HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2002.09.16---=-l-
BT'RLINGAME CITY COI]NCIL AGEI\DA
Rfcur,an Mnrrruc - Moxol,v, Spprrmpn 16, 2wL
Plcel or2
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. MINUTES - Regular meeting of September 3,2OOZ
5. PT BLIC IDARINGS rhe mayor mty timit spcarrzn to {wc mhucs cach
a. Appeal of Planning Commission's Determination that the
second unit was not built before 1954 at 826 Alpine Avenue,
Zoned R-l
b. Adopt an Urgency Ordinance pursuant to Government Code
36937 for no parking zones on Carmelita Avenue from
California Drive to El Camino Real and for one hour parking
zones on Primrose Road from Bellevue to Floribunda Avenue
6. PUBLTC CO-MMENTS - Ar rhis time, persons in the audience may speak on
any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council.
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the sate local agency open meeting law) prohibits
council from acting on:rny matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of
council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are
requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
had it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
7. STATT' REPORTS AI\D COMMT]MCATIONS
a. Commissioner Term Expirations: Beautification (2), Civil
Service (2), Traffrc, Safety & Parking (2)
b. Temporary Teen Facility
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Special Event Permit/Street Closure - Halloween Safe Street
(Primrose Road)
b. Resolution authorizing agre€ment between the City of San
Mateo and City of Burlingame for Maintenance & Repair
Services on City of San Mateo Fire Vehicles
c- Resolution Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with
the Culver Group for Engineering Design Services for Water
Main Replacements within the Burlinghome, Easton No. 5 and
Easton No- 7 Subdivisions
9. COT,INCIL COMMITTEE REFORTS
IO. OLD BUSINESS
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9,$O1 O
(650) ss8-7200
7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
Approval
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Discussion/Action
Discussion/Direction
Approval
BT'RLINGAME CITY COT]NCIL AGENDA
RBculan MBntnIc - MoNDLy, snrrm,cBn 16, ?.Nz
Plcr2or2
11. IYEW BUSIIYESS
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Planning, September 9,2m2
b. Department Reports: Building, August, 20O2; Finance, August,
2W2
c. Letter from l,ouisa Lloyd Shields, 1205 Drake Avenue and
reply from City Planner concerning Broadway Business Area
13. ADJOTJRNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION
NOTICE: Any acendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact 6e City Clerk at (650)
558-?203 at least 24 hours before the rreeting. A copy of the Agerda Packet is available for public review
at ffre City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Rord, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before 1[6 ms€ting
and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlinsame.orq. Agerdas aod minutes are
available at this site.
* CLOSED SESSION:
1. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to
Government Code $ 54956.8: Property: Assessor Parcel No'
029453-430 - 783 California Drive; Agency Negotiators:
Randy Schwartz, Larry Anderson, Jim Nantell; Negotiating
Parties: Proffitt Trust (Terry Horn); Under Negotiation: l.ease
of PropertY
2. Threatened Litigation (Government Code $ 54956.90)(2) and
(3XC) Claim of Michael Svanevik (copyright use)
3. Pending Litigation (Government Code $ 5a956-9(a)
4. Louis Marini vs. City of Burlingame (ABAG Plan), San Mateo
Superior Court Case No. 419382
14. ADJOI'RNMENT
NOTICE: Any asendees wishing accommodatiors for disabilities, please contact the CiU Clerk at (650)
558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy ofthe Agerda Packet is available for public review
at the City Clerk's offrce, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting
and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agerdas ard minutes are
available at this site.
NEXT MEETING - October 7, 20i0.2
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL. 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94O1 O
(650) 558-7200
Following Open Agenda
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting of September 3,2002
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
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 at7:01p.m.by Mayor Mary Janney.
2. PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Commander Tom Marriscolo.
3. ROLL CALL
Council Present:
Council Absent:
Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony
None
4. MINUTES
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the Council Meeting held
August 5,2002; seconded by Councilman Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a.Adoption of Ordinance #1694 Adoptins the Buildine. Plumbine. Mechanical and
Electrical Codes
DPW Bagdon recommended Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance #1694 amending
revisions to the Uniform Building Code published by the Intemational Conference of Building
Officials, the Uniform Plumbing Code published by the tnternational Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials and the National Electric Code published by the National Fire Protection
Association. The City is obligated by the State to enforce the latest codes by Novemb er 1,2002.
Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing
was closed.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Ordinance #1694; seconded by Vice Mayor
Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Janney requested CC Musso publish a
summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
September 3,2002
Unapproved Minutes
1Burlingame City Council
b. Adoption of Ordinance #1695 Adoptins the 2001 California Fire Code
FC Reilly recommended Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance #1695, the 2001
Edition of the California Fire Code.
Mayor Janney opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing
was closed.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Ordinance #1695; seconded by Vice Mayor
Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Janney requested CC Musso publish a
swnmary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, President of the Burlingame Historical Society, spoke concerning
recent Historical Society events such as their walking tour, ice cream social and tour of the Carriage
House, upcoming tours for third grade students. Noted event topics in the future will be on the
history and future of the Easton Branch Library. Also requested that if any residents have
information regarding Burlingame to please call the Historical Society as it may be historically
significant.
7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Unaudited Financial Report. Fiscal Year 2001-02
ACM Becker and CM Nantell commented on the financial downturn from one year ago primarily
due to a significant drop in the hotel tax and sales tax revenue. CM Nantell is developing
recommendations to reduce operating costs with cooperation from the the department heads and
middle managers.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a.Advisorv committee for the BavfronUAnza specific Area Plan update
CP Monroe noted fourteen individuals had been contacted and have agreed to serve on the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan Update. The committee will meet
monthly between September,2002 and June, 2003 and will also sponsor three public workshops
which will form the basis of much of their work.
b. Resolution #100-2002 Awardine street Resurfacine Prosram. 2002
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve Resolution #100-2002 awarding the resurfacing
project to C. F. Archibald Paving, Inc. in the amount of $975,408.48 for various streets in
Burlingame; work is expected to be completed by December, 2002.
September 3,2002
Unapproved Minutes 2
Burlingame City Council
c.Reiection of all Bids and Authorization for Staff to Re-advertise the 2002 Sidewalk
Maintenance Repair Program
DPW Bagdon recommended Council reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise the project for
new bids. The project consists of the replacement of sidewalk, curb and gutter as well as
installation of handicap ramps in the area of Easton Addition No. 2.
d. Approval of Attendance at Out-of-State Conference
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve the attendance of four (4) staff members at an out-of-
state conference in Lake Tahoe, and for trvo (2) staff members to attend an out-of-state conference
in Reno, Nevada.
e. Resolution #97-2002 Annrovine the Memorandum of Understandins between the Citv of
Burlingame and the Burlinsame Police Officers Association
HR Bell recommended Council approve Resolution #97-2002 approving the Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Police Officers Association and
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the city.
f. Warrants & Pavroll
ACM Becker requested approval for payment of Warrants #83926-8 4476 , duly audited, in the
amount of $3,234,444.68, Payroll checks #149291-t49839 in the amount of $1,997,541.05 for July,
2002; and EFT's for the month of July, 2002 inthe amount of $41I,710.06.
g. Resolution #98-2002 Awarding Tree Prunins and Stump Removal Contract
PR Schwartz recommended Council approve Resolution #98-2002 awarding the Tree Pruning and
Stump Removal Contract to Timberline Tree Service, Inc.
h. Resolution #101-2002 Rescindins Reouest to Extend Date for Compliance with Integrated
Waste Manasement Act
ACM Becker recommended Council approve Resolution #l0l-2002 to rescind request for extension
to comply with the Integrated Waste Management Act since the Waste Board has reviewed the
extension and found that the City's compliance with program implementation goals is sufficient.
i. Authorize Citv Attornev to ioin in Amicus Curiae Brief in Border Business Park.Inc. vs.
Citv of San Diego 0)03922$ at No Cost to Citv
CA Anderson requested Council authorize joinder in amicus curiae brief at no cost to City in Border
Business Park vs. City of San Diego which is now pending before the California Court of Appeal.
September 3,2002
Unapproved Minutes
JBurlingame City Council
j. Authorize City Affornev to ioin in Amicus Curiae Brief in Topsail Court Homeowners
Association vs. Soquel Creek Water District (US 01-1444) at No Cost to Citv
CA Anderson requested Council authorize joinder in amicus curiae brief at no cost to City in
Topsail Court Homeowners Association vs. Soquel Creek Water District which is now pending
before the California
Supreme Court.
k. Authorize Citv Attornev to ioin in Amicus Curiae Brief in Richmond vs. Shasta
Communitv Services District
CA Anderson requested Council authorize joinder in amicus curiae brief at no cost to City in
Richmond vs. Shasta Community Services District which is now pending before the California
Supreme Court.
l.Adopt Resolution #99-2002 Amending the List of Desienated Emplovees in the Citv,s
Conflict of Interest Code
CA Anderson requested Council adopt Resolution #99-2002 amending the list of designated
employee positions required to file Statements of Economic lnterests pursuant to the City Conflict
of Interest Code.
