 "t?/O (
cte
PROPERTY OWN
IZfr 4 0tJ
C;I{JY Bt,lS
ciry/statclzip:L Llr {/ {0i o
Pless€ indicete with en asterisk *
lhc contact pcr$otr for this protect'
y)odtL ftD iftot"
.,.t73b Lfr
Aot*te*
Ct,tw!
Lc1 -f ,4
b,L
t
Phone
strl.f,co'fu,rp q#d t
r1N iv C,,4
c G-{ z't
7s L (r''27
FROJECI DESCRIPTION
AXTAD AVIT/S TGNATTJRE:T certiS
given hcrtin ie truc and best
Applicant's
Iknow SowthcPrPmd
applicarioa to fre Pluning
that the infsmation
-dz
a,bove opplicert !o submit this
-Z-CI2
Dato srrbrnitted:-
RECEIVED
and
fCATT.IRM
JUL - 3 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
nopatYowa€tr'c
Coodihoml Usc Pemit-
5A<-*v a-e* Vo-ti
City of Burlingame www.burlingame.org
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance
(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning
Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request.
Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these
questions.
Descrtbe the ac,ceptional or straordinary circamstanoes or condilions applicable to yoar
property which do not apply to other properties in this area-
tJ€ ftiz, TBYtltk 70 fr oe p V/t )-SZzpyr>0oh,"
t/ou;; L@/( nS a E/G*oeL is TosSt 6/F
"l" o FFJ;r *,// too/, Lt kf ,frJ .hptnarrt .
Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship
might resultform the denial of the application.
c"Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or
injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to pu,blic heahh, safety, general
welfare or convenience
7f u-xiJflrq /ouS6 tS 3 ' l/ " fr?"o,4
lrsTcnry I*.;^ 0 Pouv{ /u676*t/Bafe Dirutr.,.rfr\/
How will the proposed project be compattble with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and
character of the extsting and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity? t(T$/d I t)arvr Ailc€ *arld ki+ flf
Ltp€ - oF b-;Ku7r,1,/& /ou; 7/r .grr/i.RECElVtf
JUtercr&"rZ002
CITY 0F BURLiNGAt',riIpr Ar\r Nr rNC nFpT
d
IL
(e*VAri ct rtC-c
Lr vrn6}
7,\ o$ 2
IrnO ts
*-l
13'6Cci
,l
b I\,w-housc wftS harrd Cra{t"ed rn +{-'€
IQZD' s a3 0 3ro (U
.d OOCK hor,rSe u-'i-t+
Oc.f ot1icnq rery 5re eP n rd r,
q\
+C
ve3 eh AA o-nG. clurrerr:;rOn
*rre t-l o$hrgr- S bcoc hourSes
-\he Y ).et 3htxs-hco
Ne ruGC\+- fa pves€rvc +h<-\ooK-.
Db ou (hOUt_ Q:r-+lX_ !-\e\$tnhovrloo
[v1an'qttrc "Ste:r\oool< hou:cs
yrsltov-s {-o ollr Phorcq
o) To dl-cJurcl sbL,r.orc-e
-Hn-q- L-l vr r-\3t/-o-onn r"'-:cf-UC
-11"e Y'<>c{lo"b\e Y-a\7:e to. a
3ruw,^3 {a.r3.
\)11"" L-\\,r\Ctnd
Ltne5
b )
d,
€tre-tl-
o
REC EIVE D
JL{L -3 Z00z
CITY OF BURLIAIGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
fr
a
o{
/AL
-,
&(ic^'rtce ,LolZP
A
Dehchfd 6o,^qctx.-
\We ulbLr\d hove }o vemove o\1e. of {-t-,e
fivgesF *ree S on ++1. k>]oCK-. GpOrou, <iD€rfya\
' 13 " Dtrl
fh. gorage i: Otreodg s,e+ 3o [eef bocc
Lrz orn -!he (a ce 6c house g ,u' tgq derochecl eCfeer-.
e),fh.re ls no dru.<r* occess 4.orn *,.re
hou:< tc>\hq- ECI/\ aqL, y"-.v.rrtrst lvc.{
+ts- yrsrr-se. crnd enler -Ihe gu.qW,
)B"\l'Ju 0r0 0.Stongb COK- hcu-Se
$er-ach *t\f ag*'
CCLI,,
W LUou'rC
-Fhe hr*onr o*mo8pher
p(p.,13
oncl to
ChyrqL
e % ooc
%,)1.. qerap lS nDl- +cr be r"e Ifsr -+hi S PnDJecl-
REC E IVE *
JUL - 3 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
f:': 3y cl1v eF 8d8-I|.CAltE G;;,\r-1r11-: ef ,: 690 3rg!; .r:r.,.! r: 3:4cp1i; E,i!e 5,!
C;T\ l:t FURll!,tt,,r,'-it ?L/r$:t,,i".: i1';. jiTHl]1.; 5ui 1.aj..irt.i i :; - r ._ i; :1!.ilJf t ,r,!0)tt{-11r1
Thc Hartdqg C'cnrmisiu: ir ruqr.ired by law to nnlcc lLrdirrgs ry definej bl,rlre Ciry's OrCin:urco i(..rrJc
Sccttrra25.50). Yor.r srs\i'crs:o'r.l:c lbllox'int g*?saer!.e c..ir=t :t *.:}!ra-:!ng C+:yrrn!s.i:a ir, *:ek1g
tlfdo{iflOnrrtowhpthqrthrli.tdiigr(i.nba&i:dtil'lyr.ru.r'-iJ:,sr. Ple:i:ty.r;c'..tritener:!),i:.,ii
Itefor to 6o baeh ol thiu y;rrn fo; e.";,riflanca wittr th+si gtr.;slir::E
l, Euplain **y rbc bhnC $ naw, $eh ail dumiiron! toucturd tArr.crttriukt olthc nc*,
wrrtur.c'lialt,. or edditlati drc cottttttrai wlth t.l::. tttttlfig ttf:tcgtrt's dssf,x aaa wtth thr
"-lsrrllt qtrut,,f eul aolgltborhaod
l. The proposed addition will have little effeu to adjacent propeties. The house to the north has a
driveway benueen the properties. The house to the south has a existinc garage thet is not to be changed.
The rear ofthe house will have many mor€ characteristic features as does thi front. There are many large
trees bdween the backyard neighbors.
t Eryleh how-thc vdtlctt of wof llne,facldc, (t c,lor fl"ubh l'.aur*,k r,ad cle.rui,,ns ol
the ptoparcd a,€rr Sttt clurc ot lddlltan arc conri:.tetil r;ith tAc cxtsting l6tua1urut s4p.eet
and acighbrhood.
2. The proposed roofline and fagado wilt inoorporate odsting "storybook hous€" features including
exposed wood beamq a stesp rcrof ard rolled at tle eves.
I
I
I
1, I{ott wtllthcprolltttltojcctb cawtxut rr.ith thy r*illwtial ddbn gui4r)ba alopred
" .---
b.Existing puking to remain 60 ft. Driveway with I car garagc.
c. The existing roofline is very'steep, the second floor setback and
existing faCade.
a new roofline enhances the
RECEIVED qI:'hRN';I
d.The proposed structure witl incorporate the odsting storybook iook of these five homes. Fach
have their own unique style with steep roof rnd exposed wood.
e.Exisitng tandscaping to remain. two $recf trces, two small trees at house with a hedge and rose
1 buhes.r4l ts ho* dn warrrval of aay lrus bcoto:c x'ilhla thy (aot rint oleU nc* stnxturt
or &le..s raaerr.A' end k coeeistcr, vilit tttc cil-t's rcfotvstelioa *quircargfits.
What;tlg*loa
bryprcprlorc.
ts propsctlot ftc mswal o! otry' o.'flsl Es$ah wAy chb nitgatita
4. The backyard will have oneMYPonrim removed urd a Chinosis relooated in a row ofsixtrees
sEP 2 4 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
CTTY O}'BIJIU,.INGAMB
SPECIAI, PERIUTT AP.PLICArION
bordering the nor*t side ofttrcYud.
I
U! rv ll 3di-:r;ceritE c_^1r...:...: ff . i:U.rE 3Ig.1 i .,::.
Cil\ r;f Ftjf,t!|.lrl.,r.,.it il.\r),t...,. :!, ;iTl,{f }:,: I,r f .rj._r1; , .. ..
cII"!'oF Bt-'lu,rNcAMa
S PECI,AI. PEITIT{ TT {.PTLICI,IION 6't
':.4frur,. 6.;, r 5.rrt " J.
1l :.'tr f i.r,f 1\.119r
Thc9ttmiql^co-n'lniciq: ir nqr.rircd blr law ro nnrc tirrdirg. g drfinci bl,rlc cir)'r fltdi:uore i!orlc
SCCtOa25.50). YC*rrrrsri'ctStOthcfallcrxing,quc:a.sBecr,i:::;rrt.h:}lrljngC,,.r131r!tc.;oair.*rldrg
tlrdxidoastuw&r-&'r3'ladhgr(i.nbi-u;dsir:1'tltl.:r.i'.r:.sr. ylec;?tfrro".vli,tnir:l:,ir,,l*i
Itefor (o 6o bask of &is iorr! foi c+sirtancq \ilirtr $rs,ri glr.;sti,::s.
l, EWIIN t*y rl,c b**d o! tilttr, *ab ad dont*an! uractutd *sr{tnitdte olthq ncx,
l#rt4.tcliox ,;r ulditlaa 4rc cordrt Ot t#th tl:t a{:$n6i $r.$t*t,'i drtk* aui vtth thn
I. Tle.propoeod addition will have little effect o adjeceat properties. Tlre bouse to rhe nonh hss a
driverny barrcca the proportles. The house to ths south hes a exisring geragethrt is aot to be changed.
Thc rcar oftho hougerviiitavc fiiloy lrlore cbanctecistic features as does tho front. There ue m*rftarge
tres baweenthc brckyud neighbors
t EtFlsir hg,*-rhcvailcLt af atflta4taalc,s*lsi<rri,r:ith ncter*,k nalc!*ui,ns al
rha Fro@ nfrt stn ctrrl?c as sCllltaa cre a)nsiilrrt *i:h thr c*tlag $utttt tt| tt ttt
ard atbhfr,rlzod.
?. Th6 propoaed rooflincand faCads will incorporatc eniwing "srorybook houC'features inoluding
olgorcd wood bcams, e dcc? roof ard rollod u th cves.
L llcw *tl ilu Wrttldlmjcct trearr&ierrr i,ittt thy resirtuaiial dat,tt g&llra alaptd
a--
b.Exixing parkilg to raain 60 ft. Driveway with t cer garagc.
c The axistiqg roof tinc is very $ccp, Oc r*od floor sctback ud
exiurtrg fsgade-
d.fbe propooed strucune will incorpore& the ori*ing storybook looh of thsre 6vc homes. Each
hgve thir own unique style with steep roof ud exposcd wood.
e.Exisitrrg lardecaping ro rcmain. two Sr€Gt troes, two small trces at houss with a hedge and rose
a buahol,r4l6 hor" t*t rtutova! olafil lftrs locatq x'irila tfu loofifint afrltr1, ;e* drt*dlurt
a new roofline cqhancer rhe
rv,1lrllrfitfiri,
t*b altgatioa
4. Tb3
ar &s* rrr'ftrs3r'ro etd ls cantHe* rri Jir$ cil'* rrlotcltoittx
Whats@edm
b Wtqdao
b p ropot t { tcr l& mn cual a7' a,g' rr.'{'r t E xptah *Ly
will hsvo oncMlPonrim rcrnorrod and a Chinods relocoted in r row of six trees
-q(.:71r(i; l'
RECEIVED
SEP 2 4?OOZ
CITY OF EURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
bordori4 tho nortl sido of tt* Yard'
JOHNSON RESIDENCE
1336 Carlos Ave
Burlingame, CA. 94010
(6s0) 348-13s3
The projects objective is to increase the size of the existing house while still
maintaining it's unique architectural characteristics such as the roofline and
eaves, Tudor detailing and spacious interior volume at the living room. The
new wall and rooflines have been designed and detailed to not diminish the
existing character of the residence. The second level addition serves as a
backdrop to the existing front fagade, framing the entry and soaring roof
over the living room. An interplay of shapes and volumes is introduced at
the second level addition along the side and rear yards. This serves a
number of purposes such as allowing sun-light to enter the neighboring
properties and rear yard, breaking up the respective elevation vertically and
providing a more human scale. Detailing around doors, windows, and gable
ends draws inspiration from the existing detailing around the house as well
as the historical Arts and Crafts movement.
Proposed new floor area: 1267 sqft
Gross new floor area: 3016 sq ft
Respectfully,
RECEIVED
MAY - 3 2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.tcN-
Eric &Johnson
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 9401O
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1336 CARLOS AVEIIIIE
Application for design review, side
seEback and floor area variances for a
first and second floor addition at 1336
Carlos Avenue, zoned R-1.
(APN: 027 -a53 -260')
The City of Burlingame Planning
Commi-ssiort announces the following
public hearing on Monday, iluly 22, 2002
ats 7:30 P.M. in the CitY Ha1I Council
Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
Mailed JuIy 12, 2oo2
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy ofthe
to the meeting
Burlingame,
If you
raising
described
at or prior
Property
tenants
558-7250.
Margaret
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
y be reviewed prior
1 Pr iinrose Road,
be limited to
hearing,
to the city
their
call (650)
PI.J
(Please re.fer to other side)
CE 4...
CITYOFBURUNGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94O.IO
TEL: (650) ssa-725o
1"336 CARLOS AVENUE
Application for design review, side
setback and floor area variances and
special permits for height and declining PUBLIC HEARING.
NOTICE
The City of Burlingame Planning
Commission announces the following
public hearing or @2002 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Ha11
Councll Chambers located at 501 Primros
Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed October 4, 2OO2
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BT]RLINGA,ME
Acopy ofthe
to the meeting
Burlingame,
If you
-at br prior,
Property
tenants
558-7250
Margaret
City Planner
PU
:_ :.i. _
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
be limited to
hearing,
to the city
their
call (650)
E
{&*-rFs ,\ l&
(Please refer to other side)
i
1
i
j
l
height. envelope for first and second
floor additions at 1335 Carlos Avenue,
zoned R-1. APN: O27-L53-2601
. til '
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES
FOR SIDE SETBACK AND FLOOR AREA RATIO AI\ID SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT
AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for desisn
review. variances for side setback and floor area ratio. and soecial oermits for sht and declinine heieht
envelope for first and second story additions to an existins single-story residence at 1336 Carlos Avenue.
zoned R-1. Ralph Johnson. property owner. APN: 027-153-260;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
October 15. 2002, at which time said application was denied without prejudice;
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on November 4,
2002, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and 4il cther written materials and testimony
presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is 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. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 Class 1 - (e) additions to existing structures
provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50oh of the floor area of the structures before
the addition.
2. Said design review, variances for side setback and floor area ratio, and special permits for
height and declining height envelope are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Findings for the 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 resolu:rcn 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 certiff that the foregoing resolution
was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 4th day of
November. 2002 , by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT t'A''
Conditions of approval for design review, variances for side setback and floor area ratio, and special
permits for height and declining height envelope
1336 CARLOS AVENUE
effective October 21, 2002
that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped September 24,2002, sheets A- 1 through A-7 , and that any changes to building
materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and
amendment to this permit;
that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage,
which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural featuii;s or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review'
that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the
height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building
Department;
that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details
such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall
provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department;
that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance
of the architectur4l details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has
been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;
that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at alater date the floor area ratio,
side setback variances as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become
void;
that the conditions of the City Engineer:s, the Recycling Specialist's, and the Chief
Building lnspector:s May 6,2002 memos shall be met; and
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Califomia Building and Uniform
Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
-2-
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA9401O
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1336 CARLOS AVENTIE
Appeal of a Planning Commission denial
of an application for desigin review,
side setback and floor area variances
and special permits for height and
declining height envelope for first and
second floor additions'at 1336 Carlos
Avenue, zoned R-1. APN: O27-L53'260)
The City of Burlingame City Council
announces the following public hearing
on Monday, Noveuber 4, 2902 aE 7200 P.M.
in the city HalI council chambers
l-ocaLed at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Californi-a.
Mailed October 25, 2OO2
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BTTRLINGAME
A copy of rhe
to the meeting
Burlingame,
If you
raising
described
at or
Property
tenants
558-72s0.
Margaret
City Planner
PU
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
limited to
hearing,
to the city
their
call (650)
t_
C.ALIS'11 N iJ&
(Please refer to other side)
CE
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
:
I
!
l
l
l
I
I
i
ctfitr$ut*rcATl0lr f,[cErv#s
GARR' uccrnrffi,l**f:*:i;ll?""oN & HonN \rr.* pEEpARAI w, (oe-
ATToRNEYSATLA* ) -
216PARKRoAD,posroFFrcEBox5l3 r - orSTArrngffif
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94OI I -05 1 3
MARK D. HUDAK
mhudak@cmithlaw.com
TELEPHONE (650) 342-e600
FACSTMTLE (6so) 342-7 68s
www.cmithlaw.com
Burlingame Crty Council
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
October 31,2002
RECEIVED
ocT 3 1 2002
t''rtrf,[*?'YEitF+Yt
Appeal of California Electrical Service
380 Lang Road
Dear Council Members:
Our office represents California Electrical Service, ("California Electrical"). California
Electrical applied for a master signage permit for its main office at 380 Lang Road and for a
determination of the location of the primary frontage for this unique building. The Planning
Commission denied the application on a 4-2 vote (Commissioner Osterling was absent) and this
appeal was filed.
California Electrical provilles electrical contracting services throughout San Mateo
County. Its principal office is here in Burlingame. The company does residential and
commercial installations in Burlingame. The company has been successful, growing from two
employees to over 60, with more than 30 employees working out of the Burlingame office.
California Electrical is fully involved in the community. In particular, the company has
been active in raising funds for Burlingame High School and the Burlingame Fire Department.
They do work for and are on call24 hours aday for the Burlingame Building Department, Fire
Department, Police Departmentant, and the Public Works Department. The company is a
valuable member of the business community and I am happy to present the following
information on its behalf.
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL'S PERMIT APPLICATION
California Electrical occupies the entire building at 380 Lang. The zoning for this
building is CM. The building is positioned at the end of a bulb cul-de-sac. However, a paved
easement continues north from the cul-de-sac to serve two businesses located at 390 Lang Road
(D.J. Capps Glass Company and a scuba school). There is also another property that a paving
company leases. For all practical purposes, Lang Road continues in front of the California
Electrical building and provides the apparent primary frontage for the building.
California Electrical has proposed a master sign program which would allow its primary
and secondary signage to be combined in a single sign. The sign would be painted on the side of
Re
\bbn€\u
Burlingame City Council
October 31,2002
Page2
the building which faces the paved extension of Lang Road, parallel to Highway 101. The sign
would be illuminated by ground lighting as permitted in this zone. California Electrical had
agreed to remove information from the sign concerning its office locations and telephone number
to make the sign more palatable to the Planning Commission, but would like to retain the
information regarding its website.
According to the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission, the total combined
square footage allowable for this building is 266 square feet and four signs. Because the
proposed master sign will be located above the 12 foot level, only 60Yo of the maximum srgnage,
or 160 square foot total, is allowed.l
Califomia Electrical could have requested that its signage be on a pole sign, which would
not be subject to reduction, but this sign would be much more intrusive. We hope to avoid this
option. The Planning Commission denied this application because, in its view, the sign would be
located on the building's secondary frontage. Signage on the secondary frontage of this building
would be limited to 75 square feet (reduced by 40% if over the 12 foot height limit).
The location and total square footage of the proposed master sign is consistent with other
signs along the Highway 101 corridor and with total signage for other buildings on the
immediate area.
ANALYSIS OF SIGN ORDINANCE
Section 22.06.110 of the Municipal Code allows the City Council to grant exceptions to
the strict application of the sign ordinance relating to height, location, or number of signs (but
not as to size). An exception can only be granted if there are unique circumstances relating to
the property such as "size, shape, topography, street frontase, or surrounding land use that do not
apply to property in the same district." [Emphasis added].
The setting of 380 Lang Road is unique and justifies an exception so that the side of the
building facing the paved extension of Lang Road can be treated as on the primary frontage.
There are several reasons why this exception is proper.
First, without an exception, the primary signage would have to be placed on the side of
the building which faces to the south. There will be no visibility for southbound traffic and only
obstructed views of the sign for northbound traffic. This is a hardship not faced by other
buildings. For example, the Hayman Real Estate building at370 Lang Road is also located on
the cul-de-sac opposite California Electrical, but because Lang Road itself passes in front of the
building, it is permitted to have primary signage on the side facing Lang Road and Highway 101
I Califomia Electrical originally applied for 225 square feet of signage because the handout sheet
describing sign requirements did not mention the reduction applicable to signs located above the first
floor.
Burlingame City Council
October 31,2002
Page 3
California Electrical's building has more frontage facing Highway 101 but would be allowed
significantly less signage than the Hayman building unless an exception is granted.
Second, the paved extension of Lang Road deserves to be treated as if it created the
primary frontage for the building. After all, how can the scuba school and D.J. Capps Glass have
addresses on Lang Road if the street is not extended north past California Electrical? Without
making a comprehensive survey of all properties in the O-M zorre,l am confident that the
combination of cul-de-sac and paved extension to other businesses is rare if not unique,
justifying exceptional treatment for this particular property.
Third, granting the exception will be consistent with the zoning for the building, the
intent of the sign ordinance, and the use of the property. The resulting signage will be what
everyone would expect on a building located in this zone. Certainly, there are many signs
located on the l0l corridor which are larger, higher, and more intrusive than the proposed sign.
I am attaching a copy of a colorized rendering of the proposed signage so that you can
see the general intent. However, please note that the sign depicted is approximately 200 square
feet because it was prepared before California Electrical leamed about the 40o/o reduction as a
result of the height of the proposed sign.
My client.s and I will be pre:,ent at the November 4.2002 Cit'r Council meeting to speak
with you regarding these issues and to answer any questions that you may have. In the
meantime, if I can provide any additional information that would be helpful to your
consideration of this appeal, please do not hesitate to call me. I look forward to seeing you on
Monday.
Very truly yours,
'{l.a-,L tl
Mark D. Hudak
MDH:la
Enclosure
cc: Client
04050.00001 \BGLIB l\1 I 58287. l
STAFF REPORT
i,9,'#3^ @lt[
MTG.
DATE 1,1,.04.02
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SI]BMITTED
DATE 24.2002
APPROVED
FROM:CITY PLANNER
sIIBIECT: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF MASTER SIGNAGE AND SIGN VARIANCES FOR
SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGE AT 380 LA}IG ROAD,
ZONED O.M
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Aflirmative action on the variance should
include findings of fact and should be made by resolution. The reasons for denial or denial without prejudice
should be clearly stated for the record. The criteria for findings for a variance to the sign code are set out in
the attachment behind the staffreport.
The Council's action alternatives include:
A. Approve the request as proposed by resolution with conditions;
B. Deny the request; or
C. Deny the request without prejudice and return the project to the applicant and Planning
Commission for redesign and additional review.
Conditions of Approval Considered by the Planning Commission
1. that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped September 6, 2002, sheets SK 1.1 through SK 1.4 and date stamped September 30, 2002 (ll.
x l7l'); thai the letter height on the west wall sign shall not exceed 36 inches in height, with the
exception of the letter "f in California which shall not exceed 50 inches in height, and that the logo
shall not exceed 72 inches in height;
Z. that any increase in the number, letter height, sign height, location or area of the signs on the primary
or secondary frontages, which exceed the sign code requirements in effect at the time of application,
shall require an amendment to master sign program; and
3. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition California
Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on October 15,zoo2,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C.
Osterling absent) to deny without prejudice the request for a master sign program and sign variances for sign
area and sign height for a 195 SF sign located at a height of 17' above grade on the secondary frontage at 380
Lang Road. In their action the commissioners noted: sign code should hold true for this site, the applicant is
BY
BY
.i
APPEAL OF DEI,{UL OF MASTM. SIGNAGE PROGRAMAND SIGN VARANCES FOR S]GNAREA AND HEIGHT ON THE
SECQNDARY FRONTAGEAT 380IA,NG ROAD, ZONED O-M November 4, 2002
trying to make a billboard of the side of the building, the code does not allow a billboard as it was intended,
such an exception is an obvious advantage to the applicant. The logo is crisp and clear, it could be read at the
45 SF the code allows, do not see the hardship. Sign is much too large, it is a billboard, even the surrounding
signs are smaller, would like to see comply with the master signage requirements.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting a master sign program and sign variances for sign area and sign height on the
secondary frontage at 380 Lang Road, zoned O-M. The building is located at the end of Lang Road on a cul-
de-sac. Planning Department staffhas determined that the primary frontage is the portion of the site that has
public street frontage on the south side. The secondary frontage faces a driveway easement, which runs
parallel with the US l0l and provides access to the businesses north of this site. The allowed signage in the
O-M rone for primary frontage is 100 SF + 1 SF per 1 foot of frontage over 50' with a maximum of 200 SF
and a total of 2 signs. For this site, the maximum primary frontage signage would be a total of 191 SF based
on the length of the frontage (141') and the maximum secondary frontage signage would be 75 SF for a total
site signage of 266 SF and 4 signs.
The applicant is requesting two signs on the site, one 28 SF sign on the primary frontage and one 198 SF sign
on the secondary frontage (west wall). The maximum signage allowed on a secondary frontage is two signs
totaling no more than75 SF. The applicant is requesting a sign variance for one, 198 SF painted wall sign on
the secondary frontage facing the driveway easement and one, 28 SF painted wall sign on the primary frontage
for a total of 226 SF of signage. These signs will be externally lit. With a master sign permit, the applicant is
allowed to propose additional sign area on the secondary frontage (with a variance) as long as the total signage
allowed for the site is not exceeded where 266 SF is the maximum allowed for the site (226 SF proposed).
In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance to place the sign on the secondary frontage at a height of 17'
above adjacent grade. The sign code allows 60%o of the signage allowed on a frontage to be over l2'-0" above
grade. Therefore, the proposed sign placed above 12' in height would have to be reduced to 45 SF (60% of 75
SF max. allowed). A sign variance for size is required because the proposed location of the sign would be 17'
above grade where a maximum height of 12'is allowed without a reduction in the sign square footage. The
applicant is requesting the following:
o Master sign program to allow 225 SF of signage where 266 SF is the maximum allowed for the site
(cS 2.060.070);
. Sign area on a secondary frontage of 198 SF where 75 SF is the maximum allowed (CS 22.20.030, a);
and
. Sign variance for size of sign over l2', 198 SF of signage proposed at 12' - 24' above grade where 45
SF of signage is the maximum allowed between 12' - 24' above grade on the secondary frontage.
StaffComments
Planning staffwould refer the Council to the comparative table for existing signage and proposed signage on
the site in the attached Planning Commission staffreport (page 2) for a clear description of the proposed
signs, and the requirements for primary and secondary frontages. The Planning Commission staffreport also
includes a description of existing signage on buildings and sites in the immediate area.
Staff would also note that recent revisions of the sign code eliminated "sign exceptions" which had a lesser
standard for granting and replaced the exception with a variance. Findings for a variance must be based on
n
APPEAL OF DENUL OF A,TASTER SIGNAGE PROGRAMAND SIGN VARANCES FOR SIGAI AREA AND HEIGHT O]{ THE
SECANDARY trRONTAGEAT 380 IA,NG ROAD, ZONED O-M November 4' 2002
hardships on the property as well as on the pattern of signage in the area (See Action Alternative attachment)'
fhe fourth finding for a sign variance is different than for a planning variance and it reads:
,,that the signage for the variance sought will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, and character
of existing and potential signage of properties in the general vicinity."