Councilman Galligan made a motion to approve Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman
O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the
City.
11. OLD BUSINESS
Councilwoman O'Mahony noted she cannot support any change in the floor area ratio (FAR) which
had recently been suggested by a Planning Commissioner. Feels the floor area ratio has been
eminently successful and a model for other cities.
At this time, City Attorney Anderson reported Council directed him regarding possible settlement
on the following claim during the closed session:
Threatened litigation (Government Code $ 54956.9(b)(1), (3XC) Claim of Valerie Jones.
Councilman Galligan noted that the Broadway Streetscape seems to be proceeding very nicely;
concerned that the light concrete on the completed north side is being marked up by bicycle tires
and looks unsightly. Suggested the cleaning of the sidewalks be done more often in the summer
September 3,2002
Unapproved Minutes 4
Burlingame City Council
than in the winter. CM Nantell noted Councilwoman O'Mahony was also concerned about the
same issue; COP Missell will have more patrolling done in this area.
12. NEW BUSINESS
Councilman Galligan suggested Russ Cohen, President of the Historical Society, contact a local
businessman named Bill Nagel; Mr. Nagel is very knowledgeable about the history of the Easton
Library.
Councilwoman Baylock
instead of the hospital di
possibility.
[uU-0Nw,*tt0.
a.
c.
suggested the City of Burlingame be the lead agency on the hospital EIR
strict; would like to have it be agendized in the future to discuss this
CP Monroe noted an appeal hearing should be set for the September L6,2002 Council meeting. An
appeal was received regarding a Planning Commission denial of an amnesty regarding an in-law
unit at 826 Alpine Avenue.
CM Nantell reminded Council and residents of the "Unity in the Light" event being held on
September 11,2002 at City Hall.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Commissioner Minutes: Library, July 23,2002; Traffic, Safety and Parking, August 8,2002
and Planning Commission of August12,2002 and August26,2002
b. DepartmentReports: Police, Jaly,2002;Finance, luly,2}l2;Building, July,2002
Letters from Mission Hospice, Community Gatepath, Friends for Youth, PARCA, and
Samaritan House gratefully acknowledging City's contribution
d. Letter from Ann Marie Umland, 1600 Sebastian Drive, concerning remodel of neighbor's
home at2843 d. Letter from Ann Marie Umland, 1600 Sebastian Drive, concerning
remodel of neighbor's home at2843 Arguello Drive
Memo from City Planner to Council conceming trimming trees on hillside area construction
permit at2843 Arguello Drive
f. Notice announcing Planning Department Public Workshop on September 10, 2002,7:00 p.m.
at Recreation Center concerning North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Area Plan
September 3,2002
Unapproved Minutes
e
5Burlingame City Council
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DArE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2002
AGENDA
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 9.16.02
SI]BMITTED /\L
FROM:CITY PLANNER
ST]BIECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DER ATI ON THAT THE SECONI)
UNIT WAS NOT BUILT BEFORE 1954 AT 826 ALPINE AYENUE, ZONED R.l
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. The action is a determination whether the second
unit built at the rear of the garage was built before 1954 and is therefore eligible for inclusion in the second
unit amnesty program. Action should be taken by resolution and should include the reasons for the finding
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on August 26,2002, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-l (C.
Brownrigg absent) to uphold staff s determination that that this second dwelling unit did not comply with the
second unit amnesty requirement that an eligible unit be built before 1954 because insuffrcient information
was submitted to refute the Chief Building Oflicial's findings. In their discussion of the issue the
commissioner's noted: the assessor's report indicates plumbing fixtures in 1948 but makes no mention about
additional plumbing fixtures when the area now used as the in-law unit was added in 1952; it is the building
department's job to determine the age of improvements, do not feel personally qualified to date a unit. Chief
Building Official noted: in the original garage of 1948 construction there was a half bath at the right rear of
the original garage, when inspected saw some knob and tube wiring but in the addition all wiring seemed to
be new in romex a material not used until the late 1970's, the only dated evidence on the site was a toilet dated
1991; there was no evidence that the second unit was built in the 15 months between completion of the
building permit issued in 1952 for an addition to the rear of the garage and the December 31, 1953 date to
qualify for second unit amnesty; a termite report prepared in 1973 for the sale of the house did not note the
area atthe rear of the garage as being used as a second unit, in fact the report indicated that the wall between
the original garage and the addition was open 50%o. Onthe basis of the Chief Building Offrcial's findings the
City Planner found that the existing second unit did not qualify for the amnesty program. It is that
determination which was appealed by the property owner to the Planning Commission.