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives and Requirements for Findings for a Sign Variance
Daniela panebianco, letter O.tob". 18,2\Oz,to City Clerk, appeal of Planning Commission action
Monroe letter to Daniela Panebianco, October 22,2002, setting appeal hearing
Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes, October 15,2002
Planning Commission StaffReport, October 15,2002 with attachments
City Council Resolution
Public Notice Appeal Hearing, mailed October 25,2002
Plans date stamped September 6,2002 and September 30,2002
a
ACTION ALTERNATTVES
l. 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 variances and use permits should be by resolution. A
majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in
order to pass an afftrmative motion.
2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be
clearly stated forthe 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 prejr.rdice; 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 SIGN VARIANCE
(a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property, such as size, shape, topography, street frontage, or surrounding land
use, 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 ofthe apolicant, 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 signage for the variance is sought will be compatible with the aesthetics,
mass, and character of existing and potential signage of properties in the general
vicinity.
380 Lang Road, Sign Variance for Sign Area and Height on the Secondary Frontage
l3W
CITY OF BURLINIGAME
Planning Deparknent
City Hall - 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 558-7200
October 22,2002
Daneila Panebianco
California Electric Service
380 Lang Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Ms. Panebianco,
At the City Council meeting of October 21,2002,the Councit scheduled an appeal hearing on your project
at 380 Lang Road, zoned O-M. A public hearing will be held on November 4,2002 at7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA.
We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
MM/s
380lang.app.ltr
c: City Clerk
fllrrogatfiun*
ti rnia lEfectricaf Sentice
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
State License #&6978
Residential. Commercial. lndustrial
New Construction. Remodeling . llor6leshooting
lnspections . Design . CAD Service
October 18,2002
Burlingame City Clerk
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
A cDivision of 1.A. cDini Corp.
f,ONORABLE UAYOR AND CITY COIINCIL:
PLEASESSET AN APPEAL EEARING IloR
380 I,A}IG EOR THE COUNCIL IIEETING
oN NOVEIIBER 4, 2OO2. TEANK YOU.
ANN HUSSO, CITY CLERK
RE: 380 Lang Road
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to appeal the decision made by the planning commission on October 15, 2002 regarding our
request for a sign variance. I have enclosed a $250 check for the appeal fee. Please keep me informed as to
what my next step is in the appeal process.
Thank you,
Daniela Panebianco
Office Manager
Po Box 117638 . Burlingame, california 94010 . www.calelectric.com
s.F. ' Burlingame . Palo Alto . (650) 342-5949 . Fax (650) 342-8183
q
City. of Burlingame P lanning Commiss ion Unapproved Minutes October 15,2002
IO. 380 LANG ROAD _ ZONED O-M. APPLICATION FOR MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN
VARIANCES FOR SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT ON THE SECONDARY FRONTAGE (DANIELA
PANEBIANCO, APPLICANT; ELIZABETH HAMMACK, OWNER) (22 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RIJBEN H{IRIN
Reference staff report October 15,2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if
this was a master sign permit could the applicant ask for more signage in the future. CP noted under the
current sign code they could request 2 additional signs not to exceed the remaining square footage for the
site, but this would require an amendment to the master sign permit. There were no other questions from the
commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Tony Dini, business owner, and Daniela PanebiancqCalifornia
Electrical Service employeerrepresented the application. Noted that they had some trouble understanding the
height restrictions in the current sign code, says a building can be 20 feet tall but a floor for signage
reduction is 12 feet. CA noted that if the applicant wished a determination on that item he would need to
apply for it and continue this action to another meeting, because that request was not noticed for tonight's
meeting. Applicant noted he would like to proceed. Pointed out buildin g at 370 Lang has two signs and
same orientation problems as his building and primary frontage was defined as the long side on Lang Road,
they have alarge sign over 12 feet above grade; other properties in the area have higher signs; they would
request the same as others in the area have. They would like to have the frontage determination changed,
and a variance could be eliminated.
Commissioners asked: the property at370 Lang has long side on Lang Road, the building has long side on
easement; how long is the sign proposed? About 45 feet, have reduced sign by 9 SF took off phone number
and city names where located, only have web site left. This is a really big sign, not for location but a
billboard. The Hyman sign is the same length as this, but the letters are22 inches tall while your logo is77"
and your letters larger than2O inches. Currently you are parking a semi truck trailer with a your logo in the
front yard is that legitimate. Applicant noted the city has approved a 10 space parking lot at the location
where the semi is parked (have not yet installed paving); plan to park the semi sideways so that could have
some signage, right now there is none. What is the size of the truck? It is almost the same size as the sign
we are asking for. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: see difficulty in determiningprimary frontage, others have much reduced signage,
think 70 SF of signage would work well, would like to see this substantially reduced; would bend some on
frontage issue if it would increase flexibility and signage could be done within the code requirements.
C. Boju6s moved to continue the item to give the applicant an opportunity to explore what signage program
he could propose with a change in the primary frontage and having no variance requests. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Comment on the motion: Not comfortable with redesignation of the primary frontage, nice to front on US
101 butdon'tseetheextraordinarycircumstancescalledforinthevariancefindings,thinkshoulddenythis
request.
Chair Keighran called for a ro11 call vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion failed ona2-4-l
(Cers. Brownrigg, Keele, Keighran, Vistica dissenting, C. Osterling absent).
t2
City. of Burlingame Planning Commiss ion Unapproved Minutes October 15,2002
Further discussion: sign code should hold true for this site, the applicant is trying to make a billboard of the
side of the building, the code does not allow as it was intended, such an exception is an obvious advantage
to the applicant. The logo is crisp and clear, it could be read at 45 SF the code allows, do not see the
hardship. Sign is much too large, it is a billboard, even the surrounding signs are smaller, would like to see
comply with the master signage requirements.
C. Brownrigg moved to deny this application without prejudice to give the applicant an opportunity to revise
his request and return. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a
voicevote6-0-1 (C. Osterlingabsent). Appealprocedureswereadvised. Thisitemconcludedat l0:20p.m.
11. 301 RT BO BEACH _ ZONED C-4 _LENBOROUGH P
AND PRO TY OWNER)cED)MA BROOKS
APPLICA A LOT ADruSTMENT CREATE A TE 18,OOO SF
PARCEL A 50 BEACH
b. APPLI FOR FROM C-4 M FOR THE 1 SF PARCEL AT 350
staff report Octo 15,2002, with CP the report, reviewed
city staff She noted Commission's on the lot line adjustment i
le to the Council; the the rezoning is a to Council.wereon
questions from
Chair opened the public . Dan Levin,Glenborough the property
owner and licant; Russ Lexington.was asked where the care facility would
be if the site was something else.applicant noted that line adjustment had
to do with whether care center built, this is a matter left over from the
of the 301 te; no specific use site at 350 Beach Road at this time. There
no further and the public was closed.
C. Auran the facts in the report that the recommend to the City the
rezonir^5 of at 350 Beach from C-4 to O-M was required as a part of ect at
301 vd. The motion 'seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair called for a vote on the motion to the lot at 350 Beach fromC-4 to O-M.
The passed on a (C. Osterling absent)vote. This action is a to the City
and is not
C. Vistica moved of the lot line adj to create as a legal lot and parcel property
fronting on Road addressed 350 Road. The motion seconded by C
cn
Chair
parcel
called for a voice vote the motion to lot line adj
50 Beach Road. The passed on a
were advised. This concluded at 10:30
to create a
IX.IGN REVIEW S
15
(C. Osterling voice vote
City of Burlingame
Master Sign Program and Sign Varionces for Sign Area
and Height on the Secondary Frontage
Item #10
Action Calendar
Address: 380 Lang Road Meeting Date: l0ll5l02
Request: Master sign program and sign variances for sign area and height on the secondary frontage.
Applicant: Daniela Panebianco, California Electrical Service APN: 026-331-410
Property Owner: Elizabeth Hammack Lot Area: 35,009 SF
General Plan: Office Use Zoning: O-M
Adjacent Development: Offices, Vacant Land
CEQA Status: 1531 I - Accessory Structures Class I 1(a), (b), (c) consists of construction, orplacement of
minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or institutional facilities, including but not
limited to: (a) On premise signs.
Summary: The applicant is requesting a master sign program and sign variances for sign area and sign height
on the secondary frontage at 380 Lang Road, zoned O-M. The building is located at the end of Lang Road on a
cul-de-sac. Planning Department staff has determined that the primary frontage is the purriun of the site that
has public street frontage on the south side. The secondary frontage faces a driveway easement, which runs
parallel with the US l0l and provides access to the businesses north of this site. The allowed signage in the O-
M zone for primary frontage is 100 SF + I SF per I foot of frontage over 50' with a maximum of 200 SF and a
total of 2 signs. For this site, the maximum primary frontage signage would be a total of l9l SF based on the
length of the frontage (141') and the maximum secondary frontage signage would be 75 SF for a total site
signage of266 SF and 4 signs.
The applicant is requesting two signs on the site, one 28 SF sign on the primary frontage and one 198 SF sign
on the secondary frontage (west wall). The maximum signage allowed on a secondary frontage is two signs
totaling no more than 75 SF. The applicant is requesting a sign variance for one, 198 SF painted wall sign on
the secondary frontage facing the driveway easement and one, 28 SF painted wall sign on the primary frontage
for a total of 226 SF of signage. These signs will be extemally lit. With a master sign permit, the applicant is
allowed to propose additional sign area on the secondary frontage (with a variance) as long as the total signage
for the site is not exceeded (226 SF proposed where 266 SF is the maximum allowed for the site).
In addition, the applicant is requesting a variance to place the sign on the secondary fron:age at a height of l7'
above adjacent grade. The sign code allows 60% of the signage allowed on a frontage to be over 12'-0" above
grade. Therefore, the proposed sign placed above l2' in height would have to be reduced to 120 SF (60% of
200 SF max. allowed). A sign variance for size is required because the proposed location of the sign would be
l7' above grade where a maximum height of l2' is allowed without a reduction in the sign square footage. The
applicant is requesting the following:
Master sign program to allow 225 SF of signage where 266 SF is the maximum allowed forthe site (CS
2.060.070);
Sign area on a secondary frontage of 198 SF where 75 SF is the maximum allowed (C522.20.030, a);
and
Sign variance for size of sign over 12', 198 SF of signage proposed at 12' - 24' above grade where 160
SF of signage is the maximum allowed between 12' - 24' above grade.
a
a
a
Sign Variancefor Sign Area and Height on the Secondary Frontage
PROPOSED AND ALLOWED SIGNAGE
380 Lang Road
Staff Comments: There were no comments from the Building, Public Works, or Fire Departments. Under
the cunent sign code, variances are allowed only for height, number and location.
Study Meeting: At the September 23,2002, Pl.rnning Commission meeting the Commission requested
additional information from the applicant and staff (September 23,2002 P.C. Minutes). The following list
contains the suggested changes and how they were addressed by the applicant and staffi
Provide information on the height of the letters on both proposed signs.
) The applicant submitted plans date stamped September 30,2002, showing the height of the
proposed lettering ( I I " x 17" sheets). The lettering ranges from22 to 50 inches in height. The
lettering does not exceed 36 inches in height, with the exception of the lowercase "f in
California (50 inches).
a
Would there still be a sign variance if the primary frontage of the site were that side facing US
I0t?
not be required because a total of 200 SF would be allowed on that side based on the lot
frontage (200 SF max. allowed) (198 SF proposed). A variance for sign size above 12'would
2
Proposed Existing Allowed/Required
# of signs allowed on
the primary frontage
I wall sign None 2
# of signs allowed on
the secondary frontage
I wall sign None 2
Sign SF 12' or less
above grade -
Primary Frontage
27 SF None l9l SF with height not
greater than 12' above grade
Sign SF 12' or less
above grade -
Secondary Frontage
I98 SF None 75 SF with height not greater
than 12' above grade
Sign SF between 12'-
24'rbove grade
Primary Frontage
27 SF None 85 SF with a height between
12'-24'above grade
Sign SF between l2'-
24'above grade
Secondary Frontuge
I98 SF None 45 SF with a height between
12'-24'above grade
Height l7'-0" to top of 198 SF
wall sign
None
Total Signage 225 SF None 266 SF under master sign
program
a
Sign Variancefor Sign Area and Height on the Secondary Frontage 380 Lang Road
still be required since 198 SF of signage would be proposed at 12' - 24' above grade where only
I 60 SF of signage would be allowed between 12' - 24' above grade (600/o reduction required for
signs greater than l2'in height).
l(hy is the sign so large? With so much information on it (web site, phone number), appears
like a billboard, could be l0% to l5% smaller and still be visiblefrom thefreeway.
) In a letter dated September 25,2002,the applicant notes that she would be willing to eliminate
the portion of the sign which reads "SF BURLINGAME PALO ALTO" and "(650) 342-5949" ,
and therefore would reduce the sign size by approximately 9 SF (0'-6" x l7'). The website
would remain and would be placed under the "o" in California. The plans were not revised to
reflect this option. Staff would note that a size exception for height is required for 38 SF.
Removing the proposed 9 SF would reduce the request to 29 SF).
Does the commission have the authority to change the primaryfrontage designation.
) The Planning Commission may overturn the City Planner's determination of a primary frontage- and change the designation with adequate findings regarding characteristics of the property
which make it unique. Such a direction will become a precedent on all smaller properties so it
is important to be clear in any findings. In addition, it should be noted that in the sign code
(CS 22.36.010) signage designed to be primarily viewed from a main traveled road way of a
freeway is prohibited with two exceptions (CS 32.36.020): real estate sign or "a sign that
designates only the name of the owner occupant of the premise upon which such sign is placed
or the actual street address of the parcel."
How large is the Scuba Lessons sign? Does it meet our signage requirements now?) The Scuba Lessons sign is approximately 114 SF in area (4'-6'H x 25'-4"H) and 15'-6" in
height. Planning records indicate that this sign was a reface of an existing sign. The existing
scuba sign does not meet our current sign code requirements in regards to height (114 SF
existing, 77 SF allowed for signs greater than 12'in height; 129 SF allowed for signs less than
12'in height).
a
a Pt o;-ide data on signs on surrounding properties, height and size.
J
Site Size Heieht Allowed
350 Lang Road
Redwood Debris
No permit on file
- figures are
approximate
144 SF
(3'H x 48'D)
l5'-0"IO2 SF
(60% of 170 SF
since sign is greater
than 12'in height)
Table continued on next page.
EE I' I'I'(t (r
Sign Variance for Sign Area and Height on the Secondary Frontage 380 Lang Road
4
Site Size Heisht Allowed
370 Lang Road
MapCargo Int'l
Sign Permit
Issued on
t2lr6t96
70 SF
(3'-6"H x20'L)
16'-0"111 SF
(60% of 185 SF
since sign is greater
than 12'in height)
370 Lang Road
Hayman Real
Estate
Sign Permit
Issued on7l23l97
84 SF on primary
(1'-9"H x 47'-10"L)
74 SF on secondary
(l'-9"H x42'-4"L)
20'-0"
20'-0"
I11 SF
(60% of 185 SF
since sign is greater
than 12'in height)
390 Lang Road
Scuba Schools
No permit on file
- figures are
approximate
f,r Wall: 114 SF*
(4'-6"H x25'-4"L)
Pole: 100 SF*
(5'Hx10'L)x2
pole sign is currently
not being used
l5'-6"
20'-0"
77 SF
(60% of 129 SF
since sign is greater
than l2'in height)
Sign on this site is
nonconforming.
Originally installed
prior to 1978 sign
code. Present code
allows reface of
existing
nonconforming
signs.
Table continued on next page.
Sign Variance for Sign Area and Height on the Secondary Frontage 380 Lang Road
* Existing nonconforrning signs were refaced.
Required Findings for Variance for Sign: In order to grant a variance for a master sign program, height,
or area of signs on the secondary frontage the Planning Commission must apply the following
circumstances (Code Section 22.06.110, b, i-i"):
(i) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions aoolicable to the DroDertv.
such as,size, shape, topography, street.frontage, or surrounding land^rise, that do not^apply "'
generally to property ln me same olstnct;
(ii) the.granting of the variance is necessary for the pr-eservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
righl of the applicant, and to prevent uhreasonable property loss oi unnecessary hardship;'
(iii) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or iniurious to property or imorovements in thevicinity anil willnof 6e detrimental to the public health, sdfety, general welfare or'convenience; and
(iv) that the signage for which the variance is sought will be compatible with the aesthetics. mass. and
character 6f e-xisting and potential signage of-properties in th'e general vicinity.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The reasons for
any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered:
that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped September 6,2002, sh:ets SK 1.1 through SK 1.4 and date stamped September 30,
2002 (ll" x 17"); that the letter height on the west wall sign shall not exceed 36 inches in height,
with the exception of the letter "f in California which shall not exceed 50 inches in height, and
that the logo shall not exceed 72 inches in height;
that any increase in the number, letter height, sign height, lodation or area of the signs on the
primary or secondary frontages, which exceed the sign code requirements in effect at the time of
application, shall require an amendment to master sign program; and
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition
California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
Ruben Hurin
Planner
c. Daniela Panebianco, California Electric Service, applicant
1
2.
3
5
390 Lang Road
D.J. Capps Glass
No permit on file
- figures are
approximate
D.J. CaPPS q.LASS CO.
(650) 3{{.s155
72 SF*
(4'H x l8'L)
15'-6"77 SF
(60% of 129 SF
since sign is greater
than l2'in height)
?
II.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
September 23,2002
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL ORDER called the September 23,2002, regular meeting of the Planning
to order at7:04p.m.
CALL Present Boju6s, Brownrigg,Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent:None
Staff City Planner, Margaret Planner, Erika Lewit; City
A Anderson; City Engineer,Monoghan
Keighran asked if there were to the unapproved minutes.
noted changes to 8, 1537 Drake Avenue: page 8 Vice
line second paragraph; page 9, secondChair Bojuds chaired the
paragraph, line 13 delete '' and insert ')zsl
because a project does not a variance does not mean
judgment as planners";same paragraph line 10 add
SIII.
OF AGENDA There were no
lots... or a modest on the third. There were no
proposed. The were approved as amended.
to the agenda.
"on three
changes
IV
Y.FRO FLOOR Don Corey,3 Alpine, there is a problem with Public Address system,
cannot some Commissioners; came to about the house you
next door to a property I own at72 Laurel, this is a 3800 SF,
two house, size is out of place in the was not
had to give up one foot of my so that the
a 10 foot wide driveway; should as concemed about big AS
are about monster houses on the side.
Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon,the commission diligent work
on Safeway, disappointed in they are not Burlingame as
unique; want a building
comments from the floor.
fits Burlingame.were no further
VI. STUDY ITEMS
380 LANG ROAD _ ZONED O-M- APPLICATION FOR A SIGN VARIANCE FOR SIGN AREA AND
HEIGHT ON A SECONDARY FRONTAGE (DANIELA PANEBIANCO, APPLICANT; ELZABETH
HAMMACK.) PROJECT PLANNER:O'ROURKE
I
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners askedo Provide data on signs on surrounding properties, height and size;o Provide information on the height of the letters on both proposed signs;
City .of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 23, 2002
o Would there still be a sign variance if the primary frontage of the site were that side facing US 101;. Why is the sign so large, with so much information on it (web site, phone number), appears like a
billboard, could be lUYo to l5o/o smaller and still be visible from the freeway;o Does the commission have the authority to change the primary frontage designation; ando How large is the Scuba Lessons sign? Does it meet our signage requirements now?
Since there were no further comments Chair Keighran set this item on the regular action calendar when all
the questions had been addressed and staffhas had a chance to review them and prepare a staffreport. This
item concluded at 7:17 p.m.
2. 301 AIRPORT VARD/350 BEACH - zoNED C-4 - (G ROUGH PAR
A.LICATION FOR A CREATE A SEPAIL{TE SF
ARCEL AT 350 PROJECT VICTOR VOONG
APPLICATION
BEACH ROAD
G FROM C-4 o-M FOR THE 1E,000 SF AT 350
PLANNER:BROOKS
CP Monroe a summary of the Commissioners
w rezoning proposed a dayc are center on the 35 Road site;a
a parking requirement for a daycare center in AS opposed to O-M; and
Is this proposal spot
Since there were no comments, Chair Keighran s item for the regular
Plannin!when all the information has submitted . This item
VII. ACTION
- Items on the
discussion and/or action is
commission votes on the motion to
There were no items consent calendar
Y[I. REGULAR A ON ITEM
3.D ON ON WHETHER
AND BEAUTY SPAS
Reference staff report
criteria and staff
Beauty Spas been
people,
by the
at7:23 p.m
are considered to be are acted on simultaneously
by the applicant, a member of or a commissioner prior to
SERVICES QU AS RETAIL SALES
SCHEIKOWITZ,LOEZ AND LOUISA
23, 2002, with attachments.Monroe presented the reviewed
Commissioners questions:any conditional use Health and
? CP noted none. What was recommendation size when this
the
was reviewed ? CP noted that the code ses associated with a as three or more
require a conditional use in Subarea A; the purpose conditional use permit
to have the least impact onIS SO class use can be carefully
2
o
in the area.
ADJUSTMENT
ti rnia lEfectricaf Sentice
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
State License #646978
Residential. Commercial. lndustrial
New Construction. Remodeling . 1pou5;eshooting
lnspections. Design. CAD Service
Danieli. Panebianco
Ofhce Manager
A cDiaision of 1A. (Dini Corp.
September 25,2002
Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 380 Lang Road
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
This letter is to in response to the items you requested at the planning commission meeting on Monday,
September 23,2002.
You asked what the height was of the letters of the proposed signed. Please refer to the scale I have enclosed
for this information.
You were also concerned with the size of the sign. We would be willing to eliminate the "SF
BURLINGAME PALO ALTO" and "(650) 342-5949" if this would assist you in approving our variance.
The website would remained and be positioned under the "O" in California.
If there are any other further questions or concerns myself and the president of the company will be attending
the next meeting on October 15th.
Thank you,
RECEIVED
sEP 3 0 2002
''ll^'^i-i#3,Ji8f ,,
Cc: Joseph Dini, President
PO Box 117638 . Burlingame, California 94010 . www.calelectric.com
S.F. . Burlingame . Palo Alto . (650) 342-5949 . Fax (650) 342-8183
ti rnia lEfectricaf Sentice
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
State License #646978
Residential. Commercial. Industrial
New Construction. Remodeling . Troubleshooting
lnspections. Design. CAD Service
August 27,2002
A Division of 1.A. (Dini Corp.
RECEIVED
sEP 1 2 2002
''l'.-f,.1*',,Y3'JU3+Y'
Burlingame Planning Commission
501 Primrose Road
Burlingal,rc. CA 94010
RE: Request for Sign Variance at 380 Lang Road
Dear Planning Commission Members,
Enclosed please find information to help assist you in your decision to approve our sign variance.
Our building sits at the end of a cul-de-sac. The building is 91' wide and 145' long. The long side (west
wall) of our building fronts to a public right of way along highway 101. Only a small portion of our building
(the wide part on the south side) actually comes in contact with the street. This side has been designated by
the planning department as our primary frontage and the west wall as our secondary frontage. Since only a
small section of the 91' makes contact with the street and because of the building architecture (the south side
of the building is adjacent to an off the street parking lot) we do not have a lot of area to install a sign that is
pleasing, t::teful, and professional. We would not be able to utilize the maximum square footage that is
allowed for a primary sign. We would like to request an increase in footage for our secondary frontage. Or,
we would like to request that the west wall be called our primary frontage. The south wall is of secondary
importance to us. It would make more sense to consider the long west wall of our building (145') as primary
frontage. The available square footage of this wall is 2115.67 square feet. Our proposed sign is only 198
square feet or only 9.4Yo of the total wall area. This sign will be painted directly on the wall surface and be
illuminated from lights hidden in the ground. The sign on our south wall would only be 28 square feet
(please see plans).
Through this variance process we have been working with the planning department and we were not
informeE that there was a height restriction of 12 feet. The bottom of our iign would be at 1 1'6" and the top
at 17' . We have been told by Sean O'Rourke that it is also necessary to request an additional variance for
the height of our sign on the west wall. The height of the sign on the building was symmetrically chosen
because of the concrete indentations or decorations close to the top of the building. We are trying to keep
our sign in a position that does not detract from this part of the building architecture, yet high enough to be
Po Box 117638 . Burlingame, california 94010 . www.calelectric.com
s.F. ' Burlingame . Palo Alto . (650) 342-5949 . Fax (650) 342-8183
seen. Reducing the square footage of the sign would make it look unproporinate to the building. Also, if we
moved the sign down it would be lower than the top half of our building. We don't believe that we are
asking for anything out of the ordinary. Many of the buildings surrounding us have signs much higher than
12 feet. Please see the enclosed photos of these buildings.
It is our utmost concern that this sign is done in a tasteful manor, as not to detract from the architecture of the
building. We have enclosed super imposed photos of how the signs will look and some photos of our
neighbor's signs along Lang Road. We feel that our sign is comparable, if not better than other existing
signs.
Another option, previously discussed and allowed by the Burlingame sign code, was the possibility of a free
standing double faced sign on a pole 20' tall on our west side (the same side we would like to put our wall
sign), but detached from the building closer to the road. This sign would allow 75 square feet of signage on
each side for a total of 150 square feet, just a 48 square foot difference between it and the sign we would like
to put on our west wall. We prefer not to explore this option because it has a billboard or marquee type look
and we feel it would detract from the appearance. This pole sign would also have lgr be maintained and
would be available to others to install a sign on, if in the future we should need to move to a larger complex.
California Electrical Service has been in Burlingame since 1993. We were located at 1015 California Drive
for eight of our first ten years and for the last year at our present location. We are proud to be in Burlingame
and have many customers in the Burlingame-Hillsborough area. We look forward to working with you to
provide a solution we can all be proud of.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Daniela Panebianco
Office Manager
RECEIVED
sEP 1 2 200?
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Cc: Joseph Dini, President
Q**-
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Type of application: Design Review- Conditional Use Permit Vur*"-V{-
Proj
Special Permit
ect address: 3Z O Lorvt q
Other_Parcel Number:
QaJ
APPLICANT.Lq\i fot^ i^ €[er'tcr{ c^\ Ser-t'ce -
* Name:
Address
(h)
(0 : G9o -392 -=t B3
ARCIIITECT/DESIGNER
Name
Address:
Phone (w):
DESCRIPTION:
PROPERTY OWNER
E 2a-+l^.
Address : 2\o 6ob k Lo.,ne--
ord Citylstate/Zip: Sc-.o+t s Vq..\\ry , CH lrobA
Phone
(h): t3r - tl3Z :f=rsr 3
,rft.
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
RECIIVIN
stP - 6 ?002
CITY OT BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
c
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of pe{ury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature:Date:5-z\-o?-
I know about the proposed application and authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning
Date:o8:5o -o;+
Date subm ir,"a' 4' b' oz--
Property owner's signature:
PCAPP.FRM
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.ore
Phone (w): Gst o - 3 q Z - Sq\t
City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.org
CITY OF BURLINGAME RECEIVED
sEP - 6 2002
CITY 0F BURLINGAI,lE
PLANNING DEPT.SIGN VARIANCE APPLICATION
The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's
Ordinance (Code Section 22.06.110). Please note that sign variances can only be granted
for variances from the following regulations: height of placement; or location, or, within
the allowable total square footage, the number of signs on a frontage. Your answers to the
following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether
the findings €n 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. )escribe the exceptional or extraordinary circumsfances or conditions applicable
to your property that do not apply to other propefties in this area.
A very small portion of our building actually fronts Lang Road. Therefore only that small portion
is counted as the property frontage, which we view as unusual frontage. The rest of our building
faces a public right of way. The other buildings on Lang Road face the road and have normal
frontage.
b. Explain why the variance request Ls necessary for the preseruation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary
hardship might result from the denial of the application.
Without the variance we would only be able to put a 75 sq ft sign on the west side of our
building. This would not look proportionate to the building. We also could not utilize the
maximum square footage of a primary sign on what the planning department calls our primary
fron'aqe because it is so small.
c. Explain why the proposed signage at the proposed location will not be detrimental
or injurious fo property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience.
The sign will not affect any neighboring properties or the public's health safety, or general
welfare. Allwe would like to do is paint our name and phone number on the building. There will
not even be any raised letters or characters. lt will be light from the ground up with lights hidden
in the ground.
d. How will the proposed signage be compatible with the aesthefics, mass, bulk and
character of the existing and potential signage on adjoining properties in the general
vicinity?
The sign we would like to put up is comparable to other signs on the road. For instance the
buildings on both sides of us have large signs. We don't believe our sign will be anything out of
the ordinary for the area that we are in.
clrY oF BURLINGAME PLANNINC DEPARTMENT 501 PRTMROSE ROAD p (6s0) 558-7250 F (650) 696-3790
Sign Permit Application
1. APPLICAI\T this form)
reteptrone 65o- 392 -S?Q ?
Company and Address Cg.li{ot n;a F tccr*;cd,l \e-r Lr,'cL. ru<b o->
3 6o Lav-1 L4, l-3-, l;^qqrr1I certify under penalry of perjury that the informat-ion given herein is tnte-arnd c6ieci
I understand a building permit is required before a sign can be installed.
the best of my loowledge and belief,,
Signature _-
2.ADDRESS OF'BUSTNESS/ORGANTZATION RECEMNG NEW SrcN(S)
Assessor's Parcel #
Buildingwidth: 6O' Buildingdepth:tqq'Lot width: lYt{ t
Lot depth: ZA'
I lonw about proposed
4. SIGN INFORMATION
Lann< }lco.tr\S V cl OGG
authorize the applicant to submit this application.
Date o8-5 o-6?--a
)
# of existing signs on proposed new signs:7
# of existing signs to remain:O total # signs:a-
5. SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION
/site plan of property with all existing and proposed signs labeled.
/elevations drawn to scale of all new signs and existing signs to remain. Show correct sizes and locations.
Dimension all lettering.
TO BE COMPLETED BY PLANNING STAFF
maximum sign area
and number of signs
allowed:
primary frontage:
secondary
frontage:
Sign exception required
Building permit may be approved. Approved by:
Fee to be collected by Building
the sign can be installed.
Remember! dbuildinggegnit must be issued before
REC EI!L D
maximum allowed
above first story (12'
from grade):
proposed with this
application:
tr
o
tr
Date:
stP - 6 2002
CITY OF L,URLING/\ME
PLAN!.iING DEPT.
)-c .o-
SIGNPE&FRM
3. PROPERTY OWNER
Name €. \izatcq{r^ lrb.rrnnnac-[ t"l.pton" G3l - 93?] 68-13
oate l- 2:.:.-oz-
-t^ t('/rr ({,-,-t'
CITYoFBURLINGAMEPI^NNINGDEPARTMENT50tPRIMRoSERoAD
SIGN A:/N"* sign Existing, no change Existing, new copy
qPe:
wall sign
ground sign
pole sign
projecting sign
awning sign
Sign
Sign area b
(length -'t. I') t x height
other
C--a {orrrta-E 1.q"1...o.1 Ser wt'
H2
u
tr
tr
tr
tr
P (650) 558-7250 F (650) 696-3790
overall height from ground-
clearance from ground to srgn bottom-
single face two-sided
Copy
Method of support
SIGN B:-5fivew sigrr
Sign !4re:{ wall sign
lllumination tYPe Hours
Existing, no change Existing, new copy
Sign
Sign area
n
tr
tr
tr
u
copy
ground sign
pole sign
projecting sign
awning sign
other
-
(length A't1t x height
'{. {L' x 36.'{2r
overall height from ground
clearance from ground to sign bottom
-
single face two-sided
Ser \
Method of support r- fa Itlumination type tigh\S Hours
SIGN C: New Sign Existing, no change Existing, new copy
Sigp type Sign Specifications:
o
o
tr
tr
u
u
copy
wall sign
ground sign
pole sign
projecting sign
awning sign
other .
Sign area
(length x height )
overall height from ground
clearance from ground to sign bottom
-
single face two-sided
Method of zupport Illumination tlpe
-
Hours
SIGN D: New Sign Existing, no change Existing, new copy
Sign type:
wall sign
ground sign
pole sign
projecting sign
awning sign
other
-
Sign Specihcations:
Sign area sf
(length
-
x height
overall height from ground
clearance from ground to sign bottom
single face two-sided
u
tr
u
u
u
tr
copy
Method of support lllumination tYPe Hours
SIGNPERFRM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TANG
ati-o:r
I
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AND SIGN VARIANCES
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 master
sign program and siqn variances for sigxr area and height on the secondary frontage for new siqns at 380
f .qno Roqrl znned O-.1\rl Elizabeth H qnlr nrnnarfi, nrrmFr ApN' fl?6-111 -41n'
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
October 15. 2002, at which time said application was denied without prejudice;
WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on November 4,
2002, 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 Council that:
1. On the basis of the hritial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and cornments
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 environmdnt, and categorical exemption, per
CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15311 - Accessory Structures Class 11(a), (b), (c)
consists of construction, or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial, or
institutional facilities, including but not limited to: (a) On premise signs, is hereby approved.
2. Said master sign program and sign variances are approved, subject to the conditions set
forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such master sign program and sign variances are as set
forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting.
3. It is further directed that acertified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records
of the County of San Mateo.
MAYOR
I, ANN MUSSO
resolution was introduced
of Novemb 2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
and adopted at a regular meeting ofthe Planning Commission held on the 4th day
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
1
2.
J
EXHIBIT ''A''
Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, master sign program and sign variances
380 Lang Road
effective November 4, 2002
that the signs shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and
date stamped September 6,2002, sheets SK 1.1 through SK 1.4 and date stamped September 30,
2002 (ll" x 17"); that the letter height on the west wall sign shall not exceed 36 inches in height,
with the exception of the letter "f in Califomia which shall not exceed 50 inches in height, and that
the logo shall not exceed 72 inches in height;
that any increase in the number, letter height, sign height, location or area of the signs on the
primary or secondary frontages, which exceed the sign code requirements in effect at the time of
application, shall require an amendment to master sign program; and
that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition
California Building and Fire Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame.
a
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPARTUENT
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL:(650) 5s8-725o
380 LANG ROAD
Appeal of a Planning Commission denial
of an application for a master sign
program and variances for sign area and
height on a secondary frontage at 380
Lang Road, zoned O-M. (Aplt: 025-331-410)
The City of Burlingame City Counci-l
announces Lhe following publ5-c hearing
on Monday, November 4, 2OO2 aE 7:00 P.M.
in the City Hal1 Council Chambers
locatsed at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, Calj-fornia.
Mailed October 25, 2OO2
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the
to the meeting
Burlingame,
If you
Property
tenants
558-7zsl.
Margaret
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
limited to
hearing,
to the city
their
call (650)
(Please refer to other side)
I
14g&FGA.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 8a
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 11.a4.02
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SIIBMITTED
DATB:24.
FROM:CITY BY
SUBIECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE AT 350 BEACH ROAD
FROM C-4 WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL TO O.M OIIFICE MANUFACTURING
BY
Introduction:-ity cornril should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance to rezoning the newly created
property addressed 350 Beaih Road tom-c-+ district to o-M district. Staffwould recommend that this item
t.,.tforpublichearingatyourmeeting,"w,'i}wIntroductionrequiresthefollowingcouncil
actions.
A. Request city clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the ordinance'
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance'
D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed
adoPtion.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Glenborough Partners, recently applied to the Public Works Department for a lot line
adjustment to the parcel ul:ot Airport Blvd. in ord.r to separate from the larger parcel the 18,000 SF area
with street frontage on Beach Road. At one time the access to the drive-in theater was from this location on
Beach Road. The lot line adjustment, approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on october 15,
2002, created the tg,ooo SF area fronting on Beath Road as a h"e standing parcel with the address of 350
Beach Road.
Because this area was originally a part of the larger parcel which had street frontage on Airport Blvd' it was
zoned C-4 Waterfront CJmmeiciaf despite the fact that the properties on both side and across the street were
all zoned o-M, office Manufacturing. The severance of this portion of the larger parcel creates 1 spot of C-4
zoning in the midst of an area zonedb-M. It was suggested in the environmental document for the project at
301 ,{rport Blvd. that if this parcel were to be used Jeparately from the larger portion of the parcel with
Airport Blvd. frontage it strould be rezoned to o-M solhut the zoning and future development of the site
*outd be consistent with the Beach/Lang Road area'
No project accompanies the request for rezoning at this time. The applicant indicates that they are simply
completing a piece of housekeeping remaining Irom their previous action at 301 Airport Blvd. In that project
it w;s suglested that having a main access from Beach Road to a major development on the drive-in site
would bJ detrimental to the existing land uses on Beach and Lang Roads'
, INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY AT 3SOBEACH ROAD FROM C-4 WATERFRONT
COMMERCIAL TO O-M OFFICE MANUFACTURING Nwember 4' 2002
General Plan Compliance
The General plan shows the area between Airport Blvd. and US 101 as oflice use (including the Lang and
Beach Road areas). This means that both the C-4 and O-M zones can be applied to implement this general
plan designation. Therefore the change in zoning will not affect the compliance with the General Plan and no
General Plan amendment is required.
Environmental Review
The Environmental Impact Report for the 301 Airport Blvd. oflice project (SCH 98041109) addressed the
severance and rezoning of the portion of the parcel which fronted on Beach Road. Therefore no additional
environmental review is necessary for the proposed rczoning action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission StaffReport, 350 Beach Road Rezoning from C-4 to O-M, October 15,2002,with
attachments
Ordinance
City of Burlingame
Rezoningfrom C-4 to O-M
Address: 350 Beach Road
Request: Application to Rezone an 18,000 SF parcel located at 350 Beach Road from the C-4 zone
district to the O-M Zone District (C.S. 25.16).
Applicant and Property Owner: Dan Levin, Glenborough Partners
Lot Area: 18,000 SF/0.41 Acre
General Plan/Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan: Office Uses
Adjacent Development: Office and OfficeAVarehouse Use
APN: 026-350-130
Zoning: C-4
CEQA Status: Falls within the scope of Environmental Impact Report No. 98-2P (SCH #98041109
certified by the City Council on August 7, 2000 consisting ofl
Draft Environmental Impact Report, September 14,1998
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report, January 21,1999
Response to Comments Document, April 15,1999
Addendum/Supplement to the Response to Comments Document/November 12,1999
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report, March 16,2000
Addendum to Final Environmental lmpact Report, June 21, 2000
Summary: The applicant, Glenborough Partners, applied to the Public Works Department for a lot line
adjustment which will result in the creation of two reconfigured parcels: a separate 18,000 SF parcel at
350 Beach Road, and a largerparcel (15.82 Acres) at 301 Airport Boulevard. The applicant is requesting
that the new 18,000 SF parcel at 350 Beach Road be rezoned from C-4 to O-M.
In August of 2000, the City Council approved an office project on the whole site. As a part of that
proposal, the portion ofthe site fronting on Beach Road was proposed to be developed as a day care center.
The conditions ofapproval for that project required that a separate parcel be created for the day care center
site, and that the new parcel be rezoned from C-4 to O-M to match the zoning of the surrounding parcels
on Beach Road. Although approval for the office project expired in August, 2002, the applicant has
chosen to follow through on creating the separate parcel on Beach Road. The Planning Department
required that the applicant request rezoning of the smaller parcel at the same time as the lot line adjustment
application is processed.
General Plan and Specilic Area Plan: Both the Burlingame General Plan and the Bayfront Specific
Area Plan designate this property and the surrounding properties on Beach Road for office uses. The C-4
and the O-M zone districts are both consistent with this plan designation. The C-4, Waterfront
Commercialzone district was created to apply to land uses and site development which will benefit from
their proximity to the open water areas of the San Francisco Bay and will be beneficial to the public use of
this irreplaceable natural resource. The O-M, OffrceilVlanufacturing district, was created as an office/light
industrial park area which will serve as a transition between the C-4 Waterfront Commercial and the M-l
Light Industrial District. In its uses, the O-M District is consistent with the intent of the General Plan to
provide professional and administrative offices, distribution, service, light industrial and other uses
supported by access to San Francisco International Airport and the adjacent hotel, restaurant and other
bayfront commercial activities.
Item# t t
Action Calendar
Meeting Date: l0lI5l02
Rezoningfrom C-4 to O-M 350 Beach Road
Since the new parcel will not be directly adjacent to the bay, it is more appropriately placed in the O-M
zone district. In addition, it will be subject to the same use requirements and property development
standards (setbacks, height, lot coverage) as the O-M zoned properties which surround it on Beach Road.
If the new parcel were to remain zoned C-4, development under the C-4 regulations would be inconsistent
with the pattern of the existing O-M zoned properties in the area, since it would be the only parcel on the
block zoned C-4. It should also be noted that the creation of the new parcel on Beach Road would
preclude the 15.82 acre parcel from gaining access from Beach Road. This will help minimizethe future
traffic impacts from development of the larger site to the businesses on Beach Road.
Staff Comments: The Chief Building Inspector, the Fire Marshal and the City Engineer had no comments
on this project.
Study Meeting: At the September 23,2002 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commissioners
asked if the rezoning will still allow a day care center on the site. Planning staff would note that thc day
care center would require a conditional use permit in the O-M zone district for "a commercial use similar
in nature to one for which a permit is required" in the O-M or any other district (C.S. 25.43.030 (17). A
day care center would also require a conditional use permit on the same basis in the C-4 zone district.
The Commission also asked if the parking requirement is different for a daycare center in C-4 as opposed
to O-M zoning. Staff would note that parking requirements are generally determined by use, not by the
zone, so the requirements would be the same in either district. The O-M district does have a provision that
for class or school use, the parking requirement is one space for each 300 SF of gross floor area, where the
general requirement for a school use is one space for each 50 SF of classroom area.
The Commission asked if this proposal would be considered spot zoning. Since the zoning of this parcel
would be the same as the parcels which surround it on Beach Road, and since the zoning is consistent with
the General Plan and Specific Area Plan designations, it would not be considered spot zoning.
Findings for a Rezoning:
In acting on the request to rezone the property from C-4 to O-M, the Planning Commission should skte the
reasons why they feel such action is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the zoningordinance.
Code Section 25.04.010 states that the zoning ordinance is established for the following purposes:r to promote public health, safety and welfare;r preserve a wholesome serviceable and athactive community which increase the safety and security
of home life;
' promote harmonious character and economy among property, building construction and civic
services;. establish regulations to limit the location, uses, height, bulk, occupancy, lot coverage, street
setback, yard sizes and occupancy of building structures and land;r encourage remodeling of existing residential structures;! preserve residential neighborhood character of single family structures and accessory structures
and. provide for the best general civic use to protect the common rights and interests of all.
-2-
Rezoningfrorn C4 to O-M 350 Beach Road
Public Notice:
A rezoning request requires notice of the public hearing to be made to all property owners within a
500'radius of the site instead of 300'. This application has been so noticed.
Planning Commission Action:
The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by
resolution and should include findings for the record. The reasons for any action should be clearly
stated. Planning Commission action on the rezoning is a recommendation to the City Council. The
Commission's action on the lot line adjustment, which should be taken separately, is final with the
Planning Commission unless appealed.
Maureen Brooks
Senior Planner
c: Dan Levin, Glenborough Partners, applicant
U:\SR-COMME\350 Beach Road SR.doc
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Depadment 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.orq
APPLICATION TO TTTE PLAI\NING COMMISSION
Type of application: Design Review_ Conditional use Permit_ variance
Special Permit Other_Parcel
Project address 35C Po
APPLICATIT ftnzt.rtoV; D*u Lart
PROPERTY OWNER
Gt-q,vagBfi orG H 5 Name: SAME-
YoO 5. €e Address:
/o1 CitylstatelZip
PL.'ne (w), ( &;o\ aye --?3oo Phone
-'33-tlo
(0 k<o\3 - 3-7 tg
ARCHITECTIDESIGNER
N^^", N/A
Address:
Phone (w):
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
(h)
PROJECTDESCRIPTTONz P€bI,I€ FRokl C_L/ ro OM i\v
Col\rtTLrN'cno ^/tn-l LoT t-tMt *ocrlsrna,t?
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature /X f, "' out", ?/?/oz
I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
,ignut r", ,fu*,o / nn * o^t", 4/? /o <
/T€
Property owner's
Date
PCAPP.FRM
September 10,2002
Ms. Maureen Brooks
Planning Department
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
GLENBOROUGH
RECEf;V[D
sEP 1 0 2002
CITY OF BURLINGA[I?E
PLANNING DIPT
Dear Maureen
You suggested that a brief letter might be helpful in explaining our proposed lot-line
adjustment and rezoning application.
As you know, we always envisioned creating a separate parcel of approximately 18,000
square foot at 350 Beach Road. We have decided to do this now by making the lot line
adjustment that is described on the submittals the Public Works Department has reviewed.
The property was always two separate lots and we are simply moving the line that defined
those lots.
Concurrently with the creation of this separate parcel, the Planning Department had always
required that the zoning be changed from C-4 to O-M. This change would make the
zoning of this parcel consistent with all of the other property on Beach Road.
Accordingly, we are processing the lot line adjustment and the rezoning simultaneously
If there are any questions, please feel free to call me.
Very truly yours,
GlpNeonoucH PARTNERS
Bv: DeNrcl LBvru
400 South El Camino Real . San Mateo, California 94402-1,708 .650.343.9300 . fax 650.343.9690
fr*-;/, fr---;
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
.Would there still be a variance if theo
a is the sign so th so much
could be 10% to
September 23, 2002
of the site were side facing US 101;
it (web site, phone appears like a
now?
action calendar the
smaller and still be from the freeway;
to change the frontage
the Scuba Lessons ? Does it meet our
comments Chair set this item on
. Does
o How
commission have
Since there were no
questions had been and staffhas had to review them and a staff report. This
concluded at7:17 p.m.
2. 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD/350 BEACH ROAD - ZONED C-4 -(GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS,
APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER)
APPLICATION FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO CREATE A SEPARATE 18,OOO SF
PARCEL AT 350 BEACH ROAD. PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG
APPLICATION FOR REZONING FROM C-4 TO O-M FOR THE 18,OOO SF PARCEL AT 350
BEACH ROAD PROJECT PLANNER: MAURbEN BROOKS
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:. Will the rezoning proposed still allow a daycare center on the 350 Beach Road site;o Is the parking requirement different for a daycare center in C-4 as opposed to O-M; and. Is this proposal spot zoning.
Since there were no further comments, Chair Keighran set this item for the regular action calendar by the
Planning Commission when all the information has been submitted . This item concluded at 7:23 p.m.
ACTION ITEMS
- Items on the are beroutine. They are unless
separate action is requested applicant, a the public or a to the time the
commission votes motion to adopt.
There were no items consent calendar.
vIII.GULAR ACTION
3.D ATION ON PERSONAL QUALIFY TAIL SALES AT
AND BEAUTY SPAS SCHEIKOWITZ,LOEZ LOUISA KAO,
M
Reference September 23,2002,attachments. CP presented the reviewed
A.
B.
vu.
e
criteria and Commissioners q have any condi use permits for and
Beauty Spas been ? CP notednone.the recommendation class size this
was reviewed noted that the code associated with a use as three or
people, such classes a conditional use permit in A; the purpose ofa use permit
regulated to have the
2
so that the class use can be impact on parking in area-
RESOLUTION APPROVING REZONING
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for an office project and
daycare center on this site, which included evaluation of dividing the property and rezoning of an
18,000 SF parcel from C-4 to O-M and this project falls within the scope of that Environmental
Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, application has been made for a rezonine from C-4 to O-M at 350 Beach
Road. zoned C-4. Glenborough Partners: portion of APN: 026-350-130 (see attached legal
description. Exhibit "A";
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame
on October 15. 2002 , 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 Environmental Impact Report No. 98-2P (State Clearinghouse No.
98041109) certified by the City Council on August 7,2002, and comments received and addressed
by this commission, it is hereby found that the project is within the scope of that Environmental
Impact Report.
2. It is recommended that the Council of the City of Burlingame approve said rezoning
from C-4 to O-M. Findings for such rezoning 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
Planning Commission Resolulion
Rezoning
i50 Beach Road
I, Ralph Osterling , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do
hereby certit/ that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 15th day of October , -M, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
2
EXHIBIT ''A''
LEGAL DESCzuPTION
PARCEL TO BE REZONED F'ROM THE C-4 ZONE DISTRICT TO TIIE O.M ZONE
DISTRICT
A portion of the Northerly half of Section 18, Township 4 South, Range 4 West, Mount Diablo
Base and Meridian, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point which is due North 540.68 feet and due West 495.00 feet from the
inersection of the centerline of Burlingame Avenue and the centerline of the sixty foot right of
way along the beach deeded to the City of San Mateo; thence from said Point of Beginning
South 150.00 feet; thence West 120 feet; thence North 150.00 feet; thence East 120 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
-J-
501
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINA}ICE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE
BURLINGAMETffiHf t3*tRB'"ffi*ITK?['48ffiff"'*coRPoRArED
350 BEACH ROAD TO O-M DISTRICT
The CITY COUNCIL ofthe CITY OF BURLINGAME does herebyordainasfollows:
Section l. The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced
in Section 25.12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows:
0.41 acres more or less (approximately 18,000 square feet) which is a portionof the
NortherlyhalfofSection 18, Township 4 South, Range4 West, MountDiablo Base and
Meridian, described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point which is due North 540.68 feet and due West 495.00
feet from the intersection of the centerline of Burlingame Avenue and the
centerline ofBurlingame Avenue and the centerline ofthe sixty foot right of way
along the beach deeded to the City of San Mateo; thence from said Point of
Beginning South 150,00 feet; thence East 120 feet to the Point of Begiruring
and commonly known as 350 Beach Road (a portion of APN 026-350-130), is
reclassified from the C-4, Waterfront Commercial District, to the O-M, Office-
Manufacturing District.
This reclassification is generally shown on the exhibit to this ordinance.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifr that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6
t7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
-
day
Council held on the_ day
AYES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City
2002,by the following vote:
City Clerk
-2-
87.OO, IIIDE SIREET DMICAIIOI{
(\loL s6ro o.R. PG. 291)
AIRPORT 1l BOULEVARD
EAST 9,+6.86'
o;otF\
E
oaoz.
PARCTL I- DOC 99010885
OLD LOT LINE
DOC 99010885
'i-q
@
C.ll'-
=ooi-
ooz
- EAST 943.26'
t-
00'20
PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2
'ooo
o0'
1_o
o
ctr,
1E.OO'
92E 86'
POB Por. 1
NEW LOT LINE
9 ururt ru0. r
PQB Por. 2
61 M2
rFEu
ANZA AiRPORT PARK 9
8.00'It-
Fztrl
ldo
LJ
ir.,(,
z
c.o
--,i,Lrlz.z
-(-)
Fzo
oaL!
(D
:-o
o,(alF
=oo
F-
ooz
6-174?
*1C2005
ifr
+
ln
I
E cF1
R
o
l-_
!;i
a
d(LS-.-2: c.lR;>ivo\i6<rJo3.
L,--:{
o...,
NEH.{L t>a(L(4F
EIx
uJ
l-
q
o
a.t
s
z.oF^
6FoHt
F
G.oFoou66 ta,
=jir9Oi/+
ao
BEACH ROAD
P ACE 2 0F 2
OATE: 06/12/02
SCALE: 1'=2OO'Bonley
COTqSULTING
1875 Sormi GRANr STRET, SurrE 55O
SIAN MATEO.CA 94402
65G3sa-t444 . FAX 650-35a-14a7
I
I
394.26'
ac
=
UI
5
o
a
EXHIBIT B
LOT UNE ADJUSruENT
OWG: LLA
JOB No. 2OO22O
AGENDA
ITEM #8b
11 t4t2002STAFF REPORT MTG.
DATE
TO Honorahle and Council
DATE:C)ctoher 29 .2002 APPROVED
BY
FROM:LarnrF. A - Citv Attomev
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 18 TO REMOVE CERTAIN REFERENCES
TO PEX AND CPVC
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce ordinance to amend Title l8 to delete certain references to PEX and CPVC
A. Ask the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the proposed ordinance.
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance and direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed
ordinance at least 5 days before its proposed adoption.
DISCUSSION:
On September 3, 2002, the City Council adopted the 30-page local amendments to the California Construction
Codes. These were based on the 1998 Uniform Codes, which the State of California is now implementing on
November 1,2002.
Among the provisions adopted was the permission to use PEX and CPVC pipe and fittings in certain water
systems. Some argue that these plastic-based materials will make housing and construction less expensive;
others argue that they remain of dubious safety in water systems. The State was unable to reach a conclusion so
they were not part of the California Plumbing Code. Manufacturers have brought suit in Los Angeles asking
the courts to order adoption of the 1998 Uniform Plumbing Code including PEX.
Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 467 has requested the City to delete the local amendments involving PEX and
CPVC and to instead wait for the State to complete its analysis. When that would occur is unknown. These
amendments have little effect in the City; they are most likely to be used in new construction of large scale
housing developments. The costs and staff time involved in trying to make those amendments work would far
exceed any return value to the City at this time.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Council introduce an ordinance to delete the two sections that alter the
general State standards for PEX and CPVC.
BY
Mayor and Council
Re: Ordinance to Amend Title 18 to Remove Certain References to PEX and CPVC
October 29,2002
Page 2
Attachment
Proposed Ordinance
Distribution
Director of Public Works
1
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
13
t4
15
t6
t7
18
r9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE No._
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING CHAPTER 18.12 BECAUSE OF DISPUTE BETWEEN
INTERESTED GROUPS AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The CITY COLINCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1 . For more than a decade, contractors, labor organizations, manufacturers, and
the State of California have fought over the usability of various types of materials in construction.
While the 1998 Uniform Plumbing Code would allow certain applications of what is known as
CPVC and PEX piping in water distribution, the State of California declined to adopt those
provisions because the State had not completely reviewed the issue. Manufacturers have now
brought suit against the State to compel the adoption of some or all of those provisions. The City
cannot afford the costs of getting caught between these warring groups, so therefore, the provisions
regarding CPVC and PEX should be dropped.
Section 2. Section 18.12.035 is repealed.
Section 3. Section 18.12.040 is repealed.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk ofthe City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
-
day
of _,2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the- day o{.-,2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
1
(
1
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
ll
I2
l3
t4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
NOES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COLINCILMEMBERS:
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\upc&pex.bld.wpd
City Clerk
2
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 11t4t2002
8c
STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council S
BY
DATE:Octoher )q )OO)APPRO
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson. Citv Attorney
SUBJECT:
CONSIDER APPROACHES TO NUISANCES CREATED BY BIRDS IN COMMERCIAL
AREAS,INCLUDING PROHIBITION ON FEEDING OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS ON PUBLIC
PROPERTY OR PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMISSION
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider and discuss possible approaches to controlling nuisances created by birds in commercial areas. If the
Council wishes to introduce an ordinance that would control feeding of birds and animals on public or private
property, then the Council should:
A. Ask the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the proposed ordinance.
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance and direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed
ordinance at least 5 days before its proposed adoption.
DISCUSSION:
At the October 7,2002, Council meeting, the Council asked staff to return with a report on possible approaches
to nuisances created by birds in the City's commercial areas. Attached is a booklet from the Alameda County
Vector Control Services District that provides an excellent background on various approaches and their pros and
cons.
Control of food sources and food attractions is perhaps the key element. The City continues to work with
property owners and BFI to ensure that garbage facilities are properly maintained and emptied. The Code
Enforcement Officer has continued to work with merchants on litter control in the vicinity of their stores, and
the Municipal Code and planning approval conditions on restaurants are quite clear on the obligations involved.
The City does not currently have an ordinance that prohibits the feeding of birds on public property. While the
current issue before the Council involves birds in commercial areas, other cities have had to deal with feeding of
animals, such as racoons and squirrels. In addition, some cities have had to address park problems caused by
overpopulations of geese or ducks. Feeding of birds and animals also creates an attraction to other pests. Many
cities have established regulations that govem the types of feeders to be used, in large part attempting to prevent
ground feeding.
Mayor and Council
Re: Approaches to Nuisances Created by Birds in Commercial Areas
October 28,2002
Page 2
Attached to this staff report is a draft ordinance that would prohibit the feeding of animals or birds on public
property, except at an approved feeding station or when the animal or bird is actually owned by the person. The
draft ordinance would also prohibit a person from feeding animals or birds on someone else's property. It
would not prohibit bird feeders, for example, on one's own property.
Another approach is to address building modifications or additions that would deter pigeons. These include
closing up nesting areas and installing barriers. These seems to have worked well in certain locations on
Broadway. Of course, this can be accomplished by private property owners themselves. The Chamber of
Commerce may be willing to provide educational information to its members. In addition, these barriers could
become standard conditions for design review approvals in the C-l District.
It does not appear that the City has the type of animal/bird nuisance problem that would justify any more
aggressive measures at this time, such as trapping or chemical controls. Those are both time-consuming and
expensive.
It is requested that Council consider the matter, consider introduction of the proposed ordinance, and direct staff
as to how much time and money should be devoted to more proactively addressing the issue. Staff could then
return with a proposed budget for a proactive approach if desired.
Attachment
Draft ordinance
Pigeon Control, Alameda County Vector Control Services District
Distribution
Chief of Police
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
t2
13
t4
15
16
t7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING TITLE 9 TO REGULATE FEEDING OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS ON
CITY PROPERTY AND PROHIBITING FEEDING OF ANIMALS AND BIRDS ON
OTHER PROPERTY WITHOUT OWNER'S PERMISSION
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The City has received complaints that birds have become a nuisance in
certain locations in the City. A deterrent to this type of nuisance is the discouragement of public
feeding, particularly in concentrated forms. In addition, this ordinance will prohibit the use of other
City facilities to attract animals and endanger both citizens and wildlife.
Section 2. A new Section 9.08.080 is added as follows:
9.08.080 Feeding prohibited on city and properff of others.
(a) Except at feeding stations that are expressly authorized by the city manager or the
manager's designee, it is unlawful for any person to do the following on any city property or city
right-of-way:
(1) To feed any bird or animal that is not legally owned by that person; or
(2) To place any feed of any kind that is intended for consumption by any animal or bird
of any kind or to attract any animal or bird of any kind.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to feed or to place any feed of any kind that is intended for
consumption by any animal or bird of any kind or to attract any animal or bird of any kind on any
property owned or controlled by another person without the express permission of the owner or
person in control of the property.
(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) "Feed" means any material, including but not limited to, birdseed, bird feed, corn, bread
pieces, food scraps, domestic animal food, or any similar substance that can be utilized for
consumption by animals or birds to provide nourishment.
(2) "To feed" means to spread, cast, lay, deposit, or dump feed.
ORDINANCE NO.
I
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
l4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifu that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_ day
of 2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the _ day of _ ,2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COI.INCILMEMBERS:
C :\FILES\ORDNANC\birdfeed.cdf.wpd
2
City Clerk
xxxxxxx w ffixYxYxY@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxtl,T}xxxx
PIGEON
xx
CONTROL YYThe common pigeon Columba livia
(the Rock Dove) is present in a wild or
ownerless state in many cities. Some
cities have areas, in which the
population level is high, and there are
also large areas in which the level is
low, but the birds are still noticeable.
This bird is a scavenger, much like the
Norway rat. Reasons for the need for
pigeon control, biology of the bird, and
methods of control and their limitations
are given within.
NEED FOR CONTROL
Diseases may be carried by these birds and
transmitted to humans. Ornithosis (or psittacosis-
commonly called parrot-fever) is found in pigeons,
the population of which may serve as a vast
reservoir for the organism. Cryptococcosis is
another disease caused by a fungus found in
pigeon droppings that may infect humans'
Dermatitis can be caused by pigeon mites that
often migrate from the nests and bite people.
Defacement of buildings, vehicles, trees, shrubs,
lawns, benches and fountains in parks, by
excrement occurs where the birds habitually
congregate. The removal of the excrement is an
additional cost of maintenance.
Odors may be produced by droppings, feathers,
and nesting materials.
Flies may develop in large numbers in
accumulated moist manure that is protected from
drying in sheltered roosting and nesting areas.
Noise may be produced by these birds; this
unwanted sound is obnoxious to some people.
#&M
@
d
#
)
GUIDE
TO
CONTROL
A
WYY
I
tr
N
Safety of pedestrians may be endangered by
slipping due to the presence of excess bird
droppings on walk-ways.
A hazard to Aircraft may result from large
numbers of pigeons.
BIOLOGY
It is important to know the biology of pigeons in
order to understand the methods of control. The
birds tend to stay together. For roosting, the birds
usually prefer larger, higher buildings, although
small, low buildings may be selected if close to
food. Nests are made of small twigs, pieces of
string, paper, and cloth obtained from any source
possible. The nests are built on roofs, ledges large
enough to accommodate the nest, openings in
buildings, and even drain spouts. Pigeons try to
nest as close as possible to a constant food supply.
A pigeon couple may have two nests.
Pigeons are monogamous, and eight to twelve days
after mating, the female lays one or two eggs. The
male cares for and guards the female. The young
leave the nest between the age of 4 and 6 weeks.
Often, more eggs are laid before these young ever
leave the nest. An adult female pigeon can have
about 15 surviving young ayear. These birds have
a life-span up to 15 years. The breeding cycle is
almost continuous although the number of young
hatching varies somewhat by season. An adult
pigeon consumes about one pound of food per
week. Pigeons can live up to a week without food.
The pigeons preferred food is mainly whole grains
and greens, but the birds will thrive on bread
crumbs, pop corn, and miscellaneous food scraps
(including in open garbage cans and spilled
garbage). Pigeons may fly several hundred miles
during a day, usually returning to the same nesting
spot.
CONTROL MEASURES
It is not possible to eradicate all the pigeons in a
city. It is possible to reduce the population to a
tolerable level. Methods may be used to reduce the
population quickly and directly or slowly and
indirectly. Emphasis should be placed on methods
which will bring about a long-term maximum
population reduction with the least amount of
effort and expense.
Many different methods have been used to control
pigeons. The measures may be divided into two
categories: permanent control and temporary
control. These methods will be discussed; legal
and other approaches will also be discussed. It
should be noted that some of the same conditions
which allow the production of large pigeon
4
J
l
I
ffi
populations may allow for the development of a
large rat population.
A. Permanent Control
l. Food Control if accomplished correctly, is the
most practical control method and less costly than
temporary measures. It is a basic means of
population control -since it deprives the birds of
material without which they cannot survive.
a. Garbage must be stored in sturdy cans with
tight-fitting covers. Garbage must be handled
carefully and not be spilled on the ground at any
time. Uneaten food for domestic pets and other
backyard animals must be removed after feeding
time or protected from pigeons. Grain mills and
animal feed lots attract pigeons; spillage must be
controlled and the birds kept out.
b. Food purposely provided by the public in parks,
backyards or other areas is one of the major
sources of sustenance for birds in cities.
Discouraging this practice is a difficult but
absolutely necessary aspect ofpigeon control. The
pigeon population will vary directly in proportion
to the amount of food available to them. Pigeons
can survive very well in the wild away from cities
without humans feeding them.
c. Food control at nature centers, parks, and zoos
are especially difficult. The amount of food put out
for animals at zoos must be strictly rationed and
protected,
5
Some structures may need to be pigeon-proofed.
2. Exclusioz is the modification of building or
other structures in such a way that the birds cannot
enter, roost, or nest in or on them. It may be
divided into interior and exterior exclusion.
a. Interior exclusion involves blocking or
modifying access to indoor roosting, feeding, and
nesting places. Openings may be blocked with
wood, metal, glass, masonry, or hardware cloth.
The last material is used when ventilation is
involved. Pigeons are excluded by I 1/2" mesh and
rats by l/2" mesh hardware cloth. Seventeen
gauge, galvanized material is prefened. Materials
should be installed in a manner that results in no
outside ledges or projections being provided for
birds to roost.
b. Exterior exclusion is the removal, blocking, or
modifying of all surfaces so that pigeons cannot
nest or roost upon them. Where ledges are not
wide (6" or less) light metal, such as sheet
aluminum, can be installed at a 45 degree angle to
present a slope on which the bird cannot rest or
nest. Hardware cloth can also be used. End
sections of this flashing must be closed in order to
keep birds out.
Projecting signs, decorations, and off-set edges
should be removed whenever possible. If removal
is not possible, boxing in exposed areas or
complete remodeling may be needed. Old sheds,
abandoned buildings, junk piles, and the like
should be removed. In some instances, "porcupine
6
ffi
wires" may be used. These are flexible, rust-proof
bars or strips on which about 120 needles per
linear foot are set in the form of half-circles. The
strips come with fasteners designed for a particular
surface. The strips may be attached to most types
of surfaces. A similar device uses looped
"wickets". These devices are effective, especially
in limited areas, such as a ledge over a doorway;
they have been used on ledges, ornaments, signs,
dormers, and roof gutters. Installation can be
expensive and difficult.
There are many commercially available pigeon
exclusion systems, as well as companies that
specialize in bird exclusion.
Pigeons may build a nest on "porcupine wire" by
building up a basic protective layer of sticks and
straw. Falling leaves may nulliff the effectiveness
of the strips.
Exclusion gives permanent control providing (1)
installation was done properly, (2) unprotected
doors, and windows are not left open, (3) and
repairs and new construction maintain the
exclusion integrity of the structure.
Routine inspection and prompt repair are essential
to effective pigeon exclusion system. Provisions
should be made for effective pigeon exclusion in
new construction and buildings undergoing
remodeling.
B. Temporary Control should only be used to
supplement permanent control measures.
Temporary methods are less effective and when
used on a large scale are costly. Several types may
be used at a time. The use of some of these
methods may cause an adverse public reaction.
Some of these methods merely make the birds
relocate.
l. Frightening Agents: There are two types:
Physicul and, Chemical
Physical agents such as whirling strips and spirals
of bright cloth or metal are occasionally effective
but usually have little effect. Simulated owls or
other predators give similar results. High
frequency sound (ultrasonic sound inaudible to
humans) has no effect on pigeons.
The Chemical agent 4-Amino pyridine, marketedas Avitrol (trademark), is classified as a
frightening agent since upon ingestion by birds, it
creates distress behavior in the birds and frightens
other birds away. It is a Restricted Use Pesticide
and therefore can only be used by a certified
applicator. If not used properly it can cause high
mortality in the birds. The proper blend of the
chemical and whole corn attractant can result in
very low bird mortality.
2. Repellents and deterrents have been used to
keep birds from staying in one spot, Some repel
because of an irritating factor and others because
7
8
of adhesiveness. Physically these are semi- solids
(elly entanglements, adhesives) or liquids (sprays).
Entanglements may be applied relatively easy to
smooth, regular, easily accessible spots. These
materials may be applied by means of caulking guns
to favorite roosting spots. Two or three bands must
be applied to ledges and all space used by birds must
be treated. Numerous small bands of material are
more effective than one wide band. Entanglements
have to be checked and renewed regularly.
Sprays may be used on flat areas; strips totaling25 -
30o/o of the area are needed. Trees may be sprayed
with a water-based spray. These chemicals are
available from wholesale suppliers only and may be
applied by pest control firms.
Naphthalene flakes are registered as a repellent.
They may be applied in enclosed areas such as attics
or between walls. However, avoid breathing of the
vapor which is toxic (Always follow product label
instructions).
3. Electric shocking equipment in the form of
fencing, may be used; the low voltage gives a mild
shock. This is an effective device, expensive, but
long-lived if installed and maintained properly.
4. Trapping is a measure that can be effective if
carried out with persistence, but it is slow and
tedious. Traps should be placed in areas where birds
feed and will not be molested. The traps should be
well supplied with feed of the type the birds are
already eating. A good bait is one made of one part
wheat and five parts cracked corn. Corn has been
found to be an excellent bait also. A little bait is
scattered outside the trap to act as an attractant.
Drinking water should be put in the trap. Trapped
birds should be removed at least twice a week and
9
disposed of in a humane manner.
5. Removal and Destruction of nests and eggs is
useful in reducing the pigeon population. Nests
need to be removed every two weeks. Treatment
may be required for birdnile populations.
6. Chemosterilants: Feeding female birds corn
treated with diazacholestenol dihydrochloride,
marketed as Ornitrol (trademark), results in
temporary sterilization by interfering with embryo
formation in the egg. A ten day feeding interval
will inhibit fertility for about six months. Two
feedings per year are recommended. It must be
done by a certified applicator. If done properly the
birds are not harmed, if done improperly death can
occur.
7. Poisoning or Shooting is not recommended and
is illegal in most cities.
LEGAL RESTRICTIONS
Ordinances controlling feeding of wild pigeons
can be useful in alleviating the pigeon nuisance
problems. Such ordinances might not contain an
outright prohibition of feeding wild pigeons, but
may provide for their being fed at certain
designated, limited locations. If this restricted
feeding is allowed, then clean-up at regular,
specified intervals must be included in order not to
provide food for rats and mice. Provision for
reduction of nesting, roosting space/areas and
l0
@ d
preventive exclusion in new construction, as well
as buildings being remodeled must be included.
Some cities have laws forbidding the keeping of
farm animals within municipal boundaries. The
laws may also restrict the keeping of pigeons,
although homing and racing pigeons may be
allowed.
The ordinance might be based instead on a
prohibition against pigeons flying at large, except
banded pigeons (which may fly only under specific
conditions), with provisions for the pigeons at
large to be taken up and impounded.
EDUCATION OF PUBLIC
The public must be informed of the need for
pigeon control. Emphasis should be on the
reduction of feeding of wild pigeons.
SUMMARY
Good pigeon control depends upon good food
control and firm and persistent activities in
eliminating nesting and roosting places. Both food
and nest control are related to the state of general
sanitation in a community. General sanitation must
be good and must be kept that way in order to
achieve positive results. In a city of any size, it is
impossible for all the official agencies that touch
upon the general sanitary condition of the com-
munity to exercise complete day-to-day control of
the environment so that no food and nesting
materials are available to pigeons. In view of the
fact that pigeons are general feeders, nest in many
kinds of situations, and are very prolific, it is
evident that a good pigeon reduction program must
include every activity listed in the "permanent
control" section. Food control measures and
exclusion of the birds, combined with such
temporary, secondary means of reduction as nest
elimination and trapping as needed may be
necessary.
Since voluntary compliance may be diffrcult to
attain in this sort of activity, and most of the birds
appear to be ownerless, legislation may be needed
to help accomplish the needed reduction in the
pigeon population.
ll
ACVCSD Rcv. 04/ll/2001 Pitchcr/Scoty'Wilson
Alameda County Vector Control
Services District
1131 Ilarbor Bay Parkway
suite 166
Alameda, CA 94502
s10-567-6800
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 1 1 -4-02
8d
STAFF REPORT
TO:Honorable Mayor and Gity Gouncil SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: October 22,2002
APPROVE
FROM: City Manager's Office (558-7204)BY
SUBJECT: GOMMISSION APPOINTMENTS (Traffic Safety & Pa ing-2; Givil Service-l )
On lVonday, November 4, the two Traffic Safety & Parking Commission candidates were
scheduled to interview for the two positions on that commission. The Council interview team
(Council members Coffey and Galligan) waived interviewing the one incumbent candidate for the
Civil Service Commission.
Traffic Safety & Parking Gommission
(2 positions: term to 1 1-6-05; lnterview team: Coffey / Janney)
Russ Cohenl
Steve Warden
Givil Service Gommission
(1 position: term to 12-1-05)
Doug Schwartzl
Council may wish to make the necessary appointments
Attachments (Council only)
4,,
# lncumbenUnumber of terms served
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Commissioner Application Form
Please print or Ape.
rlOl-20 0209R
E
F
S Burlingame registered voter
'Copies to; CC, CM, P tJ
FOR CITY USE ONLY
Name:CoI{EN
Address: bo, LEx rN6roN BURLIN 6AM E
Phone: khil L5o '9 3o
l{eventns)
saaaE I Email @pnonat)
How long have you lived in Burlingame (years)?
Are you reg istered to vote in Burlin game? Yes d No tr
Educ atio n: ha cEN-r FR tot c . 6p DE-sqD e gre e ( s)/IVIaj or(s) :
w, ^LIF.
sTA"€ UNlv./ FuLLEEl'o'l
BtrA , AD1EP-Tt&xr6
P,A, cel"tr{^t )N (cA-r t srrr S
Occupatio, / Specialty: Ap1E12ttsrrs c /mae:rer tN6 6NSu rrAr.sT
Please accept this as my application for a position on the (select only one):
r B eautification Commission
r Civil Service Commission
n Library Board
n Parks & Recreation Commission
a Planning Commission
d Traffic Safety Parking Commission
M Abatement District
Si fure 0>-
Please return your application and supplemental questionnaire to:
Vi Weber
Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Date: lo
Revised 3/6/2002
WAY
City of Burlingame - Public Wor
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7230 . fax: (650) 685-9310
www.burlingame.org
TRAFFIC SAFETY & PARKING CO
Supplemental Questionnair
Applicant's Name:RU sS 6g>p1Etr\
To assist in the selection process, please answer the following questions and submit written responses
with your application form. Resp oir", shoild be typed. You may use additional sheets of paper. Thank
You. 7LEASE set t\17At1te>.
The City of Burlingame is a City wtth a multitude of residential, commercial and industrial areas and
three ffite highways transversing the City. Vehicular and pedestrian safety and parking are maior
concernsfor the various areas and the entire community. The Traffrc Safety & Parking Commission was
formed to assist the City Council and staff with reconmendations relating to these concerns.
1. Please comment on how you feel that your education, training, experience and community
involvement, will be a beneftt to the Tratfic Safety & Parking Commission and the community?
2. Please list the community activities or organix,ations you have participated in and tndicate your
level of involvement (member, attended event, ran a booth, worked on the organizing commitlee,
was an oficer, etc.). Indicate the amounl of time each month you spend on each of these
activities.
3. The Tralftc SafeA & Parking Commission meets monthly. The Commission members will need to
personally investigate the locations of issues before them. Commissioners or a committee may
from time to time go out into the community to meet with citizens. Do yoa feel that you have the
time to make such a commitment?
pt.
O{]T 0 I 20c2
S
Traffic Safety & Parking Commission Supplemental Questionnaire
Page 2
Applicant Name:RUSS CbIIEN
4.As a Traflic Safety & Parking Commissioaer, you will need to address concerned citizens and
businesi-opera-tois on the many traffic anil parking issues including speed, volume, stop signs,
parking aiit accidents. Some of the specific proposals presented may not meet City of Burlingame
'or
other established standards, Have you ever been in a situalion where you have had to make
public recommendations on important issues while under public sctutirry? If so, please describe
that experience,
5. l{hich do you think should be considered as three ofthe community's main traffic safety or
parking concerns?
homeowner
rented prope y (residential)
work in Burlingame
own a business in Burlingame
have children in school
belong to a religious communitY
Othef L\oA9, B Ji7.LT^JOE$'6 Atlro."t'*t to'te1'1
7, Please list any additional information pertaining to your appointrnent to the Tralftc Safety &
Parking Commission that the City Council should consider-
Please retum your application and supplemental questionnaire to City Manager's Office
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
All applications and supplemental questionnaires must be received in the City Manager's Office
no later than 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 75,2002.
6, What groaps within the comuunity have you been a parl of (please check all thal apply):
Traffic, Parking and Safety Commission Supplemental Questionnaire
Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, Burlingame, CA 94010
Answers:
1.) My education and training in the practice of creative problem
solving and design has been paramount in the success in my role as
TSP Commissioner and in my roles within various community
volunteer organizations.
Specificalfu, I have submitted design proposals in order to address
several issuei facing the TSP eommission. One proposal addressed
the need for safe ingress and egress at a busy pre-school while
another proposal introduced the need for more educational way
finding signage in ttte downtown area.
2.) | am currently'on the board of directors for the Burlingame Lions
CIub. Board meeiings are held once per month. As an active member
I have chosen to become involved in a variety of community events
throughout the year and currently serye as Chair for at least one
committee.
I am also on the board of directors for The Burlingame Historical
Society, currently serving as President. Board meetings are held once
per month. Quarterly meetings are held four times each year'
ExtrlUits, educadonal, research and funding activities continue
throughout the Year.
3.) I believe that I have demonstrated my ability and willingness to
investigate each issue that has come before the commission and can
see no ieason why this commitment to the responsibilities of the
commission would not continue.
4.) As a TSP Commissioner for well over one year I have dealt with
members of the public and business community. Although it has
been challenging to educate citizens of the intricacies of traffic
engineering,l, atong with my fellow commissioners and city staff
have illuminated those before us, in just a few minutes, that the
criteria that we use combined with public input usually results in
positive decisions for the community at large. This, I believe, is
proven by the fact that only one of our decisions, during my tenure
has been appealed to the city council'
5.) a.) During my tenure, speed enforcement seems to be the item
most requested for review by the commission'
b.) Implementation of the approved traffic calming program' ,
..i A*r't".t"ts of the possible impacts of BART on parking and
traffic in Burlingame.
7.) I have served on the only subcommittee formed by the TSP
Commission ttris year. I have a spotless attendance record having
attended every scheduled meeting including being the sole
representative at the joint council commission meeting' I look -
foiward to continuedservice on this commission. I thank you for
your consideration.
Name: Srephen Warden
nlt
UocT 0 I 2002R
IL
LE
d rrrrrrome registered voter'
Copies to: CC, CM, ?N
CITYUSE ONLY
AddfeSS: 736 Acacia Drive Burlingame, CA 94010
PhOne: 6oys 65o-859-1242 l{"*nirg65o-348-7997 | Email @pnonat) scwarden5OGaol.com
How long have you lived in Burlingame (years)? 23 vears
Are you registered to vote in Burlingame? Yes 6 No tr
Education:D egre e (s)/IVIaj or(s) :
San Carlos High School General
Occupation I Specialty:
Vice Presldent &Manager Union Bank of California
Please accept this as my application for a position on the (select only one):
n Beautification Commission
r Civil Service Commission
n Library Board
n Parks & Recreation Commission
r Planning Commission
d Traffic Safety Parking Commission
Abatement District
Signature:=)Date: ocrober 7, zooz
Please return your application and supplemental questionnaire to:
Vi Weber
Executive Assistant
Cify Manager's Office
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Revised 3/6/2002
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Commissioner Application Form
Please print or etpe.
tr
City of Burlingame - Public Works Dept.
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7230 . fax: (650) 685-9310
www.burlingame.org
TRAFF'IC SAFETY & PARIilNG COMMISSION
Supplemental Questionnair
Applicant's Name:Stephen Warden
To assist in the selection process, please answer the following questions and submit written responses
with your application form. Responses should be typed. You may use additional sheets of paper. Thank
you.
The City of Builingame is a City with a multitude of restdenttal, commercid and industrial areas and
three Sate highways transversing the City. Vehicular and pedestrian satety and parking are major
concerns for the various areos and the entire communigt. The Traffrc Safety & Parking Commission was
formed to assist the City Council and staff with recommendolions relating to lhese concerns.
L Please comment on how you feel that your education, training, experience and community
involvement, will be a heneJit to the Tralftc Safety & Parking Commission and the community?
I am accustomed to worki-ng with a wide variety of people who represent
different interests and points of view. I enjoy trying to bring people
together in a consensus with something for everyone. I try to understand
issues from other peoplefs point of view.
2. Please list the commanity activtties or organix,ations you have participated in and indicate your
level of involvement (member, attended event, ran a booth, worked on the organizing committee,
was an offtcer, etc.). Indicate the amount of time each month you spend on each of these
activities.
Burlingame Lions Club (former member) Weekly lunch and other activities
Burlingame Ave. Mchts. Assn. (former representative Monthly meetings for 1 year
Vari-ous school projecEs (Halloween, Flea Markets, Field Day, Field trips)
Started first Bond/Parcel Tax campaign ,for Burlingame Schools
3. The Tralftc Safe$ & Parking Commission meets monthly. The Commission members will need to
personally investigate the locations of issues before thtem. Commtssioners or a committee may
froru time to time go out into the community to meet with citizens. Do you feel that you have the
time to make such a commitment?
OcT 0 I 2002
E
This will be no problem for me.
t
Traffic Safety & Parking Commission Supplemental Questionnaire
Page2
Applicant Name : Stephen Warden
4. As a Tralfic Safety & Parking Commissioner, you will need to address concerned cttizens and
bustness operators on the ,nany traffic and parking issues including speed, volume, stop signs,
parking and accidents. Some of the specilic proposals presented may not meet City of Burlingame
or other established standards. Have you ever been in a situation where you have had to make
public recontnterrdations on important issues while under public scruttny? If so, please describe
that *perience
Yes I have. These would i-nclude the time I worked on the Bond/Parcel Tax and
my time spent as the Moderator of the Church I belonged to in San Carlos.
5. l{hich do you think shoald be considered as three of the communtty's main trafJic safety or
parking concerns?
The traffic situation on Burlingame Avenue would be my nuuber onq priority.
Pedestrian safety on El Camino
Vehicle speeds throughout the city, particularly in residential areas.
6. What groups within the community have you been a part of (please check all that apply):
rented property (residentiaQ
x work in Burlingame
own a business in Burlingame
v have children in school
-+-belong to a reltgious communifit
Other
7. Please list any addttional information pertaining to your appointment to the Traflic Safety &
Parking Commission that the City Council should constder.
All applications and supplemental questionnaires must be received in the City Manager's Office
no later than 5:00 PM on Tuesday, October 15,2002.
\
Please retum your application and supplemental questionnaire to: City Manager's Office
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Commissioner Application Form
Please print or type.
Name: Douglas E. 'schwartz
il
1 5 2002
E)
t]ll OCT
$ Aurhngame registerecl voter
' Copies ti: CC, CU, DWl-
Y
AddreSSl 1440 Castillo Ave.
Phone: ra,yt 348- t657 lku"nrng) s^'^I Emaii @ptionat) deschwart z@pro di gy .
How long hayt lived in Burlingame (years)? 28 net
Are you registered to vote in Err4lqgq4qe?YesF Notr
Educatiofit sulinas Jr
of
. college Degree(s)Adajor(s):
College the Pacific
degree. Had one more year
en WI.III
AA
rh
Occupation / Specialfy:
Prrsonnel-- Policy, Employment,fndustrial Relations, Education and Trainin
Please accept this as my application for a position on the (select only one):
n Beautifi cation Commission
m Civil Service Commission
n Library Board
r Parks & Recreation Commission
n Planning Commission
n Traffic Safety Parking Commission
Mo uito Aba t District
Si Date: Oct.ober 14, 2002
Please orl an supp questionnaire to:
Vi Weber
Executive Assistant
City Manager's Office
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
fure
Revised 3/6/2002
,i
Doug Schwartz
1440 Castillo Ave '
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Response to Question 2
ActivitY
Civil Service Commission
San Mateo CountY
Boy Scouts of America
San Mateo Council
Affirmative Action Commitee
San Mateo CountY
American Cancer SocietY
San Mateo CountY
Suicide Prevention Assn.
San Mateo CountY
Involvement
Member and Chairman
Member and Chairman
Vice President- ExPloring
Commodore- Sea Scout Fleet
Consultant
Member- Board of Directors
Member- Board of Directors
Approx
Duratir
8 hours 14 yeal
2 hours 15 yea
hours 5 year
hours 2 year
hours year
J hours year
f,3fiEifi u'
8
4
9
Civil Ser'vice Commission
Burlingame
:!
';t ld.i
$urlingam"
Resnurcec
one game, CA
CE COMMISSION
Fax: (650) 342-6386
alQ ues tionn arrea
Diirecto.r
owledge a
your education, training, exp erien ce, an d co mmunity
Service Commission and the community?
1. Please comment
1
'')
ost'f.rEdscSEien a
etroPb9.Lcry: pEtsA_t
FsEd, Afu+htnrep+ r\ rh9p 5 ,
eS "Sr:** * r-;* Pllt gl$r#t
f,:I*Jnr'U
o-f, Pensonlcll. .Ove-r t.b!s
nd experience in the keY
erv ice Commission--interviewing Potent
you have participated in and indicate
.t.:,
'answer the following questioqs and submit
form. Responses should be typed. You may use
radditiorial
ran a booth, worked on the organizing
month you spend
ease
Questionnaire
ce iry interuiewiys lot applicants.,
i fteen
mm].ss
f n a1 exper j-ence with the Burlingame Civil S
a m 6r.v familiar with patterned.interview tec
ue o eve menL and I have contributed questiono
'ponsidered in determ ining if someoie should be
s f: interviewin g experience
s tlined in qu estion 1, I I ve had some
ervi-ce ,.;: r.,
hni ques ., ,- ,
ate has the
open position to
1d.be a good t:fittl.,for the job-: one ,,;,.,,ii1i,.
e11ow woikers and appeal to the public.'r:"' -i.',,,:
ASroning ability, common sense, and
the Civil Service Commission?
and like it. It fits completely with
d iL provides a feeling of satisfaction
o Btirl n a
.i,
m an
e
ac c o n an
ernment and;provides me
activities.
should consider,
i am in excellent
mental health as
1ow Commissioners
to the community. From a i.r.r-i..,: :ntal sLimulation not available ' - ,i,l:
to your appointment to the Civil Service
un
physical health and,
we1l. I feel I have
and with the staff
t ectricfecomplex, h -trigg e1e
E e
u
: .': it
nteres or
1o e Lher
,l' .-, .' a
1 Y, SU
,,,
irst
,
n
h
i
S
-a
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 31r2002
FRoM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager
6s0-ss8-7222
SUBJECT: First Quarter Budget Status Report
AGENDA 8eITEM #
MTG.
DATE
rt-4-o2
BY
APPROVED
BY
RECOMMENDATION: This report is for information only
BACKGROUND: Council has requested quarterly reports on the status of the budget. This is the first
quarter report for the period July I through September 30,2002.
General Fund
Revenues for this period were $5,568,502, a reduction of $492,733 (8.1%) from the same period in fiscal year
200t-02.
o Hotel tax receipts were $1,817,442, areduction of $521,979 (22.3%) from last year. Although
occupancy rates have averaged 58.6yo, revenue has declined in each of the three months of the quarter,
both on a month-to-month basis and from the same months last year. Occupancy declined by 1lo/ato
52.5% between August and September, traditionallypeak months for Burlingame hotels.
Sales tax receipts totaled $1,107,658, a reduction of $216,836 (16.4%.) The HdL Companies, the
city's sales tax auditors, updated their estimates for the fiscal year, and have suggested a drop in the
annual sales tax estimate from $9.1 million to $8.43 million. A copy of their analysis is attached.
National retail sales estimates support the HdL observation that automobile sales are decreasing,
despite 0% financing and other incentives.
a First installments of property tax payments will not be received until next month. About half of the
property tax will be received by December. The receipts to date are only $23,265 representing
supplemental tax roll payments, which are expected to decline after a banner year in 2001-02 due to a
major catch-up effort by the county which more than doubled tlpical annual collections of this small
portion of the roll. The secured property tax ro1l, the largest component of this revenue, is expected to
be up 6oh for the year, and property taxes overall should increase abottt2Yo.
The remaining general fund revenues posted a 13.loh increase to $2,620,137. Major revenues in this
group are business licenses, interest earnings, motor vehicle in-lieu fees (VLF), building permits, and
parking revenue. The increase included a gain of $282,000 in interest earnings due to the calling of
some securities and the resultant earlypayment of interest. Overall, interest is budgeted to decline for
the year due to lower cash balances and a dramatic reduction in interest rates in the market place.
Parking fees are up $85,000 due to the new rates adopted earlier this year. The VLF is up $32,000, but
may flatten out if auto sales decline. This revenue, estimated at over $1.5 million for the year, may be
o
a
vulnerable to State cutbacks. An aggressive legislative effort is planned to oppose another State raid
on local revenues. Loss of any additional revenue would be devastating to the city.
Revised General Fund Revenue Estimates for 2002-2003
During our last discussion about revenue projections with the Council, we indicated that our $34.8 million
estimate in the Proposed Budget would need to be reduced to $32.8 million. Given our most recent
discussions with HdL staff, our current estimate is $32.0 million. The first quarter pattern, however, in hotel
tax receipts remains soft, and if flat or downward trends continue, further revisions may be presented in
January.
On the positive side, about 200 new hotel rooms will come on line in the third quarter with the opening of both
the Bay Landing Hotel (130 rooms) and Hampton lnn and Suites (71 rooms).
General Fund Expenditures and Balancing the 2002-03 Budget
General fund expenditures for the first quarter totaled $7 ,676,656. This constitutes about 23Yo of the budget,
and is in line with expectations. The rate of expenditure is expected to further decline due to identified one-
time cost reductions and added position vacancies as a result of the managed hiring delay. The value of the
managed hiring delay savings is currently $231,048 for l3 positions. In addition, departments to date have
identified about $692,000 in additional one time reductions.
For 2002-03, the reduction in revenue estimates from $34.8 million in the Proposed Budget to $32.0 million
currently (-$2.8 million.) has been addressed with the $2.0 million general fund capital projects reduction
presented to Council in September and the onetime reductions to operating budgets and savings from the
managed hiring delay. By year end, these reductions and the hiring delay should be more than $1.0 million.
Budeet Strateev for 2003-2004
With the revised estimate for current year revenues and the revised PERS rate increase from CaIPERS staff for
Fiscal Year 2003-04, the projected spread between revenues and expenditures for 2003-04 has now grown
from $3.1 million to $5.3 million. As the Council knows, we have embarked on a multi-pronged approach to
address this structural budget problem:
1. Revenue Increases
Staff efforts to present various fee increases for Council approval are on schedule. Council has acted on fees
for the Building Division and Fire Department. The balance will be presented between now and the midyear
budget review for approval. Originally, we planned to submit all fee changes by December, but now
recommend that the major increases-particularly planning and recreation fees-be presented side-by-side
with the other prongs listed below. Current estimates indicate the new fees will raise approximately $1.0
million annually for the general fund, as follows:
o Fire Permits and Inspections:. Building Permits
o Fees still under review:
$75,000 - $100,000
$165,000
$735,000 - $760,000
1
2. Financial Restructurinq
This prong involves transferring of general fund expenditures to other funds or other financing sources on
either a temporary or pernanent basis, some of which require approval of the voters. The use of gas tax funds
for operating costs is allowable, but would divert funds from street capital improvements. This should be
viewed as a temporary measure while we have revenue shortages. Staff is developing information regarding
the cost transfer options. The options identified to date include:
. Shifting Street Sweeping to Waste Fund
o IJse of Gas Tax for Street Div. Operating Costs
o Fund Storm Drains Through Assessment District
o Operating Costs
o Capital Improvements
o NPDES Assessment
$180,000
$100,000 - $500,000
$520,000
$2,000,000
$100,000
3. Increased Efficiencies/Shared Service Opportunities and 4. Service Level Reductions
Departments have developed efficiency improvements and service level reductions as part of a target budget
reduction figure of 7.5Yo of net budget, or $2.6 million. As a result of the changes in revenues and the
increase in PERS rates (see attachment 2 for more information,) departments are now generating additional
reductions options that will equate to l2.5oh of the current year net budget.
Review of possible shared service opportunities for the Fire Department is near completion. The
recommendation will generate a savings between $250,000 and $750,000. The San Mateo County City
Managers are conducting a survey to identify other shared service opportunities, and the Peninsula Library
System is examining additional areas to consolidate services. Many of these options will take time to develop,
as we have seen with the shared fire services study. The budget downturn for many peninsula cities has
increased interest to pursue shared services more aggressively, and staff is opening dialogue with other cities
to take advantage of these circumstances.
Conclusions
Staff will ask for council direction in preparing the 2003-04 budget when these prongs are presented at the
midyear budget review in late January. Presented as a package, the options will hopefully allow Council to
shape a strategy including some suggestions from each prong.
Summary of Four-Pronged Options
Category
Revenue Increases
Financial Restructuring
Shared Services
Increase Efficiency/Service Level Reductions
$1,000,000
$2,900,000 - $3,300,000
$250,000 - $750,000+
$3,500,000 - $4,000,000
TOTAL $7,650,000 - $9,050,000+
Impact Range of Changes
Enterprise Funds
Water and sewer enterprise revenues appear to be stabilized as water consumption is in line with estimates.
New rates took effect August 1, so another month is needed to see the new rate pattern for all accounts. The
sewer expenditures of $2,16I,504 are just above 25Yo of btdget, due to an annual payment of principal on a
bond issue that occurs in September each year. Water expenditures of $779,575 represent l3.9oh if budget.
Debt service payments occur later in the year, which weighs expenses toward the end of the year.
The planned debt issue for capital improvements has been delayed to January so that execution of the State
revolving fund loan for treatment plant improvements can be completed ahead of the debt issue. The delay
will also allow better presentation of enterprise fund financing and our strategy for stabilizing revenue to the
rating agencies. Staff has retained arate analyst to present alternative rate structures as part of next year's ate
view. The objective is to develop a structure that will not be subject to violent swings when water
consumption declines due to drought or economic reversals.
Golf enterprise revenue is up 7.3o/o and is sufficient to cover operating costs. Revenue was $136,083 vs.
expenditures of $126,012. Revenue is not yet sufficient to cover capital replacement costs of $45,750 through
September 30. Expenditures increased 182%to $126,012 due to the first time charging of internal service
charges in fiscal year 2002-03, and a change in accounting for commission payments as an expense item. [n
fiscal year 2001-02, the commission charge was corrected later in the fiscal year. Expenditures to date are 22o/o
of budget and are within expectations.
Capital Proiects
First quarter capital expenditures were $3,048,180.. The dominant project is the reconstruction of the
corporation yard, which will be completed by third quarter. Water and sewer project activity will occur next
summer following the issue of lease revenue bonds next January.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. HdL Sales Tax Analysis; First Quarter Budget Review
2. Change in PERS Retirement Cost Estimates for Police and Fire Safety
3. General Funds Ongoing Revenues/Expenses Model
^rruHdLTJOT,IPAI\IES
Burlingame
2002/2003 Sales and Use Tax Proiections
Key Assumptions
Adjusted
200t/2002
Estimated
2002/2003
a
a
a
a
**
Autos/Transportation. Ford, Dodge and Bus
dealers closed out. Manufacfuring incentives
beginning to lose effectiveness. Expect declines
to accelerate after fourth quarter.
"Business to Busin " sales have bottomed out but
recent closeouts reduce further (Image Ink, Ebsco,
others). Little or no growth until 2004 except in
security and defense related expenditures.
General Consumer Goods. Unemployment in
higher paid technology and professional sectors
will not fully recover. War and economic
uncertainty will further reduce consumer
spending.
Restaurants/flotels. Spending near bottom but
expected to show little gain in next few quarters.
Food/Druqs. Tends to remain stable under all
conditions.
Fuel/Service Stations. Prices on the way back up
Should match last year's receipts.
Buildine/Construction. Burlingame doesn't have
any businesses in this goup that would be
significantly impacted by outside conditions.
County and State "Use Tax" pools. Capitol
lnvestment intensive. Probably can expect
additional decline.
Projection excluding SBOE admin. fees & county
share:
s3,782,751 $3,050,000
1,750,322 1,600,000
1,228,660 1,150,000
1,l7g,g5l
395,943 396,000
285,000
243,935 245,000
1,197,470 1.050.000
$ 8,926,000
a
a
a
LnL rcn7t02
$ 8.425.000
1,150,000
280,020
Change in PERS Retirement Cost Estimates for Police and Fire Safety
This tables show the impact of CaIPERS employer retirement rates for 2003-04 and2004-05. The rates were
provided by CaIPERS based on their actuarial analysis and are well above the original rates quoted when the
city adoptedthe 3oh at 55 retirement plan for police and fire employees. The dominant reason for the increase
appears to be the drop in investment earnings for the CaIPERS portfolio, which CaIPERS staff did not factor
in to their original estimates, assuming instead that we would remain "superfunded." Since CaIPERS did not
provide a2004-05 rate estimate for Police, a revised estimated annual cost is not factored into the
computation.
2003-04 PERS Rate Chan
2004-05 PERS Rate
The total increase between what CaIPERS estimated when the benefits were granted and the rates now
projected by CaIPERS is $837,000 plus $1,320,000 or $2,157,000. Of this $2,157,000, $1,951,000 is
attributable to the change in the Fire Safety cost and $206,000 is attributable to Police Safety cost changes
Original
03-04 PERS
Estimate
Original
Estimated
Annual Costs
Revised
03.04 PERS
Rates as of 10/02
Revised Estimated
Annual Costs
Police tr.4%$481,000 16.28%$687,000
Fire 3.6%$ 155,000 18.26%$786,000
Total $636,000 $1,473,000
Increased cost
over original estimates
(Fire and Police)
+$837,000
Original
04-05 PERS
Estimate
Original
Estimated
Annual Costs
Revised
04-05 PERS
Rates as of 10/02
Revised Estimated
Annual Costs
Police Not Provided N/A 27.70%$ 1,170,000
$ 1,475,000Fire3.6%s 155,000 3430%
$2,645,000Total
+$1,320,000Increased
cost over original
estimates (Fire Only)
City of Burlingame
Change in General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
'1999-2000 to 2004-2005
(Dollars in millions)
1999-00 Actual 2000-01 Actual 2001-02 Actual 2002-03 Budge(2003-04 Projected 2004.05 Projected
Revenue $37.2 $41.3 $33.3 $32.0 $33.0 $33.9
% Change 11.1%-19.3%-4.0%3.lYo 3.00/o
Expenditures and Debt Service $ 26.7 $ 28.0 $ 31.4 $ 35.1 $ 3S.2 $ 42.7
% Change 4.8o/o 12.4yo 11.6% g,Ooh 11.6Vo
Difference, Revenue vs. Expenditures
STAFF REPORT
FRoM: Parks & Recreation Director (558'7307)
BY
BY
AGENDA 9a
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE trl4l02
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: October 27,20A2
APPROVED
SUBJECT: APPROVE INCREASE IN THE REGISTRATION
FOR RECREATION CLASSES FROM $3.00 TO $6.00
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve an increase in the
registration fee for classes from $3.00 to $6.00.
BACKGROUND:
A fee is included to the cost of each Recreation class to cover some of the administrative costs
associated with registration. This fee, originally set at $2.00, was instituted in the late 1980's to
cover the costs of the registration software. It was increased in 1997 to $3.00 and has not been
increased since. The recommended increase to $6.00 will still not cover even the majority of
administrative costs associated with providing the Recreation classes.
The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed this fee increase, recommends its approval and
requests that the City Council earmark the additional funds generated from this increase to be
used for Teen programs and activities.
BUDGET IMPACT:
It is anticipated that the approval of this fee increase will bring $40,000 to $50,000 of additional
revenue to the Parks & Recreation Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
AGENDA
ITEM #9b
STAFF REPORT MTG.
DATE 11t4t2002
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council S
BY
DATE : October 29-2002 APPROVED
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson. City Attorney
SUBJECT:
APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS OF ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY
TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BEGINNING WITH THE 2OO3 TERM
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint six Advisory Board members for the years 2003 -2005 for the San Mateo County Tourism BID and
affirm membership of Board.
DISCUSSION:
The Advisory Board for the San Mateo County Tourism BID is made up of 19 members, representing various
interests in the hospitality industry in the District - 15 representing owners/managers of hotels or owners of
property occupied by a hotel within the District, and 4 representing companies or businesses that are directly
related to tourism in the County. The fifteen hotel representatives are also allocated among the member cities.
The Board members serve 3-year terms.
The terms of a portion of the first board will expire early next year. With the concurrence of the San Mateo
County Convention and Visitors Bureau Board, the San Mateo Hotel Council has submitted a list of nominees
for the 3 year term beginning on May 1 ,2003. The six nominees have served on the Board over the past I 8
months:
Colman Conneely
Stan Moore
Sandra O'Toole
John Root
Stephanie Ryan
Michael Sturm
Attachments
Advisory Board Members
Portions of Ordinance No. 1648
Distribution
Anne LeClair, SMCCVB
San Mateo Count5r Convention & Visitors Bureau
Terms of Offrce
2003
Len Almalech, Enterprise Rent A Car - non-hotelier
John Berndt, Ritz Carlton - Half Moon Bay
Phil Brezinski, San Mateo Marriott - San Mateo
Ken Landis, Landis Shores - Unincorporated County
John Martin, SFO - non-hotelier
Paul Herbert, Best Western Grosvenor - South San Francisco
Bruce Carlton, Doubletree Hotel - Burlingame
200? - 2004
Scott Castle, Crowne Plaza - Foster City
Bill Rizzuto, Hyatt Regency - Burlingame
Mike Scott, Clarion Hotel - Millbrae
Mohammed Virgi, Comfort Inn - Millbrae
Jim McGuire, Four Points by Sheraton - South San Francisco
Chris Middleton, Holiday Inn Express & Suites - Belmont
2OO3- 2OO4-2OO5
Michael Sturm, Hilton Garden Inn - San Mateo
Colman Conneely, Sheraton Gateway - Burlingame
Stan Moore, SFO Marriott - Burlingame
Sandra O'Toole, SSF Conference Center - South San Francisco, non-hotelier
John Root, San Mateo County Expo Center - San Mateo, non-hotelier
Stephanie Ryan, Hotel Sofitel - Redwood Crty
EXCERPT FROM ORDINANCE 1648
Section 14. Advisory Board.
(a) An advisory board of seventeen (17) members is established to advise the City of
Burlingame on the conduct of the District, including the level of assessments to be levied each
year, the services, activities, and programs to be conducted by the District, and the progress of
the District in meeting its purpose and goals. The City Council shall appoint the advisory board
from a list of nominees submitted by the San Mateo Hotel Council. To be eligible to serve on
the advisory board, a person shall be an owner or manager of a hotel or a property occupied by a
hotel or an owner or manager of a company or business located in San Mateo County that is
directly related to tourism in San Mateo County. The board shall consist of persons from the
following geographical areas :
(l) Four (4) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in
the City of Burlingame; and
(2) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of properly occupied by a hotel in
the City of San Mateo; and
(3) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in
the City of Millbrae; and
(4) One (l) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Foster City; and
(5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Half Moon Bay; and
(6) In total, three (3) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by
hotels in the Cities of Belmont, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and the
unincorporated area of San Mateo County; and
(7) Four (4) owners or managers of companies or businesses located in San Mateo County
and directly related to tourism in San Mateo County.
(b) On January 1,2002, the membership on the advisory board shall be increased to
nineteen (19) by the addition of two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property
occupied by a hotel in the City of South San Francisco; and
(c) Terms of membership on the advisory board shall be three (3) years and until their
successors are appointed and qualified. However, the initial members of the advisory board shall
be staggered terms, with five (5) members serving a one-yeil term, six (6) members serving a
two-year term, and six (6) members serving a three-year term. Initial terms under this section
shall be run from May l, 2001. The initial length of term for each member shall be chosen by
lot at the first advisory board meeting. As to the two (2) members representing the City of South
San Francisco, one shall serve an initial length of term to May 1,2003, and the other an initial
length of term to May 1,2004; the initial length of term for each such South San Francisco
member shall be chosen by lot at the first advisory board meeting in the year 2002.
(d) Vacancies on the advisory board shall be filled by appointment by the City Council of
the City of Burlingame upon nomination by the San Mateo County Hotel Council. Vacancies
occur upon resignation of the member or when the member is no longer an owner or manager of
a hotel or property occupied by a hotel or of a tourist-related company or business, whichever is
applicable, in the geographical area from which the member was appointed.
Section 15. Advisory board under the Political Reform Act (California Code of
Regulations, title 2, section 18707.4). The members of the advisory board are appointed to
represent and further the interests of the hotel and tourism industry in San Mateo County
pursuant to this ordinance.
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 25, 2OO2
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
9c
11tO4tO2
DA
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROV
BYPUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT A 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE
(BURLINGAME GARDEN CENTER) AND CITY PARKING LOT B-1.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the proposed amendment to the attached
Special Encroachment Permit with the following conditions:
o The applicant shall install and maintain striping for the loading area.o The applicant shall only place items as noted in this permit within the loading area.o The applicant shall keep the containers and loading areas clean at all times.. The applicant shall be fully responsible for all pavement repairs within the loading area.o The applicant shall contribtte 50% of the total cost to repair pavement damage along the driveway
portion of the parking lot (see attached driveway drawing).
BACKGROUND: Council approved a special encroachmentpermitwithJimchiapelone on October 7 ,1999,
allowing for one parking space, a 19' X 34' loading area and display area at the back of the City parking lot.
The permit conditions required that no trash containers be placed in the parking lot.
DISCUSSION: Mr. Chiapelone is requesting to amend the special encroachment permit to place two BFI
containers in an enlarged area, which will also be used for loading, parking and displays. The area will be
increased from 19' X 34' to 2l' X 56' per the enlarged encroachment area drawing.
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes that the expansion of the loading area and placement
of two BFI containers will not adversely affect the overall operations of the parking lot. However, trucks
accessing the BFI containers may cause damage to the pavement as the City parking lot was designed to only
accommodate passenger vehicle loadings. As a result, Mr. Chiapelone has agreed to pay the City 50% of the
cost to repair pavement damage along the driveway portion of the parking lot as indicated in the attached
drawing.
EXHIBITS: Driveway Drawing, Application, Enlarged Encroachment Area Drawing, Pictures, Special
Encroachment Permit
Donald P. E.
City Clerk, Applicantc:
S:\A Public works Directory\staff Reports\t"427Chapin.wpd
Senior Civil Engineer
)DKJ\,,6t^4c/ Qrrdd,M )
,t
t)
PRIMROSE ROAD
-----{,-s4f51'2dE
a
satrSito;E -----------:-
LOT 1,4
LOT A
.d'*
t tf--_--l
trl
Z
FI
z
\.,,f\8d
b.{
Pma$w qa
SnEer c$0au€tffig roD
antilo 901 Etw^notr
flnEn
aoxPUTL
ff
a^s
d
.,rd"
"Ofl
.$'C'
($f1
FTo
F
I
-
oo--?t-
rl
dl
I
lb
lq aal&MbIl
t
LEOEXD
xI BlJr)
ot!
o+o6
*
EE
@
E&)+{frr
0
&
IEt
(0a13).
oe)(xur)
DAAilffiru3mfi&ffi48stiruY nrqRilI#TMGdl^l ffiMm ymn
lralli v[Ell[A ffirffiwromcbor
a&mE VruL?
alclrouliffi Hnidt
rd4
,df1
0ltAMM
olsTNCExt^shtD
oAtrRECOM
E
6
T
affi
I
E
I ==ll 3
l+1( obWfN -W€ttilg
t,RruOMM
OISCSNECI
LOT C
ARE^r941 SF
A6t
"!
LOT Blna.r,4!2 SF
0€0lc IroN FoR PRtNcARA-2,275 SF
ry0€4,a AM$lk
-tf
l
2
$
I
"t*t'{ W-Vltl* wf B-
SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLTCATION
A.P. No
c s ?af Lo+ B*
Lot No.04€ Btock No. I I subdivision
Address of Proposed
I ch lo* Phon"b5o -3qq-,753q
Best Time to q *5
Phone 50*
Best Time to Call q5
Address C
Property Owner
bea*
Address e5
Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicablel
Give Reasons for Request BFT {s b\e-.4
Date Signed
ATTACH plans or drawings to show the dimensions, I
PLEASE CAlr- (6501558-7230 FOR |NSPECT|ON.
Property Own s)
and heights of the encroachment.
€l@@-
XSecurity Bond $3OO (Refundable)
Additional Bond l4(S 4-r.z
(The bond or cash deposit will be
returned after construction is finished)
Fee: {SZS will be refunded if the application is rlenied}
$5O Non Permanent, No Council Ac:.:1fr
X$75 Permanent, - ,.,rCo.uncil Action
Fee & Bond Paid: laeD5-/ -3
, ln addition, a $1OO penalty fee will be added if work is completed without a permit.
lnspected By: lnitials Date
Deoartment Bv Date Deoartment Bv Date
E Parks tr Planninq
tr Water tr Sewer
tr Enoineerinq D Others
Date Council Approved Date sent to City Clerk
Record No.Date Record Copy to Owner
REF: EFFECTIVE 9/5/OO, CHAPTER 12.1O CITY CODE s:\APublicworksDirectornFonMslcenerdornceturms\Er.tcnsFcLApp
I
Tohn+ fhernl f hraf ln "a-
fuQ t uqlr Cotafar(ffrvr.
SeR- a$la,cheA ortd6a\,
Special Encroachment Permit Application
Encroachment Description: Burlingame Garden Center (BGC) needs to modiff the
encroachment permit issued l0l7 I 1999.
BGC wishes to continue use of the 3' wide merchandise display areafrontingl42T
Chapin Avenue.
BGC would like to place two (2) three-cubic-yard BFI containers adjacent to the back
wall of parking lot B-1, in the areathat was formerly used for durnp truck storage. One
container used for recycling paper products, one for tash.
BGC would like to continue to use the space to park one delivery or landscape vehicle
intermittently during the daytime hours.
BGC would like to continue use of the area as a loading zone for shipping and receiving,
and loading the cars of customers.
BGC agrees to share the cost of future repairs to the paving in the 'roadway' portion of
lot B-1, where undue damage occurs due to the use by BFI trucks.
The current loading zorLe areawas redefined by the City of Btrlingame after recent
parking lot improvement project. The area zN now defined measures 2l' x 56' .
I 1J C,lwin/ ff,\c- | "
5gtry
hotll
@
{^
,- el;d,vg G"+\es
De{.i\ al 5W
corvw oC L+ B-
Lo"Alng Zor*,
A\0-kVh6O A,!M A(&
v1?4*JwE
9o{\t[aorl^z. ?rE,'€ L"+ g-l
€9.r,\- 21-+
dd
Del,lrt ,. /
Lo.^J.v"it
Ubhic,,te- VEe
(U"f o^tr)
\\?*gt"A UY J, Y^croohr+2,tt 4rr^
Z I
-(tih Tbte
?b
€
$,-s .?
Gd
I ga,^leJ,
Dra
ta
*lr,^ noi-
srit<-
I
)
I
II
".4
*
J
l :
':::::ta;i
',. I
I
*
t ti., I
i*
it,
Sr
*
..., ,l; {r"
k ,i * r s:
F* '*g *
-!rr*l .r ,.-,.iri?t t.is'tr rt 4 t
t lt'J
,rit
lI^
*#rls
\r
, ..- '.,*.. .
'a':1 m
t
d
=ryw:
3{21.
\
-i.
d&^-
,'I
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
FOR NON-PERMANENT FIXTIJRRS ON CTTY SIDEWALK
TO APPLICANT:JOHN CHIAPELONE
BTJRLINGAME GARDEN CENTER
1427 CHAPIN AVENUE
BIJRLINGAME, CA 94010
October 7. 1999
(Date)
.Ja
;-*
In compliance with your request of September 10.' 1999 and subject to all of the terms,
conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted for a3' wide merchandise
display area on the sidewalk fronting 1427 Chapin Avenue and for a 16.5 x 3' display area. a -1-2-'
x 21' truck parking space and a 19' x 34' loading zone near the sbuthwest corner of City Parking
Lot B-1 with the following conditions: (1) The applicant shall install and maintain markings for
existing encroachment permits dated May 31. 1980 and March 10. 1982 shall be revoked.'
AT: 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE..LOT D& E. BLOCK 11. BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY
Assessor's Parcel No. Azg-1224ctr.. ozg-l224lo .
1. Definition: Revocability. The term "encroachmentn is used in this perr^,t
to mean those objects described above when they are placed in the right of-way of the City of
Burlingame in the Tanner described in the drawing attached hereto and in the City standards for
such encroachments. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice.
2. Acceptarrce of pr,ovisions. It is understood and agreed by the permittee that placing
the above objects inthe public right of way pursuant to this permit shall constitute an ai:ceptance
of the provisions hereof.
jt
"r
3. No precedent established. This permit is granted with the un-derstanding 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 within or upon right-of-way of the City of
Burlirigame.
4. Permit on premises. This permit shall be kept at lhp site of the
encroachment and must be shown to any representative of the City or any law enforcement officer
on demand
5. Future movine of installation. It is understood by the permittee that
whenever construction, r@onstruction or maintenancg 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.
6. Liabilitv 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 its obligations under this permit in respect
to maintenance. In the event any claim of such liability is mdde against the City, or any
department, offrcer, or employee thereof, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold them, and
each of them, harmless from such claim.
7 . The.applicant shall maintain public liability insurance
in an amount not less than $500,000 for personal injuries and in an amount not less than $100,000
for property damage. Applicant shall furnish satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance
required to City concurrently with the execution hereof. Each policy shall provide for at least ten
(10) days prior written notice to City of cancellation. All insurance shall be primary and shall
name the City as additional insured. A current ksurance Certificate must be on file with the City
Engineer's office or encroachments must immediately cease. Continuing lack of certif,rcate will
{i:
2
cause permit revocation.
' 8. Maintendnce. The permittee agrees, by.the acceptance of this permit, to
exercise reasonable care to maintain properly the encroachment placed by it in the City right-of-
way, and to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and immediately repairingand making Cood an1
injury to any portion of the right-of-way which occurs as a result of the mairUenance of the
encroachment in the right-of-way or as a result ofwork done under this permit, including any and
all injury to the iight-of-w4y which would rnt have occurred had such work not been done or such
encroachment not placed therein.
9. This permit shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the
parties hereto.
10. Sketch. See attached.
The number of planters or other encroachment items shall comply with the original permit
drawing.
A six-foot clearance for the pedestrian walkway shall be maintained at all times.
The sidewalk area fronting the store shall be kept clean of debris and spills at all times
during the business hours.
All planters shall be moved inside the store at the end of each business day.
All potted plants shall be pruned, trimmed and watered periodically; and all planters shall
be maintained in good condition and kept clean ofdebris rnaintaining a neat appearance.
6. A copy of the permit, irrcluding drawinls, shall be available inside the store during
business hours.
All sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shatl be in compliance with the
California Alcoholic Beverage Control Act as described in Division 9 of the California
.,
3
4
5
7
3
STANDARD CONDITIONS:
l.
8.
Business and Professions Code. No alcohol shall be allowed on a public sidewalk or
encroachment seating area.
No person shall use a non-perrnanent fixture in such a manner as to obstruct, hinder, or
delay the free passage or use of any street, sidewalk, passageway, or other public place.
- 11
It is the business management's resporuibility to keep customers or users from violating any of
the above conditions or moving any of the permitted fixtures.
ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES:
1. Violation
A City representative will inspect the site upon receiving a complaint to confirm whether
a violation of the permit conditions exists. In addition, periodic inspections will be .
conducted by City representatives. A notice of violation will be sent to the owner if a
violation is observed.
Suspension
If there are three violation notices within three months, the subject location's encroachment
permit may be suspended for a period of up to one month as determined by the Clty
Engineer. The period will be based on the degree of impact the violation has on public
safety, health, and general welfare in addition to the past history of suspensions and
violations. If a violation results in a signilrcant incident, such as an injury, a suspension
or revocation may be imposed immediately. All non-permanent fixtures will be removed
from the sidewalk by the perrnittee or by City forris.
2.
-.ift
4
ACCEPTED
3. Revocation
After the suspension period is completed, the encroachment fixtures may be placed in
accordance with original permit conditions. If there are again two or more violations
within the next six month period, the permit may be revoked for a period of six months
after which an application for a new permit will be necessary. The new4ermit may be
issued for a specific time frame dependent upon the past history of violations
The decision of the Public Worlcs Department may be appealed by the applicant to the City
Councit. Such appeals will be made in writing within f,rve days after written notice of the decision
of the deparnnent of Pubtic Works is sent to the permittee.
CITY OF BT'RLINGAME
GARDEN CENTER)
BY
5
II
\
+
k ,rtrR trt ru C' ( f a '8'1il c t
(,
6'- l"
6' H,n C(ea,nancg
t
D /s f tav fr R- f ,a ( 4 w'n. o( 3.! U*ara4uytcc. l"r,rar.4-
Ulh v,n-!-! 4s. 'y'lwt.v i l* I )
l'-to'*o
3
IJ /n t (t rts o 0 t i!
(
C H,q lr ,t A
(
Vf/1//L . ,,i::(i:..
)
\
)
\
\
\
II
{ L 1Dtil v b4TtJ
\.LOAOtd b Zo.*tL
:.ri 7,Q4^l t L
5
lJ /L/9/c
/6. S'
q
T RUcl<
Sf.+ct
I L,,
,i'/
(.,7 I (( ,,,
I
I
i
I
Y,i' G<s,h
o
\
rY
I
I
Pave-"/ Ar,rq
Drt'i<vta ob
*"/tl I .o/4{
t7a,\st
BURLINGAME GARDEN CENTER
STAFF SKETCHe-
ta;- 6 I-T 34'
RE OUESTED ENC ROACHM
I
Rev,r€J, G'o J"'s"3: 9 : 6 s'
DWG NO. B 1959-O3M
NOT TO SGALE
/l
,i
Garages
A CT UAL r.Bt6gil
$i."o .4.
rxd
:.- *"t
..0*\a"
\Y
o
g
tZ
mzC
m
q
UE
al)-om
!fi
*fl9'o
m
\o\o
h'Ct',
,. tY,
y'
0
t=
o
T-t'-
o
o
o
+>
+U,,1
u
{,
PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT
IN SOUTHWEST CONER
FL N/
OT ,,8-/ I)
((i.t
&o
20
\
h\
,\q
au
-20
a-o.
,?€SI
I
I
l'
t P
I
ME
Go, 6, 8/ocK l)S
o/o (
H.B b0r)r"
SERY'CE POhE...---
tv6E nI lt I &
ag?'
>
DISPIAY RACK
1o ir
o.,t\
({
;.1
$\
o
d
\--
\\
\r.12
'1-,Ol
o
o
1-
o
"RK//Vc L
t xis /. ,. Con 6, ,
a I'
lz,
\\
t
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 30,2002
Ann Musso, City Clerk
650-558-7203
suBnorcr'D 'hwL7f/1&45'
AGENDA 9dITEM #
MTG.
DATE tU4102
and Approve 2003 City Council
APPROVED
By
suBJECr: Approval to Cancel December 1612002 City Council
Calendar
RECOMMENDATION:
Cancel meeting of December 16,2002
Review, make changes if necessary and approve the city council calendar for 2003
I
2
a
CITY OF BURLINGAME
2OO3 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
City Council meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month. When Monday is a
holiday, the meeting is held on Tuesday or Wednesday. Study meetings are held as scheduled.
Meetings begin at7:00 p.m. at CityHall, 501 Primrose Road, and are open to the public. Regular
Council meetings are televised live via Burlingame's Cable Channel 27. For more information, please
view the City's website at rvrvw.burlingame.org or call the City Clerk at 650-558 -7203.
REGULAR MEETINGS STUDY MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES
January 6
Tuesday, Jaruary 2l Saturday, January 25 - Goal Session, 9:00 a.m. Lane
Room, Burlingame Library
February 3
Tuesday, February 18 Saturday, February 22 -Planring/Council Joint Mtg.
Friday, February 28 - Commissioner's Dinner
March 3
March 17
April T
April2l
May 5
May 19
nnr{A
w,e2/l@
J:uly 7
July 21 (tentative)
August 4
August 18 (tentative)
September,8"--
September 22
October 6
October 20
November 3
November 17
December I
D ecemb er Z}\tentativ e)
SUBJECT:
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 11 t4t2002
9e
STAFF REPORT
TO:Honorable Mayor and S
BY
DATE: October 29.2002 APPROVED
FROM: Larry E. Anderson. eity Attorney
AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN IN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN BARDEN VS.
cITy oF SACRAMENTO Q92F3\n rcB -- 9rH Cir.; AT NO COST TO CITY
BY
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize joinder in amicus curiae brief at no cost to the City in Barden vs. City of Sacramento, for which a
petition to the U.S. Supreme Court is being prepared.
DISCUSSION:
This case involves a determination as to whether public sidewalks constitute a "program" under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA). The City of Sacramento was sued by persons who contended that the City had to
make all existing public sidewalks accessible. This would mean the removal of displaced or broken concrete,
removal of telephone and utility poles in the sidewalks, and the removal of sidewalks with nonconforming
slopes. The contention is that as a program, these improvements cannot wait for time to pass but must occur
promptly. As one might expect, this could make sidewalk construction the largest item in a municipal budget.
The trial court found that sidewalks were not a program, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. The
City of Sacramento is now preparing a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This decision could devastate budgets in Califomia cities and counties
It is recommended that the City join in the amicus brief in seeking review by the Supreme Court.
Attachment:
October 14,2002,letter from City of Sacramento
Distribution:
Director of Public Works
};,1
,)l N
OFflCE OF T}IE
CIT}'AfiORNEY
5{\IUEL L -IACKSONCITl' AT-TOR,\E1'
ulLLL\.\l P Cm^AZZO
CI]IEF ,TSSISTAUVT CITY ATTORNE}'
RICFL{RD E ,TRCHII]AID
ASS ISTANT CIT}' Afi ORNEY
SI.-PER\'ISING DEPLTTY CITY AT-TORNEYS
S.\NDR{ C] T.\LI]OTT
RORERT D TOKUNAGA
st'sA\.\ .r\LC-AtA v'ooD
CIry OF SACRAMENTO
CALITORNIA
980 NINTH STREET, TENTH FLOOR
SACRAMENTO, CA 9581 4 -27 36
PH 916-264-5345
FAX 9r6-264-7455
October 14, 2002' iLUEtvEL)
DEPUTY CTN' ATTORN'E\'S
DIANE B. RALTER
ANGELA M, CASAGR$-I)A
JOSEPH P, CERLJLLO
CHRISTA DARI-INGTO\
PATJL A, GAIE
KHADIJA}I R I],{JIGETT
GERALD C, HICI.S
STEVEN \'. ITAGAKI
STEITN T, JOIINS
H, MICHON.JOH\SON
MARCOS A, KROPF
.IOHN M, LLIEBBERKE
GLISTAVO L \IARTINEZ
JOE ROBINSON
MATTI.IEW D. RI1AK
DEBORAH R SCHLILI'E
MICFIAEL T. SPARKS
STEPHEN P, TRA\'LOR
IAN V'ANG
BRETT M \I]T'I'ER
Larry E. Anderson
City Attorney
City Hall
50'1 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 9401 0-3997
,.-.rrlr:
U:l Y jrr I
Re: Barden v. Gjtv af5aercmeolq 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Gir. 2oo2)
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I am writing to you about a lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act
against the City of Sacramento which has serious financial implications for all United States
cities and counties as well as alltelecommunication and utility companies. ln the lawsuit Barden
v Citv of Sacramento 292F.3d 1073 (9'h Cir. 2002)), a law firm representing disabled individuals
alleged that public entities have an obligation under the ADA to make their sidewalks
"accessible" by the removal and replacement of displaced or broken concrete; by the removal
of telephone and utility poles and other "obstructions" in the sidewalk; and by the removal and
replacement of sidewalks with an "excessive" cross slope. The ADA does not require a city to
replace its existing sidewalks; rather, the ADA mandates an incremental process cf proviCing
accessibility by requiring that those structures built or significantly altered after the advent of the
ADA need be constructed or altered to make them accessible to the disabled.
The United States District Court in Sacramento agreed with the City of Sacramento in
holding that a city's existing sidewalks need not be made immediately "accessible" as is the case
with Programs and Services. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a published opinion,
reversed the District Court and held that a city's sidewalks must be made accessible. The
financial implications for cities, counties, telecommunication and utility companies if this decision
is permitted to stand are enormous. The Ninth Circuit decision is the only decision on this issue
in the United States and must be followed by all courts and public entities within the jurisdiction
of the Ninth Circuit. Though not binding on courts outside the Ninth Circuit, because it is the only
.'. lui::
Barden v. City of Sacramento 292 F.3d 1073 (gth Ct. 2OO2)
October 14,2002
case on the issue, either at the trial or appellate level, it constitutes persuasive authority
throughout the United States.
The City of Sacramento is in the process of preparing a Petition asking the United States
Supreme Court to review the matter and reverse the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The City is
requesting amicus participation in both submitting the Petition asking the Supreme Courtto take
the case and on the merits of the case if it is accepted by the Court. Amicus counsel has already
been retained and amicus participation by other entities and organizations would be at no cost.
Enclosed is a form response authorizing your participation in the Amicus Petition and
briefs on the merits. The deadline for submission of the City's Petition is Decemb er 4, 2002. ln
order to allow sufficient time for inclusion on the Amicus Petition we need a response by
November 15,2002. I appreciate yourtime in considering this matter and hope that your agency
will join the National League of Cities and members of the League of California Cities in asking
the Supreme Court to review this matter and overturn the Ninth Circuit,
lf you have any questions concerning this r please contact Gerald Hicks at the
Sacramento City Attorney's office at (916)
yours,
EL JACKSON
ey
SLJ/GCH:pw
Enc.
ity
._______>
AGENDA
ITEM #9f
MTG.
DATE 11 t4t 2
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED
BY
DATE : Ocfoher )9 )OO)APPROVED
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson. City Attorney
AUTHORIZE CTTY ATTORNEY TO JOIN IN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN S.4N,TO^SE
CHRISTIAN COLLEGE VS. CITY OF MORGAN HILL (9rH Cir. 02-15693) AT NO COST TO
CITY
STAFF REPORT
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize joinder in amicus curiae brief at no cost to the City in San Jose Christian College Vs. City of Morgan
Hill,which is now pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
DISCUSSION:
This case involves the application and constitutionality of the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act (RLUIPA). The Plaintiff is asking the Federal court system to rezone property in Morgan Hill so it
can build a new college. The City has refused because it is not zoned for that type of use.
The trial court has ruled in Morgan Hill's favor and the College is appealing. As described in the attached letter,
the court found no discrimination against a religious use and set out certain parameters on applying both the
First Amendment and the RLUIPA. Plaintiff has appealed.
This is one of a series of important decisions that will determine whether local land use control can be set aside
by someone asserting a "religious" motive.
It is recommended that the Cify join in the amicus brief in seeking appellate determination.
Attachment:
October 77,2002,letter from Richards, Watson
Distribution:
City Planner
IRII
l$tc
RTcHARDS I wATSoN I crnsHoN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW - A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
355 South Grand Avenue, 4oth Floor, Los Angeles, California 9oo71,'37o1
Telephone 29.626.8484 Facsimile 28.626.oo78
t-(rr.rElV ErJ
Cl;./ OF 6i16i1.rr,i1l.i,,
clTY ATrOt;i:: '
RICHARO RICHAROS(r9r6-r988)
GLENN R. WATSON
E RWIN E, AD LE R
DAROLD D. PIEPER
STEVEN L OORSEY
WILLIAM L STRAUSZ
MITCHELL E. A88OIT
GREGORY W, STEPAI{ICICH
ROCHELLE BROWNE
WILLIAM B, RUOELL
QUINN M, EARROW
CAROL W, LYNCH
GRE6ORY M. KUNERT
IHOMAS M. IIMBO
ROEERT C, CECCON
STEVEN H. KAUFMANN
GARY T, CIANS
JOHN J. HARRIS
XEVIN G- EN NIS
ROEIN O. HARRIS
MICHAEL ESTRADA
IAURENCE S, WIENER
STEV€N R. ORR
8, TILDEN KIM
SASKIA T, ASAMURA
KAYSER O, SUME
PETER M, THORSON
IAMES L. MARXMAN
CRAIG A, SIEELEr, PETER PIERCE
TERENC€ R. SOGA
LISA BOND
IAN ET E, COLESON
AMY GREYSON
OEBORAH R. HAKMAN
WILLIAM P, CURLFY III
O. CRAIG FOX
ROXANNg M. OIAZ
Et.ANA A. LUEER
CHANORA GEHRI SPENCER
ROEERT H, PITTMAN
ROY A, CLAR(E
ERIC M. ALOERETE
MICHAEL F. YOSHIEA
REGINA N, OANNER
PAULA GUTIERREZ BAEZA
PETER K. I(IM
r€RESA HO.URANO
OWEN P. GROSS
ALEXANOER A88E
TOM K. ARA
CARRI€ H. AHN
EFTIE X. TURNBULL
ERICA KYLE WILLIAMS
ELI2AEETH A. SULLIVAN
MICHAEI. P, COYNE
ROSERT WATSON
PATRICK K. BOBXO
MARK E. MANDELL
IULIET E, COX
GEORGE M. YIN
SONALI SARKAR IANOIAL{iri; i. !;5 iqln3
0AVr0 M. sNow
or couxsEr
HARRY L GERSHON
MARK L TAMKEN
SAYRE WEAVER
WILLIAM (. KRAMER
JIM 6. GRAYSON
October 17,2002
Larry E. Anderson
City Attorney
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
i(e San Jose Chnstian Coiie e v. Citv of Morsan Hiil
Dear Mr. Anderson:
I write to encourage your City to join the amicus curiae brief which I am
preparing to file on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support of the City of
Morgan Hill ("City") in San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan flil/ (ltlinth
Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 02-15693) (appeal from United States District
Court for the Northern District of California Case No. 01-20857).
Appellant San Jose Christian College purchased former hospital property in the
City of Morgan Hill "on spec", intending to use the site for a college campus, and
applied to the City to re-zone the property. The City denied the application for two
reasons: first, the City concluded that rezoning of the property was inappropriate
because the subject site is the only property in the City currently zoned for hospital
use, and second, San Jose Christian College failed to comply with the requirements of
CEQA.
San Jose Christian College initially filed an action in Superior Court, but
dismissed it to pursue a f'ederal court action San Jose Christran Coiiege then fiied an
action in U.S, District Court, challenging both the City's zoning ordinance and the
City's denial of the re-zoning application under the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). Under RLUIPA, "no government shall
impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial
burden on the religious exercise" of a person, assembly, or institution, unless the
regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government
purpose. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1).
On March 8,2002, the District Court entered summary judgment for the City.
The Court held that the City's zoning ordinances are laws of general applicability and
do not need to be justified by a compelling government interest even if they
sAX fRAt{Ct'CO OFFTCI
TELEPHoN€ 415.421.8484
FACSTMTLE 4t5.tzt.8u86
ORAt{GE COUIITY OTTICE
TELEPHON € 7 r4.99O.O9O1
FACSIMILE 7 r4.99O.623O
RTcHARDS lwnrsoru | crnsnoru
Larry E. Anderson
October 17,2002
Page2
incidentally burden a religion or religious practice, and that a rational basis level of
scrutiny was appropriate. In addition, the Court found that San Jose Christian College
had failed to demonstrate that the denial of their application placed a substantial
burden on their religious exercise as required by RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. $ 2000cc(a)(1).
Quoting from the legislative history of RLUIPA, the court concluded that RLUIPA
"does not provide religious institutions with immunity from land use regulation."
Senate Legislative History, at27.
The City of Morgan Hill's brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, which
will be iiled by John Ramirez and Jeffrey T. Melching of Rutan & Tucker, LLP, wiii
explain in detail why the District Court's ruling should be upheld under the facts. The
amicus brief we are preparing will supplement the City's brief emphasizing that
RLUIPA is intended to prevent discrimination against religious expression and
institutions, not to exempt religious institutions from neutral land use regulations or
environmental regulations under CEQA, and that interpreting RLUIPA to forbid any
zoning or land use restrictions on religious institutions would strip local governments
and planning commissions throughout the State of California to engage in their
historic power to reasonably regulate land use for the public welfare, and make federal
courts in essence "super zoning bodies." An amicus brief will also be filed by the
American Planning Association in support of the City's position.
We will file our application for leave to file an amicus brief, with the amicus
brief attached, no later than Thursday, November 7,2002. Accordingly, if your City
wishes to add its name in support of the amicus brief, please notify me in writing such
that the notification reaphes me no later than Monday, November 5,2002, by 5:00
p.m. Alternatively, if this timetable is not convenient for your City Council, you may
wish to telephone me, or send an e-mail to me, as late as noon on the filing date, and
send written confirmation thereafter.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
Very truly yours,
@ -tJ,t yz,,':
Amy Greyson
cc John Ramirez, Esq., Rutan & Tucker, LLP
Jeffrey T. Melching, EsQ., Rutan & Tucker, LLP
99904\0228\710129.2
I
II.
BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY
Burlingame Public Library
Board of Trustees
Minutes
August 2o,2OO2
Call to Order
Th. *r*tirrgbf August 20,2OO2 was called to ord.er by President
Andrew Gurthet at 4:30 pm.
Roll Call
Trustees Present:
Trustee Absent:
Staff Present:
Cecile Coar, Andrew Gurthet, Catherine
McCormack and Carol Rossi
Mary Herman
Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian
Sidney Poland, Recorder
ilI
ry
Warrants and Special-Funds
Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants, M/S/C
(McCormacklCoar) '
Minutes
The Trustees urianimously agreed to approve the minutes of the
July 23, 2OO2 meeting. M/S/C (Rossi/Coar)
Correspondence
Correspondence mailed in the packets was reviewed.
A. Duncan Trust Statement (June 30,,2OO2f - The Trustees
requested that the City Librarian contact the fund representative
and inquire as to what funds comprise the Endowment Pool, what
are the selected sectors and what percentage of the fund is
invested in each sector.
48o Prtmrose Road' Burhngame' CA 9 4oto - 4o83
Phone (5fo ) s>\-z +z +' Fax (65o) 742-6295
V
fr
{
\
VI.
VII
B. Easton Renovation
1. Funding and Schedule of ProJect - The Trustees
reviewed the breakdown of the proposed funding of the Easton
project and the timeline for design completion (February 2003) to
the grand opening (November 2003). To date the Library
Foundation has raised approximately $90,000 with an ultimate
goal of $200,000; $650,000 will be provided from the Marshall
Trust and the City of Burlingame budgeted $100,000 last year and
$50,000 this year for the project.
2. Ceiltng Trusses - Hal Brandes, architect for the
project, was able to view and photograph the trusses through an
open hatch in the lowered ceiling. The trusses are redwood
timbers and may not be restorable. A structural engineer, Mr.
Brandes and Al Escoffier will enter the ceiling to thoroughly
examine the trusses and determine whether the condition of the
trusses warrants exposing them as part of the new ceiling.
From the Floor - No one from the public attended.
ReDorts
A. City Librarlan's Report - A1 Escoffier, City Librarian,
reviewed his report highlighting the following issues.
1. Children's Activities - Summer programs for all ages
were a great success.
2. Easton Branch
a. Personnel- Connie Dougherty, Bernie Hinds and
Maureen Lennon were promoted to the classification of
Library Assistant I; Fiona Ho is the new Easton page.
b. Easton Renovatlon Campaign - The campaign
has raised approximately $90,000. Joan and Ralph Lane
have made a pledge of $50,000 and Our Lady of Angels
Church has pledged $ 10,000.
3. Budgeting and Personnel - Due to requests from the
City to make budget cuts, two 25 hour Library Assistant II
positions one in Technical Services and one in Children's will
not be Iilled. Trustee Gurthet inquired as to the impact this
decision will have on Library services. An hourly person is
filling the position in Technical Services. The Children's
Dept. may have to reduce the projects for the Teen Program,
full time staff may be placed on public services desks on
occasion to reduce hourly staff, and a volunteer recruitment
may be launched.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
August 20, 2002
2
Foundation Report - Carol Rossi
1. Newsletter - Forty five hundred newsletters will be
mailed to the public by the second week of September.
2. Elegant Affair Branches Out - Invitations will be
mailed the first week of September to previous Elegant Affair
attendees and atl new and former donors; Tickets are $85.
Maximum attendance is 200 guests.
3. New Board Members - Lisa Rosenthal and Mark
Lucchesi will join the Foundation Board. There are three
open positions remaining.
VIII. Unfinished Business (None)
New Buslness
A. Revislon of Community Room Policy- Staff has
recommended that revisions be made in the Communit5r Room
policy regarding criteria for room usage, as well as increasing the
usage fee from $35.00 to $40.00. The Trustees suggested charging
$50.00 for use of the room. Trustees requested that the City
Librarian survey public room policies of other libraries in the
county and report the results at the next meeting. No action was
taken on this item.
B. Ctty/Library Budget
1. The City has requested that all City departments
develop a plan for possible budget cuts of 5-7o/o that may be
implemented. The City Manager will submit the budget plan to
City Council. Council will determine which budget cuts will be
implemented.
2. The Library is considering possible cuts in the
following areas:
a. Close Friday night.
b. Hourly Staff - Use full time people instead of
hourly on public service desks.
c. Operations - create efficiencies in the general
operation of the Library.
d. Raising Fees - The fee charges are system wide
and a change would have to be proposed to the entire PLS
system.
e. Internet Printing Software - Trustee Gurthet
advised that the Santa Clara University Law Library does
have a printing software system which has reduced the cost
of paper and toner. However, administrative costs to
manage the system have increased.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
August 20, 2002
B
Ix
J
3. The City Librarian noted that PLS is reviewing all
Technical Service Departments of each library in its system for the
purpose of raising the efliciency standards.
X. Announcements
A. Employee Achlevement Award Dlnner - Dinner to be held
Sunday, December 8ft at the Sheraton Gateway Hotel. Trustee
Gurthet requested that this item be placed on the agenda for the
September Trustees' meeting.
B. CLA Conference Novembet 16,2OO2 - Barry Mills and
Linda Santo have expressed an interest in attending this event.
XI. Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:45pm. M/S/C (McCormack/Rossi)
The next meeting of the Library Board of Trustees is scheduled for
September 17,2OO2 at 4:30pm in the Library Conference Room.
Respectfully Submitted
Cr*rt.*q-Alfred H. Escoffier
City Librarian
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
August 20, 2002
4
I
*,*,LINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY
Burlingame Public Library
.Board of Trustees
Minutes
Septemb er 17, 2OO2
Call to Order
The meeting of September 17, 2OO2 was called to order by
President Andrew Gurthet at 4:30 pm.
II.
V
Roll Call
Trr.rstees Present:
Staff Present:
Cecile Coar, Andrew Gurthet, Catherine
McCormack, Mary Herman''and Carol
Rossi
Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian
Sidney Poland, Recorder
ilI Election.of Officers
Trustee Herman moved that the nominations of officers for
2OO2 - 2003 be closed and the slate be approved unanimously.
M/S/C (Herman/Coar)
IV. Warrants and Special Funds
Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants. M/S/C
(Herman/Rossi)
Minutes
The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the minutes of the
August 20, 2OO2 meeting. M/S/C (Rossi/McCormack)
I
48o Pimrose Road' Burltngame' CA g 4oto - 4o83
Plione (5io ) >>B-z q7 a' Fax (65o) 342- 6z95
.l
7/
7
=hrr
,_,-!sry,jE_r-.*-.#+*+#I laeFffig-+
,=+i&s
VI. Correspondence
Correspondence mailed in the packets was reviewed.
A. Legislature Passes Budget Package - The Library will
receive a 35 percent decrease in state funds for both book loans to
non-residents and interlibrary ioans. In addition, the Public
Library Fund, which in the past has been funded at approximately
$62,000 and is based on population served, will be decreased by
40 percent.
B. Foreign Language Use - Average circulation for paperbacks
is approximately several hundred items per month. Using July
2OO2 as an example, Chinese paperbacks have the highest
circulation followed by Russian, Japanese, Spanish, German and
French. Foreign language periodicals have the highest rate of
periodical circulation. Trustee Rossi inquired as to the possibility
of having a story time program in Spanish due to the large number
of students in the elementar5r school district who speak Spanish as
their first language.
C. Communlty Room Pollcles - The Trustees reviewed the
survey of public room polices of other libraries in the County.
Trustee Coar suggested that A1 Escoffier and Sidney Poland draft a
revised policy for the Burlingame Library and present it at the
October meeting. Trustee McCormack recommended deleting the
word "educationai" in section C of Item 4 under the Lane Room Use
Policies which in the present policy reads "Non-prolit educational
organizations (example: book groups, Scouts, etc.)"
D. Report from Peninsula Community Foundation - The
Trustees felt the report clarified information that had not been fully
explained in past reports. Trustee Rossi commented that she was
surprised at how aggressive the fund allocations are considering
the current market.
VII. From the Floor - No one from the public attended.
vu.Reports
A. City Llbrarlan's Report - A1 Escoffier, City Librarian,
reviewed his report highlighting the following issues.
1. Dan Stone Memorial - The first Dan Stone Memorial
Author's series for children will be held September 26th in
the Lane Community Room. Paul Fleichman is the featured
children's author. This event is to be funded by a $2,000
donation from the Stone family.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
Septembe|17, 2002 2
Unfinished Business
A. Employee Achievement Award - The Employee
Achievement Award letter and form will be given to all library staff
October l"twith a request to return the recommendation of
candidates by October 25th to fuldrew Gruthet or Katie McCormack
by e-mail or in their mailbox.
B. Community Room Policy Review - This matter was
discussed in Section VI Correspondence and Information.
C. Employee Recognition Dinner - Trustee Rossi made a
motion that the Library Trustees continue their policy to share half
the cost of the event with the Library Foundation. M/S/C
(Rossi/ McCormack)
D. Report from Peninsula Community Foundatlon- This
matter was discussed in Section VI Correspondence and
Information.
E. Foreign Language Circulation Report - This matter was
discussed in Section VI Correspondence and Information.
X. New Business - There was not any new business
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
September 17, 2002
B
IX
e
2. Budget Review - The City Malager has requested that
each City department prepare a budget with possible cuts in
the area of 5 to 7.Sok. His focus is to make cuts without
laying off full time or perma-nent part time staff. Library
department managers have had several meetings to discuss
ways to restructure the budget. Library stalf will be given an
overview ofthe budget status by the City Librarian
Wednesday, September 16th at the All Staff Meeting.
Foundation Report - Carol Rossi
J. Newsletter - The newsletter was very successful and
recipients have been very generous in donating to the Easton
Branch renovation.
2. Elegant Affalr Branches Out - Auction items for the
event will be featured on the web site.
3. Easton Campalgn Commlttee - Kris Cannon has
prepared a list of businesses in the area for the Board of
Directors to review and determine if any of them might be
possible supporters of the Easton renovation campaign.
-. ir
XI Announcements
The Trustees requested that the procedure for the announcement
of the Employee Award candidates to the full Board of Trustees be
finaJized at the October 15tt meeting.
XII. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 5:45pm. M/Si C (Coar/McCormack)
The next meeting of the Library Board of Trustees is scheduled for
October 15,2OO2 at 4:30pm in the Library Conference Room.
Respectfully Submitted
ru/&{ q,fr*i/
Al{fed H. Escoffier
City Librarian
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
September 17,2002 4
4
CITY HALL - 5O'I PRIMROSE ROAD
cALtFORNtA 94010-3997
www.burlingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 10, 2002
Commissioners Present: Jim Mclver, Chair
Jim Evans, Vice Chair
Russ Cohen
David Mayer
Commissioners Absent: Lisa De Angelis
StaffPresent:
The City of Burlingame
Frank Erbacher, Assistant Public Works Director
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Chief Bill Reilly, Fire Department
Chuck Witt, Traffic Officer, Police Deparhent
Dawn Cufler, Traffic Sergeant, Police Deparhnent
Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
Neil Cullen, Director of Public Works, Cotirty of San Mateo
Gerald Fiore, 1560 Alturas Drive, Burlingame
Earl M. Dilley,3028 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
John Jones,2l0 Edgehill Drive, Burlingame
Rafe H. Schindler,2848 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Ron Wilk, 142 LaMesa Drive, Burlingame
Deborah Valentino, 2879 Hillside, Brnlingame
Ray Jungwirth,lT30 Rollins Road, Burlingame
Eileen Thomas, l6 Vista Larre, Burlingame
Rosemarie Dean, 2 823 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
James Dean,2823 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Bob Asquith,2835 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Jonathan Visbal, 3008 Hillside Drive, Burlingarne
Roland K. Gage, I 504 La Mesa Drive, Burlingame
Jack Simkie,ll2 Newton Drive, Burlingame
StaffAbsent:
Guests:
Visitors:
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 10, 20A2
Visitors (cont'd):Rudolph Horak, 131 Los Robles Drive, Burlingame
Ted Koros,2885 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Elizabeth Tabet, 2820 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
George Tabet,2820 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
George Demetius, 3151 Hiltside Lane, Burlingame
Cathy Murray, 3209 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
S.G. Yasinitsky, 1534 Los Altos Drive, Burlingame
Calvin Gee, 2860 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Amy Gee,2860 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Louis Sremac, 724Paloma Avenue, Burlingame
Anne Nannini, 1555 Alturas Drive, Burlingame
Fady Malik, 2884 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Sandy Towle,2200 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Marshall Michaelin, 3001 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Ron Zaragoza,287l Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Niko Longmorc,2867 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Dawn l..ongmore, 2867 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Meg Gutienez,282l Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Amy Long,2glo Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Joe Long,29l0 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Thomas O'Rourke, 149 Los Robles Drive, Burlingame
Liz Watson,lM4 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame
John Gumas, 3051 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Rolando Pasquale, 2836 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
Tom Lee, 3041 Hillside Drive, Burlingame
David Zinman,1400 Carlos Avenue, Burlingame
Heidi Zinman,1400 Carlos Avenue, Burlingame
The CW of Burlingame Page2
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 1 0, 2002
l. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present.
4. CI'RRENT BUSINESS.
4.1 ACTION ITEMS.
4.1.1 Approval of Minutes for September 12, 200'2
The minutes were submitted and approved.
4.2 DISCUS$ON ITEMS.
4.2.1 Special Meeting to Discuss Hillside Drive Speed Bumps
Mr. Erbacher advised that this Commission is asking for public input about the speed bumps
installed on Hillside Drive by the County. He said all residents otr Hillside were sent notices and
barricade signs facing each direction were installed near each bump. Neil Cullen, Director of
Public Works for San Mateo County, was present and could give the Commission the background
on these installations. Mr. Cullen advised that the CIIP is the primary enforcer of County roads
and their enforcement has been cut back. Since the majority of motorists drive too fast, at about
35-37 mph, the County looked at the potential for various speed control devices. The Board of
Supervisors approved the installation of the two speed bumps on Hillside Drive . The County will
follow up with a survey to property owners in about 1-2 months for their input on the speed
bumps' effect.
From the floor, Mr. Demetrius stated the frst speed bump is in the County and the second bump
is in both the City and County. Mr. Asquith stated he is at home most of the day and has noticed
that aknost every car on Hillside Drive exceeds the speed limit. Also, his wife has been hit twice
while backing out of their driveway and has seen that the fue station drivers can't exit due to cars
speeding by and the CHP enforcement is reduced. Wants bumps also in the City side of Hillside
Drive. Mr. Gumas stated the County has held several meetings with property owners who support
these speed bumps. Also recomrnends that the BPD enforce this area, too. He would like all the
jurisdictions to coordinate their efforts in making this street safer. Mr. Sfunkie stated he has
noticed a slow down in the aaffic sirce the speed bumps were installed. Mr. Visbal stated he has
noticed the traffic is slightly slower and recornmends more bumps be installed. Mr. Horak stated
it seems some people were concerned that Hillside Drive traffic would be diverted to Canyon
Road due to the speed bumps; however, Canyon Road is too narrow so it hasn't happened. Also,
because of speeding traffic, families with small children are hardly buying on this street which
direcfly affects local economies. He recommends placing another bump near 282 Hillside Drive
south of the fire station where cars speed up again. Mr. Schindler stated he saw two accidents of
The City of Butingame Page 3
TRAFFIC, SAFEW AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 10, 2002
cars backing out of their driveways. He had been concerned about the noise a speed bump near
his house would cause; however, he has noticed a definite slow down in speed. Wants the existing
bump to stay with more bumps added on Hillside Drive. Mr. Koros stated the house next door
has been hit in the past several times over the years by speeders. The bumps are a great benefit
to the whole neighborhood. Mr. Koros submitted a petition with 45 signatures of neighbors
supporting the speed bumps. Mr. Tabet stated he is 13 years old and supports keeping the
existing speed bumps and recommends more installed farther down the hill. Backing out of their
driveway is hazardous due to the speeding cars. Ms. Tabet stated she lives south of the fire station
and recommends at least one more speed bump be installed in here area. Mr. Yasinitsky stated
he has a background in traffic safety at S.F. State University and stated that speed bumps are an
unexpected obstruction on an ordinary street and canbe hazardous. He recommends that the speed
bumps be removed. Ms. Murray stated traffrc on Skyline Drive needs to be slowed down, too,
because some speeders have hit her fence while turning onto Hillside Drive. Ms. Gutierrez stated
that early Tuesday morning for the second time in t-ll2 years, a car ploughed through her front
yard, which is south of the fire station, damaging her retaining wall, the garage, fencing and
landscaping. She feels property value in this area has diminished due to speeding traffic. Ms.
Dean stated that her property south of the fire station has been damaged about 15 times in 30
years due to speeding traffic. She recommends a speed deterrent south of the fire station to
alleviate these problems. Mr. Gee stated he supports the speed bumps. Since 1996 he has had
about 8 incidents when speeders have almost hit him as he exits his driveway. Also, although
there are no sidewalks, there are still pedestrians on Hillside Drive. He supports further striping
and signs warning of blind corners. Mr. Pasquale countered Mr. Yasinitslgr's statements. Ten
people have already requested more speed bumps be instaled and challenged the Commission to
add an Agenda item for the next meeting to install more speed bumps. Dr. Michaelin read a letter
from his son who stated he believes that the speed bumps are a failure. His son stated that the
unheeded stop sign on Hillside Drive at Adeline Drive is more dangerous than the speeding on
Hillside Drive. Dr. Michaelin stated he feels the speed bumps will cause someone to hit their
brakes causing a hazardous situation. Mr. Malik stated that he supports the existing speed bumps.
Most of the drivers on Hillside Drive are local residents. Mr. Sremac stated he supports the
existing speed bumps and also reconunends installing speed bumps across from McKintey School
on Paloma Avenue due to high traffic volumes and speeding at this site and asked that this item
be added to next month's Agenda. Mr. Zuagosa stated we need to do more h rn install speed
bumps. It is difficult to exit his driveway due to the speeders. Ms. Longmore zupports the speed
bumps. She noticed speeders have slowed down. She suggests adding a stop sign, too. Her forrner
neighbor's son was killed by a speeder 12 feet away from the existing speed bump. Mr. Dean
stated that of the L5 accidents on his property, 5 of the cars were so badly damaged, they had to
be towed away. Also, they lost 5 pets over the years as well. Adeline Drive in Burlingame used
to be a "race track" but with the stop signs now added, it is much safer now. He suggests a stop
sign in front of the fire station and make the yellow light a blinking light after 10 p.m. Mr. Fiore
stated there has been a dramatic increase in traffic on this sffeet. As stop signs increased on
Trousdale Drive, the traffic on Hillside Drive increased. He clarified that on Hillside speed humps
were installed, not speed bumps which cause you to stop and could cause a hazard. He
recommends a stop sign on Hillside at Alturas. There is a curve there and with speeding traffic,
it is difficult to turn onto Hillside Drive. Ms. Nannini was concerned that she had not been
The City of Budingame Page 4
TRAFFIC, SAFEW AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 10, 2002
notified in advance of the speed humps being installed but noticed the posted meeting signs. Ms.
Thomas stated she represents five other families who could not attend this meeting but all support
speed humps and more stop signs. Mr. Towle stated the problem starts on the lower part of
Hillside Drive and the speed humps will eventually become less effective.
Chief Reilly stated that the humps are quite acceptable for fire apparatus and response time;
however, an increase inthe number of speed humps could have an impact on fire response time.
The red light at the station now has worked well. The yellow flashing light they had before was
virtually ignored by drivers over time. Comm. Mayer likes the idea of coordinating all
jurisdictions to work on this problem. Mr. Erbacher advised that the City and the County will
now get together to discuss this possibility and how it fits into the various priorities.
4.2.2 Millbrae BART Station - Parking Impacts on City streets - Possible Parking Restrictions -
Commercial Area west of California Drive to Burlingame Plaza Area
Mr. Erbacher stated five comments have been received from the l50tnotices sent. From the
floor, Mr. Jungwirth stated that regarding one option to signilo Parking 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. - their
business opens at 5:30 a.m. and both customers and employees use Rollins Road for parking and
hope the City considers this. They have 200 off-street parking spaces but their customer volume
is high between 6 and 9 a.m. Mr. Gage stated his business is on Guittard Road and his employees
and the surrounding businesses use Rollins Road for parking since employees don't have enough
parking as it is. Even trucks take up parking spaces on the street. Ms. Watson stated she received
an overnightparking ticket in front of her residence and would appreciate the City communicating
its parking restrictions to the residents and businesses.
For next month's meeting, notices will be sent to the R-l area.
4.2.3 Request to Review Speed Concerns on Hillside Drive
Mr. Chou advised that these sped concerns address the lower part of Hillside Drive near
Alvarado Avenue. Staffperforrred speed studies with a sample of 177 cars on a weekday from
9 to 10 a.m. with the critical speed being 37 mph. The road configuration shows that there are
no other controls that would facilitate slowing the traffic. Ofhcer Witt stated that the survey
results are consistent with a similar survey perforrred several years ago. Speed affected orty 2
of 5 accidents that occurred along this part of Hillside. These accidents were rear-end collisions.
Officer Witt will add this site to the Selective Enforcement program and will utilize the radar
trailer to deter speeding. Mr. Chou advised that they will be pinpointing the times the vehicles
are speeding and advise the police as to when enforcement is needed there. From the floor,
Mr. Zinman stated he would like more enforcement and hope that the situation will improve.
The City of Burlingame Page 5
";
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 10, 2002
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS.
5.1 Request for Green Zone or 1 Hour Parking Limit at 809 California Drive
Mr. Chou advised that staff will perforrn studies to determine the feasibillty of this request and wilt
have the resulting recommendations at next month's meeting. From the floor, the petitioner stated
they have no parking for their customers and would like a space for them. At present, cars tend to park
at this site sometimes for days on end. If there is no customer parking, potential clients won't stop.
They have been open for three months; and every Saturday, there has been no customer parking space
available. Mr. Erbacher stated that this item will be a Discussion Item next monilr, and staffwill notice
the surrounding neighbors to attend that meeting; so action may be expedited.
5.2 Request for Green Zone - 30-Minute Parking Limit at 828 Mahler Road
Mr. Chou advised staffwill perform studies to determine the feasibility of this request and will have
the resulting recommendations at next month's meeting. This item will be a Discussion Item next
month, and staff will notice the surrounding neighbors to attend that meeting; so action may be
expedited.
6. FROM THE FLOOR.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS.
7.1. From Staff to Commission
7.1.1 Traffic Engineer's Report
Mr. Erbacher stated that the new signals at Carmelita Avenue and California Drive and at Morrell
Avenue and California Drive are in and operational. Mr. Chou siated that there were some minor
problems with the MorrelUCalifornia signals initially. The contractor was able to fix them. The
signals at Carmelita Avenue and California Drive are working just fine now and will be fine tuned
even further. This is because there have been reports of back ups at Cannelita Avenue, possibly
due to more traffic using this intersection during the commute times. He also advised that staff
has been looking at new illuminated in-pavement flashing crosswalks at California Drive and
Lorton Avenue. Staff is coordinating with PG&E to provide power to that site; however, that may
take three months. Also, a handicap ramp is being considered here. The budget might also allow
a second site for the same type of installation.
7 .1.2 Staff Action Log - Attached.
7.L.3 Burlingame Parking Study
The City of Burlirpame Page 6
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 10, 2002
7.2 From Commission to Staff
Chair Mclver attended the Millbrae BART meeting and three points were brought up for the
residential area just north of the new BART station: (1) increase parking reshictions from 7 am
to I pm; (2) double parking fines; and (3) provide free parking permits for residenrc.
7.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, November 14,20ff2 meeting
Comm. Evans stated that his term expires in November and after 15 years on this Commission,
he may not reapply as Commissioner.
8. INACTIVE ITEMS.
8.1 Request for traffic control on Dwight Road
Mr. Erbacher advised that the walls are now up and construction continues. The site should be ready
for landscaping in about two weeks.
8.2 Petition from Bayswater & Howard residents requesting a traffic study of area to determine if
traffic-calming measures warranted
Mr. Erbacher advised the petitioners that the budget money is not available at this time and continues
to be on hold for the Traffic Calming Program. Officer Ivitt submitted the Selective Enforcement
Report which shows 11 citations issued.
8.3 1007 Chula Vista Avenue - Letter requesting Speed Limit Signage for Traffic-Calming effect to
constrain speeding drivers
This item is on hold for the Traffic Calming Program.
8.4 Request for speed limit and truck weight limit enforcement, a trafEc signal on Trousdale Drive
at Skyline Boulevard, STOP sign on Trousdale Drive at loyola Drive and STOP sign on Trousdale
at Quesada Way. Results of Traffic Data Gathering - Speed limits
Officer Witt submitted the Selective Enforcement Report wtich shows 38 citations issued, five were
for speed violation.
The City o, Bulingame Page 7
7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests
7.2.2 Comments and communication
TRAFFIC, SAFEry AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, October 10, 2002
8.5 Howard Avenue - Speed and Trucks (e-mail)
Mr. Erbacher advised that a work order was issued for a truck prohibition signags. This item is on
hold for the Traffrc Calming Program.
8.6 1300 Block ofVancouver Avenue - Speed Concems (petition)
This item is on hold for the Traffic Qalming Program.
9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
4.2.1 to Discussion Item as a Request for More Speed Humps
4.2.2 to remain as a Discussion Item
4.2.3 to Inactive Item
5.1 to Discussion Item
5.2 to Discussion Item
Request for Speed Hump on Paloma Avenue at McKinley School to Discussion Item
10. ADJOURNMENT. 9:28 p.m.
The AU of Bulingane Page 8
MEETING MINUTES
Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission
Thursday, October 17, 2A02
The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by
Chairman Ed Larios at7:A2 p.m. in Conference Room "A" at Burlingame City Hall.
ROLL CALL
Cornmissioners Present:Ditffnan, Erickson, Heathcote, Kahn, Larios;
Youth Commissioner Warden
Lawson, Minderman, Muller
Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz
None
Commissioners Absent
StaffPresent:
Others Present:
MINUTES
Minutes of the September 19, 2002 regular meeting of the Cornmission were approved as
submitted.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Communitv Center & Temporary Teen Center Update Director Schwartz informed
the commissioners that the City Council, at the October 21$ meeting, will take action whether or
not to lease the property at 783 Califomia Drive for use as a temporary teen facility. The
proposal is for a two-year lease with three additional two-year options.
After discussions about the potential expenses and revenue sources, Chairman Larios suggested
the formation of a Blue Ribbon Committee to support the temporary Teen Center and its
programs. The comrnissioners and staff discussed a potential tirne frarne to make the necessary
improvements to the facility and begin operation of programs. Cornmissioner Erickson
suggested conducting activities at the facility during the upcoming Winter Vacation period,
including a non-alcohol New Year's Eve party for the teens.
Commissioner Heathcote made a motion "to request permission from the City Council to form a
Blue Ribbon Committee, comprised of a eross-section of corporate and conzntuniyt v7sm6.rt,
whose goal is to.fullyfund the opening and operating co,sts of the tetnporaty Teen C.enter. " The
motion was seconded by cornmissioner Dittman and passed unanimously.
The comrnissioners agreed that, if Council approves the Committee, the following individuals be
asked to serve: Ray Marshall, Steve Warden, Mike Nilmeyer and Don Roberts, as well as four
Parks & Recreation commissioners.
B. Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) Report Youth Advisory Comrnissioner Warden
reported that the YAC recently conducted an all-City 7'h & 8ft gradi dance (315 participants,
$1,700 profit) and a high school band teen concert (150-200 attendees). An articie about the
YAC that recently appeared in the Independent is attached.
Parks & Recreation Commission
Thursday, October 17, 2002 - page 2
C. Senior Resources Handbook Commissioner Dittman stated that the revised edition of the
Senior Resources Handbook will be ready within the next month.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no comments frorn the public.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Establishine Annual Joint Meetines with the Parks & Recreation Corxmissions of the
Cities of Millbrae & San Bruno each January (January 8, 2003 - 6:00pm)
Director Schwartz asked the commissioners if they would like to meet with the Parks &
Recreation Commissioners in the Cities of Millbrae and San Bruno on an annual basis to
share ideas, concerns and information. The meeting would be hosted by each city on a
rotational basis; in lieu of the regular meeting.
Commissioner Dittrnan moved "to lrcld the January meetings eachyear with the Parks &
Recreation Commissions in the Cities of lulillbrae and San BrLtno." Comrnissioner Kahn
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The 2003 meeting is tentatively
scheduled for January 8, 2003 in SanBruno.
lncreasinq the registration fee for recreation classes from $3.00 to $6.00
Director Schwartz introduced a proposal to increase the registration fee for recreation
classes from $3.00 to $6.00. This fee pays for the administrative aspects of registering
individuals for classes, including the computer system. Commissioner Heathcote made a
motion "that the Parl<s & Recreation Commission recornmends approval of the
registration fee increase to the City Ciouncil and suggests that the additional funds be
designated for teen programs and activities." The motion was seconded by
Comrnissioner Erickson and passed unanimously.
C.Pla)rground Comrnittee Members
In keeping with past protocol, Chairman Larios appointed Commissioners Heathcote and
Lawson to sit on the design committee for the playground renovation at Washington Park
and potentially at Cuernavaca.
REPORTS
A. Parks and Recreation Division Report
In addition to the attached report, Director Schwartz reported that
1. Youth in Government Day will be held on Monday, October 2ls;
2. Commissioners Erickson and Lawson have both applied for reappointment;
3. Beginning in December, commercials describing the benefits of Parks &,
Recreation in the cities of Belmont, Burlingarne, Foster City, Half Moon Bay,
Redwood City, San Carlos and San Mateo will be telecast on cable television
channels.
B
I
B
Parks & Recreation Commission
Thursday, October l7,2AA2 - page 3
Commissioners
1. Commissioner Dittman reported that the lights at the BHS football field do not
adequately light the southeast oorner of the field and that the yellow socc.er lines
need to be repainted.
2. Cornmissioner Heathcote asked staff about the accuracy of a recent newspaper
article that stated the Golf Center lost $63,000 in the past fiscal year and also
asked about the projection for the facility's future. Staff stated that the newspaper
information was correct and that the entire golf industry is facing difficult times,
as are other businesses that rely on consumer spending of discretionary funds.
Schwartz also stated that more information would be available about the Golf
Center's financial sifuation at next month's Commission rneeting.
C. Revenue Report - See attached.
NEXT MEETING
The next regular meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday,
November 21,20A2 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
8:30 p.m.
Respectfu lly submitted"
n1"
Randy Schwartz
Director of Parks & Recreation
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
October 28,2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Keighran called the October 28, 2002,regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m.
II. ROLLCALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Boju6s, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Phil Monaghan
III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 15, 2002 regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGEI\DA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
535 ALMER ROAD - ZONED R.3 - APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK
AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW THREE-STORY, FOIJR-UNIT RESIDENTIAL
CONDOMINIUM (MANOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GLUSH
DESTGN ASSOCIATES.) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Planner Hurin presented a sunmary of the staff report. Commissioner Brownrigg arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Commissioners asked for the following iEms to be addressed:
o Project includes two more parking spaces than the 10 required, since those do not need to comply
with city dimensions, can the columns be redesigned or shaped to eliminate the parking variance for
the remaining 2 parking spaces ;
o there needs to be more detail on the elevation to explain the materials and detail on the building
including trim, windows, etc.;
o plans show retention of both the Black Acacia and Oak, would prefer the Acacia be removed to
improve the environment for the Oak tree which should be retained, protected and maintained;
. would like the shrubs on the left side changed to a species which will grow to a height of 15 feet to
20 feet, if not taller;
o would like a front elevation which shows how the building will look when the landscaping is five
years old;
o The slope on the driveway should be made to conform to the 15olo maximum allowed without
review; and
. Since height is an issue, would like to see reduced-sized plans for the previous application.
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
1.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 2g, 2002
2. 4 MARIPOSA COURT _ ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR A HEDGE EXCEPTION FOR A 12' HEDGE
(GRACE AND ROBERT DUMMEL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERIKA LEWIT
Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staffreport. He noted a letter at the Commissioner's desks from
Grace Dummel, 4 Mariposa Court, received after the packet was delivered.
Commissioners asked staff to clarify the request. Staffnoted that this is not a view obstruction or traffic
sight line issue but a fence/tredge height issue, the maximum height of a fence or hedge on property line is 7
feet, the applicant is requesting 12 feet. There were no further questions from the Commission.
Chair Keighran set this item for the action calendar when there was space on the agenda. This item
concluded at7:17 p.m.
3.1838 EL CAMINO REAL, #180 - ZONED C.1. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
REAL ESTATE AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTION USES (MARY J. WONG, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME
PROFESSIONAL BUILDII$G. PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNEi: RUBEN HLRIN
Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report.
Commissioners asked for information on the following:o Is this an accurate projection of employees on site, there appears to be a jump from 4 to I 1; the
number of employees (6) and clients on site at one time does not seem to increase in 5 years, is this
accurate;
. Application says 1l employees maximum, but there are 15 desks shown, why;. Would like the conditions of approval to include a review in two years, as was required on the
previous action.
Chair Keighran set this item for the action calendar when the information requested has been submitted and
reviewed by staff. This item concluded at7:22p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Ircms on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are 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 ttme the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chair Keighran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
2
4A. 1615 WILLOWAVENUE. ZONED R.I_APPLICATION FORONE YEARPERMIT EXTENSION ONAN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE FOR DRTVEWAY WIDTH FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN REAR 40%
OF LOT (JERRY WINGES, AIA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD AND ANN PHILIPS,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (.52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 28, 2002
48,.9OO MORRELL AVENUE - ZONED - R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN,
DESIGN STUDIO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; KENNETH AND ANDREANNA VIERRA, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (69 PROJECT PLANNER:HURIN
4C,138I HILLSIDE CIRCLE _ ZONED - R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELLEN HARTOG,
APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KURT AND ruLIA DEGROSZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (40 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER:LEWIT
C. Boju6s 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. Auran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised.
\rIIL Rtr:GULAR ACTION ITEM
543 CORBITT DRIYE _ ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALFREDO REYES/STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND DESIGNER; DANIEL & LAI.JRA BERTERRETCHE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER:N O'ROI IRKE/CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 28,2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. John Stewart, designer and Dan Berterretche, property owner,
were present to answer questions. Commission asked if the roofing material on the bay window off the
kitchen (wood shake) and the bay window at the front of the house will match. The applicant noted that a
wood shake roof is proposed at the front bay window. Commission asked that wood shake be used on all
roofs. There were no -tgther comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the applicant has done a good job responding to the Commission's concerns and moved
to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: l)thattheprojectshallbebuiltas
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped luly 12,2002, sheets Al - A6 plus
theamendedplanssheetsA-1-A-6 datestampedSeptemberlS,2002(sheetA4datestampedOctober18,
2002) showing the changes to the roof, the new bay window, the re-designed window on the second floor at
the front, the changes to the rear transom window and moving the kitchen window, and that any changes to
the footprint or floor area ofthe building during construction or following this construction shall require an
amendment to this permit; 2) that the roofing material on all portions of the roof, including the bay
windows, shall be wood shake; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second
floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural
features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) thattheconditionsofthe
Fire Marshal's, Recycling Specialist's and ChiefBuilding Official's memos dated September 23,2002and
the Recycling Specialist's and City Engineer's memos dated June 17, 2002 shall be met; 5) that the project
shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected
demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling
requirements; any partial or fuIl demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 28, 2002
permit; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height ofthe
roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 7) thatprior to scheduling the framing inspection, the
project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the
architectural details such as window locations andbays are built as shown onthe approvedplans; ifthere is
no licensed professional involved in the project, the properfy owner or contractor shall provide the
certification under penalty ofpedury; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department statrwill inspect
and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to veriff that the project
has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; and 9) that the project shall meet all
the requirements ofthe California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32 p.m.
6.1109 PALM DRTVE _ ZONED R.1. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR
DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DALE MEYER,
DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND CHRISTINE
FRUDENBERG. OWNERS) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 28,2002, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, noted that he worked with the design
review consultant to address the Commission's concerns and was available to answer questions.
Commission asked the architect to explain the rectangular shapes shown on the wall ofthe North Elevation.
The architect noted that the rectangles indicate faux windows, the design reviewer suggested that they would
add visual interest and fill the blank wall, the Fire Station next door has similar treatnent on their wall, did
not make sense to add real windows on this wall since the Fire Station is five feet away. Commission noted
that faux windows are not typical in residential areas and asked the architect if he would be opposed to
removing the false windows. Architect was not opposed to removing the faux windows. There were no
further comments and the public hearing was closed
C. Boju6s noted that the architect had addressed the Commission's concerns expressed at study and moved
to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: l) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Departrnent date stamped September 27 ,2002, sheets
P 1 through P6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and that the faux or false windows on the North
Elevation shall be eliminated; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second
floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roofheight or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review;
3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury.
Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;4) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staffwill inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,
etc.) to veriff that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that
all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission (Inapproved Minutes October 28' 2002
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height ofthe roofridge andprovide
certification of that height to the Building Department;7)that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief
Building Official and Recycling Specialist's July 29,20}2memos shall be met; and 8) that the project shall
meet all the requirements ofthe California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of
Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
7,1336 DRAKE AYENUE - ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (DAVID JOHNSON, ALL SEASONS
REMODELING, APPLICANT; DONALD WALLACE, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER:LEWIT
t'
- _
C. Auran recused himself from the discussion on this-itern and stepped down from thb dias since he lives
within 500'ofthe project. Reference staffreport October 28 ,2002,with attachments. CP Monroe presented
the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dave Johnson, applicant, and Donald Wallace, property owner,
were present to answer questions. The applicant noted that there is a discrepancy in the dimensions shown
on the plans. The patio shelter proposed is l1'xl3' (143 SF), not l3'xl3' (169 SF) as shown on the plans.
Commission asked what is the proposed height, pointed out that the structure cannot exceed a 9'-0" plate
height without a conditional use permit. The applicant noted that the height is proposed to be 8'-8", not to
exceed 9'-0". Commission asked what will the addition look like? The applicant provided a brochure
showing what the patio shelter will look like, noted that the exterior will be painted aluminum, the structure
is made from a high-density insulated foam clad with aluminum, the structure will not have curved
windows. Commission asked the applicant ifthese plans were discussed with the neighbor directly behind;
no. Commission asked ifheat and electricity is proposed in the patio shelter. Applicant noted that no heat is
proposed, only electricity. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this is an improvement over what is there now, proposed addition is located deep in
the lot and away from property lines, fulfills applicant's need, concerned that the proposed plans are for a
"typical" structure and not for the structure planned for this site, would like to see a condition with the
dimensions described in detail, conditions should spell out slope on roof, provide dimensions of low point
and high point, suggest placing this project on the consent calendar once the additional dimensions have
been provided on the plans.
C. Boju6s moved to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: requested that a condition be added that the patio shelter is a separate enclosed
structure with no heating and that it shall never be made into habitable area. Before future action, the
applicant should submit revised plans showing the following:
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 28, 2002
' plans need to reflect what is proposed specifically at this site, not just a "typical" strucfure;
' applicant needs to verifu the dimensions of the footprint proposed and include exact dimensions on
plans;. provide slope of roof on proposed patio shelter; and. provide exact height dimensions at low and height points of roof.
ChairKeighran called foraroll voice vote on the motiontoplace this item onthe consentcalendarwhenthe
plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 6-0- 1 (C. Auran abstaining). Appeal procedures
were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
C. Auran resumed his seat on the dais.
8.
Reference staff report October 28,2002, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the
height, width and length dimensions of the existing partially built structure were available. Staffresponded
no, but that the applicant may be able to provide that information. Commissioner noted that he was not able
to visit the site, but thanked the applicant for making an effort to arrange site visits for the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Lillian Vasey, property owner, and Sergio Galdamez, designer,
were present to answer questions. Commission asked what is the width, length and height of the partially
built structure? Designer noted that currently, the partially built sfucture is 10'-6" tall,7'-6" wide and 30'-0"
long. The plate height is approximately 10'-0", will need to reduce the plate height so that the new roofdoes
not exceed 10'-6" and shorten the structure to 24'-0". There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: was not able to visit the site prior to this meeting, but was able to see the structure
before the last meeting, is in support of the prujcefgiven the changes made and the number of exceptions
reduced, like the use of a lanai. Commission noted that the existing partially built structure seems larger
than shown on the plans, a lot taller than proposed now, is very close to the neighbors at the rear. Planner
Hurin noted that based on the proposed plans, the length and height of the existing, partially built structure,
will have to be modified. Agree that the structure is large, but ifthe applicant follows the plans it will be an
improvement, roof tile will be consistent with the existing roofing on cottage.
C. Boju6s moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: l) that the project
shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 5,
2A02, sheets A- I and A-2, and that the patio shelter/lanai shall not exceed I 80 SF in area (7'-6"W x 24'-0'D)
and shall not exceed an overall height of l0'-0" measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge, and a
maximum plate height of 8'-0" measure from adjacent grade; 2) that the patio shelter/lanai shall have a
stucco finish (painted gray) and shall contain blue ceramic tile for roofing; 3) that the accessory structure
shall only be used as a patio shelter/lanai and shall never be used for any kind of storage, accessory living,
or sleeping purposes; shall never include a kitchen, and shall not include additional utility services and/or a
toiletwithout an amendmentto this conditionalusepermit;4) thatthepropertyownershallprovide a survey
of the existing portion of the accessory structure and the property line, and it shall be accepted by the City
6
1562 CYPRESS AVENUE _ ZONED R-l _ APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR
REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING STORAGE SHED WITH A NEW DETACHED PATIO
SHELTER/LANAI (LILIAN VASEY, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SERGIO GALDAMEZ,
DESIGNER) (6I NOTICED) PLANNER: RUBE.N HURIN
9.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 28, 2002
Engineer before any building permits are issued; if any part of the partly completed structure is found to be
u.ri* the properfy line it shall be removed; 5) that the accessory structure shall have three walls with the
opening facing the rear yard; an amendment to this permit shall be required if the accessory structure is to be
enclosed on all four sidls; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's September 9,2002 memo, the Fire
Marshal's September rc,Z1)zmemo, and the Recycling Specialist's September 9 ,2002,memo shall be met;
and 7) that ihe project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,
1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C' Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0' Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m.
1532 CYPRESS AVENUE _ ZONED _ R-1. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT DECLINING HEIGHT EI\N/ELOPE FORA SECOND STORY
ADDITION (JOHN RICHARDSON, APPLICANT; KRISJON SWANBERG, ARCHITECT; ANN
UenruNCrON. pROpBRTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report October 28,2002,with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of
staff by the Commission.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Anne Harrington, property owner, noted that the Commission at
their meeting in February,2002, suggested that the windows on the front elevation be modified but didn't
modify them at that time. Now that construction has commenced she realizes that the windows should have
be changed. Commission noted that this is a visual improvement from the sidewalk and that the changes are
appreciated. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: l) that the
project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 28,
2002,sheets A.l through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the changes that the trellis
over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the hellis which support the
gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7
feet on orwithin 2feetofthe property line;.andamendedplans sheetA.l, dated stamped October 17,2002
showing the addition of two bay windows at the front and the reconfiguration of the front porch;2) thatthe
inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall be shifter to the left,
away from the door and closer to the outside windows, so that the left side of the elevations is more
symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope ofthe
project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and
changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review; 4) thatthe conditions of City
Engineer, ChiefBuilding Official and Recycling Specialist's July 16,2001memos shall be met; and 5) that
the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:1 I p.m'
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission (Jnapproved Minutes October 28, 2002
10. 1655 SEBASTIAI\ DRTYE _ ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR
RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING SYNAGOGUE, AND TEMPORARY PERMIT FOR MODULAR
BUILDINGS DURING CONSTRUCTION (MITCH REITMAN, PENINSULA TEMPLE SHOLOM,
APPLICANT AND PROPERry OWNER; ALEX SEEFELDT, HERMAN & COLIVER ARCHITECTURE,
ARCHITECD (63 }IOTICED) PLANNER: RUBEN
Reference staffreport October 28,2A02,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staffreport, reviewed
criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that the
staffreport indicates that construction may extend three months beyond October of 2003, it would be safer
to change the date in condition #3 for the removal of the temporary structures to January 1,2004; can
discuss with the applicant. Commission asked if there were any comments from the Recycling Specialist;
CP noted that the size of the proposed project is not large to require compliance with the recycling
ordinance. Commissioner visited the site and noted that traffic can get hectic and that construction traffic
will not help, asked if the applicant had a plan to address construction employee parking and deliveries to
the site. CP noted that the applicant could address this concern.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Robert Herman and Alex Seefeldt, architects and applicants,
were present to answer questions. Commission asked the applicant ifhe expected construction to finish by
October 1 ,2003 . The applicant noted that he hopes to finish by that date but unforeseen circumstances my
delay construction until January 1,2004. Commission expressed a concern with construction traffic and
delivery of materials to the site and asked the applicant if there was a plan to mitigate the impact on parking.
The applicant noted that the construction access will be off Arguello Drive into a second parking area
behind the main building, this area is separate from the school and other areas used by children and adults,
the second parking area is underutilized and is currently being used as a service area and for overflow
parking. The applicant noted that construction staging will occur in the courtyard and second parking area.
Commission asked if a construction trailer will be required for construction. The applicant noted that the
contractor may use a container as an office and storage and that the subcontactor may also need a container,
they would be located in the second parking lot. Commission encouraged the applicant to recycle as much
as possible and to follow the NPDES requirements regarding runoff and sediment control. The applicant
noted recycling requirements arc akeady included in the specification for the project. There were no further
comments andthe public hearing was closed.
C. Vistica noted that the project is well designed, that the impact on neighbors is minimal, and moved to
approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: l) ttrattheprojecf including
the temporary portable buildings, shall be built and installed as shown on the plans submitted to the
PlanningDepartmentanddatestampedSeptember ll,20Oz,sheetsA1.0andAl.l andsheetsA0through
A5, and that the increase in roofheight above the existing social hall shall not exceed elevation 129.45' (32'-
8" above average top of curb) as shown on sheet A4;2) that all construction employee parking shall occur
on-site only in the second parking lot off Arguello Drive and that no parking spaces in the main lot shall be
used for construction employee parking or staging, and that during construction the project site shall
conform to the applicable NPDES and STOPPP requirements; 3) that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's
September l6,20A2,memo and the Recycling Specialist's September 17,2002,memo shall be met; 4) that
the two portable buildings shall not be installed before November 1,2002 and shall be removed one month
after completion of construction or January 1,2004, whichever comes first; an amendment to this permit
shall be required if the temporary buildings are not removed by January 1,2004; and 5) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by
the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg.
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 28, 2002
Comment on the motion: concerned with construction employee parking, contractors may have one or two
trailers, may take up parking spaces, would like to add a condition that construction employee parking be
on-site only. The maker of the motion and second agreed.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:28 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REYIEW STUDY ITEMS
11.2669 MARTINEZ DRTVE . ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA,
DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (4 2 PROJECT PLANNER:HURIN
Commissioner Osterling noted that he would recuse himselfbecause he had a business relationship with the
applicant. He stepped down from the dais.
Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. He noted that there were two letters at the
Commissioners desks submitted after the packet had been prepared both from June Bitter ,2673 Martinez
Drive, dated october 22 and26,2002. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Johnny DeRosa, Designer, presented the project. With this
revision tried to minimize the addition, most on the lower floor and in the crawl space of the existing
building. Commission asked if they were proposing the change the roofing material. He noted that they
were not.
June Bitter,26T3Martinez Drive; Janice Johnson, 2668Martinez Drive, commented. Took a bit to
understand the revised drawings, but the reduction in the roof ridge from the previous proposal is only 2
feet, and this will affect the view from my house; would like to have story poles installed, but the property
line is overgrown with trees which block the view of the poles, so need to wait until the leaves *" oif th"
trees or need to trim the trees so the poles can be seen; concerned since the trees may need to be removed
when the construction takes place. Live across the street have distant views of the hospital, BIS, Marriott
Hotel and planes landing, want to retain, the trees which block view now are deciduous so have view in the
winter, have been therc 43 years and all the neighbors are good about trimming trees to protect other's
views; the applicants did not come to her house to see the impact of their project before they submitted it;
this is their third application which will affect views, looks like harassment, feel they have intentionally let
the trees grow.
Commissioners noted that the applicants have reduced the project by 1000 SF, so it is not the same project
that was submitted before; asked about roofing material, if it is to change to tile it would be a view issue,
designer noted that the roofing material is to stay the same shake; asked if any ofthe landscaping would be
removed, designer noted the eucalyptus trees would be retained, the vegetation on the right side would be
retained, the rest would be cleaned up and/or replaced; has the roof ridge been lowerid from the June
application, designer noted that it has been reduced 2.5 feet,this is also a hip and not a gable end which
reduce$ the height at the end. There were no more comments from the floor and the public comment was
closed.
9
City of Burtingame Planning Commission (Jnapproved Minutes October 28, 2002
Commissioners noted the following items:
o Concerned about view impact, the applicant needs to install story poles with orange netting which
will show through the trees, story pole installation should be certified and should be installed at least
10 days before the next action on this item;
. Design is OK, modest;
. Would be helped ifroof could be lowered a couple of feet, add a couple ofsections to show how the
proposed house fits into the lot;
o Add to the site plan accurate information about the location of the houses on either side, so can
evaluate the best place to add on to this house, reference windows as well as possible;
o Clariff on the elevation what is new and what is existing;
o Provide detail on the trellis proposed for the rear yard, need to know more about the structure to
determine if it will be a view obstruction;
o Provide information on proposed roofing materials;
o Provide information on maintenance intended for all trees on site, pruning schedule etc.;
. :. Chair Keighran moved to place this item on the action calendar after the story poles hlve beln erected and
confirmed and the questions asked have been addressed. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendarwhen plans
had been revised as directed and the story poles have been installed and their placement and height
confirmed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-l (C. Osterling abstaining) The Planning Commission's
action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m.
C. Osterling resumed his seat on the dais.
12.1313 GROVE AVENUE - ZONED R.1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ALBERT PASTINE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CATHY GLAZE
Cp Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked ifthe removal of the porch at the
rear was the thingthat reduced the fooprint. Staffnoted that it was. There were no other questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Albert Pastine, architect, represented the project. He noted
that the house was of Romantic Revival, English gable style, however the Romantic revival was not
continued to the sides of the structure which were plain; the gable was added to the roof in order to get
light into the stairwell; added windows on the sides to reduce the plain aspect; want to remove the corner
windows at the rear and bungalow porch.
Commissioners asked: why is the gable so high, it was hard to be lower and keep it in the stairwell; nice
blend of original and new, why does the gable at the front not match the others below, tried to repeat the
splay wall althe sides; good prlject, preserved the front and enhances the large roofbehind; was a shed roof
,ioa-i"a, yes shed is a bJngalo* rtyr", had three gables at the front hard to suggest something else without it
looking uOa.A on; did yoricheck tire soundn..r ofth" chimney, if it does not meet seismic requirements will
need tJreplace. There were no other questions from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Vistica moved that this item be brought back on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by
Chair Keighran.
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission (Jnapproved Minutes October 28' 2002
Comment on the motion: agtee,architect did a goodjob preserving the character of a charming Burlingame
house, he and his clients u.. to be commended. Would like to know about the chimney replacement when
the project returns.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar on the next agenda with
space. The motion passed by 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not
appealable. This item concluded at 9:l2p.m.
X. PLAI\NER REPORTS
xr.
Review of City Council regularmeeting of October 21,2002.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related items and actions at the Council meeting on October 21,
2002. She reminded the Commissioners of the Special Council Study meeting on October 29,2002,
regarding the Transportation Authority's highway and transit plans, near and long term, for Burlingame and
the Housing Implementation Subcommittee meeting on October 30 in the evening
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjourned the meeting at9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
uNAPPRovEDMnrures I 0. 2 8
11
to-22-02
Crime Classification.. . .
Murder and Nonnegfigent Manslaughter
Manslaughter bY NegI igence
Rape By Force
Attempt to Commit Forcible RaPe
Robbery Firearm
Robbery Knife
Robbery OEher Dangerous Weapon
Robbery Strong-Arm
Assault - Firearm
Assault - Knife
Assaul-E - OEher Dangerous Weapon
Assault - Hands, Fists, Feet
Assault - Other (SimPle )
Burglary - Forc j,bIe EnErY
Burglary - Unlawful EntrY
Burgtary - Attempted Forcibl-e Entry
I-,arceny PockeE -Picking
I-.,arceny Purse - SnaEching
Larceny ShopI i fL ing
I-.,arceny From Motor Vehicle
I-.,arceny MoEor Veh ParEs Accessories
I-,arceny BicYcIes
Larceny From Building
I-.,arceny From Any Coin-Op Machine
Larceny Al1 other
MoEor Vehicle Theft Auto
MoEor Vehicle Theft Bus
Motor Vehicle Theft OLher
SI'IVIMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES
FOR: SEPTEMBER, 2002
Last
Current Year. .
PAGE: 1
Act
YTD...
Prev
A^i-
YTD.
0
0
9
0
3
!2
2
2
1
0
6
0
10
2
8
1
9
t2
5
3
I
1
1
1
1
2
t-
4
7
4
5
29
80
1
l-
20
5
3I
2
r2
5
1
2
t2
5
I
1
28
3
4
L
]-37
43
59
1
0
0
25
153
69
25
13
20
L78
58
4
2
15
5
153
108
55
25
11
297
9
33
94
1
21
99 102 853 970
1
1_5
8
4
2I
2T
9
99 l.02 853 970
MONTHLY SWMARY OF
CITY REPORT FOR :
PART TWO OFFENSES
SEPTEMBER, 2OO2
PAGE: 1
Cri-me Cf assi-f ication.Current
40
L2
I-,a s t
51
ACT
YTD...
Prev
l-l
YTD.
289
0
t
.)
0
0
0
0
2
0
42LA1l- Other offenses
Animaf Abuse
AnimaL Nuisance
ArsonAssists Eo ouEside Agencies
Bicycle Violations
Bigamy
Bomb Offense
Bomb Threat
Bribery
Check Offenses
Child Neglect /proE custodY
Computer Crime
Consp i racy
Credit Card Offenses
Cruelty to Dependent Adult
Curfew and Loitsering Laws
Death Investigation
Disorderly Conduct
Driver's L.,icense ViolaEions
Driving Under the Influence
Drug Abuse Viol-ations
Drug/Sex RegistranLs
Drunkeness
Embez z Iement
Extortion
False Police Reports
FaLse Reports of Emergency
Fish and Game Violati-ons
Forgery and Counterfeiting
Eound Property
Fraud
Gambl j-ng
Harrassing Phone Ca1ls
Hit and Run Accidents
ImpersonaE i on
I nce st
Indecent Exposure
Intsimidating a W j.tness
Kidnapping
L.,ewd Conduct
Liquor l-.,a\,rs
Littering/Dumping
Marijuana Vi.olations
Mentaf Health Cases
Missing Person
Missing Property
Municipal Code Violations
Narcoti.cs Sal e s /Manufacture
Offenses Against ChiLdren
4
0
t2
0
0
0
1
3
0
1
I
2
2
1-
1
L5
2t
0
0
4
4
t_
2t
40
7
5',7
46
6L
2'7
0
6L
q,)
0
5
0
I
2
9
1
2L
'74
23
84
50
0
13
L2
0
1
L4
5
51
35
10
58
28
1
59
18
0
0
0
1
0
L7
7L
!6
0
50
0
9
0
0
0
7
0
26
85
26
153
44)
3
2
1
3
3
I
9
2
8
I
3
4
I
3
4
L
0
47
5
0
0
0
1
0
I
7
7
6
2
6
3
2
4
4 1
4
7
3
t4
4
L
1
1
10
4
10
L4
t0 -22- 02
MONTHLY SUMMARY OF
CITY REPORT FOR:
Crime CIassi fication.
PART TWO OFFENSES
SEPTEMBER, 2OO2
L.,as t
Prev
Act
YTD...YTDCurrent
L2
3
6
28
1
t2
L37
4
53
0
2
0
1
0
0
7
0
8
5
0
I
2
0
1
0
4
30
0
1
1
L
I
153
1
135
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
2
3
3
0
6
6
0
2
0)
48
0
3
9
4
56
3
6
4
44
44
3l_
420
11
0
0
0
20L
40
21_
5
43
L2
0
48
26
467
4
4
0
0
L82
42
15
6
49
11
0
)-l
3
t
1
9
2
15
4
6
1
5
1
258 294 2,169 2,544
258 294 2,a69 2,544
L0-22-02 PAGE:2
other AssaulEs
OtherJuvenile Offenses
Other Police Service
Pandering for immoral- Purposes
ParoIe Vi-olations
Perj ury
Possession of BurglarY Tools
Possession of drug paraphernal-ia
Possession of obscene literature;picture
Probation Violations
ProstiEution and Commerciaf Vice
Prowl ing
Resisting Arrest
Runar^rays (Under 18 )
Sex Offenses
Sex Offenses against. Chj-1dren
Sodomy
S E al king
Statutory RaPe
StoIen Property; Buying; Rece ivi-ng; Pos se s s
Suspended License
Tax Evasion
Temp Restraining Orders
TerrorisE ThreaEs
Towed Vehicle
Tre spas s ing
Truants/ Incorrigible,Juvs
US Mail Crimes
Vagrancy
Vandal i sm
Vehlcle Code Violations
violation of Court Order
warrants - Felony
WarranE.s - Misd
Weapons ; Carrying, Possessing
Welfare Fraud
L0 -22-02
Crime Classification
Parking Citations
Moving Citations
MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS
CITY REPORT
FOR: SEPTEMBER, 2002
PAGE: 1
Current
Last
Year..
Act
YTD.
Prev
NUL
YTD.
24,480
r,979
3 ,265
239
2,393
246
27 ,83'7
2 ,140
3,504 2,639 29 ,977 26,459
3 ,504 2 ,639 29 ,97'7 26 ,459
Officer ProductivitY. . . .
Reported On: AII 0fficers
Data Type RePorted on: PARKING
L0/22/2002 at 04:01:53 PM
Range: A9/0112002 to 09130/2002
BURL]NGAME
generated on
Report
valid
cnt
t A11
valid
voids
Cnt
T AlI
Void-s valid
t
offj.cer:ID:
534
506
505
502
20L
503
331-
t-390
867
541
41
1l_
10. 37
43.53
,1 1q
17.13
1 t'l
0.34
5 11, 90
?n qq
21-.43
?n q6
4 .16
0.00 100
98
99
9B
9l
95
51
0?
97
6B
92
00
DAZA-QU]ROZ
HARRISON
JEOX
KIRKPATRICK
MORAN
ROSCOE
13
9
13
2
0
Total 3193 42
Page 1 of, 1