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, David Mani, at826 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-1, is requesting that the City Council
review the Planning Commission's determination that the second unit, attached to his house at the rear of the
single car garage, and accessed along the side property line, be determined to be eligible for the second
dwelling unit amnesty program. To be eligible for amnesty it must be determined that the second unit was
built before January 1,1954. The requirements for eligibility for the amnesty program are as follows.
o The second unit must be located in an R-l zone;
o The second unit must have been built before January 1,1954;
5a
BY
BY
APPROVED
APPEAL OF PI-ANNING COMMISSION'S DERTERMINATION THAT THE SECOND ANIT WAS NOT BAILTBEFORE
1954 AT 826 ALPINE AWNUE, ZONED R-l SEPTEMBER 16, 2002
o Required on-site parking shall be provided for the primary dwelling, and additional parking for
the secondary unit shall be at least one uncovered parking space, which may be provided in
tandem to another existing parking space,
o No more than two (2) persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit;
o An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units at all times;
o The floor area of the secondary dwelling shall not exceed 640 SF, and
o The secondary dwelling unit shall be able and made to conform to the requirements of the
California Health and Safety Code.
The applicant complies, or could comply, with all of the above requirements except the date of eligibility of
the unit.
History:
The existence of this dwelling unit came to the city's attention when we became aware that there was
construction without a building permit occurring at the rear of the site. The illegal construction was attached
at the back of the garage being used as a second unit. A redtag was posted on the construction and the
property owner submitted plans to the Planning Department. His first request was for arear setback variance
for about 2.5 feet so that he could continue to build the 533 SF (10'3" x 25'O")addition at the rear of the
existing extended gara9e. Planning Commission denied this rear setback variance. The applicant has
appealed the Planning Commission's action on the variance but asked to set the appeal hearing date out so
that he could go first to the Planning Commission for an appeal to the City Planner's determination that the
existing second unit does not qualify for second unit amnesty because it was not built before 1954.
On August 26,2002 the Planning Commission held a determination hearing and voted to uphold the City
Planner's determination that the second unit was not built before 1954.. The applicant is now appealing that
determination to the City Council.
History of Construction on the Site
The old San Mateo County Assessor's records document that the residential structure with an attached one car
garage was built at826 Alpine Avenue in 1948. (attached in the Planning Commission StaffReport) The
Assessor's record shows that one of the 6 plumbing fixtures was located in the garage (most likely a toilet).
In 1952 a building permit was issued for a I 3 ' x 21' (273 SF) addition to the garage with the note "conforms
to original garage in all respects" (with stucco walls and composition shingles). A 1973 termite report
indicates that the wall between the original garage (346 SF) and the new addition was 50olo open. This termite
report does not address the use in the 1952 portion of the garage. The property owner reported that after his
father purchased the house in the 1970's he made a shed addition to the rear of the existing garage. This is
probably how the existing addition at the rear of the garage increased in length from2l feet to 30 feet. There
is no building permit on record for the addition of a storage shed at the rear of the 1952 addition to the garage.
The property owner, son of the 1970's purchaser, noted in the record that he lived in the accessory unit in the
1990's and upgraded it. No building permits were issued after 1952 for any, electrical, plumbing, framing or
sheet rock work done to the addition at the rear of the garage. A number of months ago, on a complaint
regarding construction work being done at the rear of the garage, the Building Inspector found a foundation
and partial framing in place for a 10'3" x25'0" (256 SF) addition at the rear of the 1952 garage and 1970's
storage area addition. A stop work order was placed on the site; and all construction ceased.
n
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DERTERMINATION THAT THE SECOND UNIT WAS NOT BAILTBEFORE
Tg54 AT 826 ALPINE AWNT]E, ZONED R-l SEPTEMBER 16' 2OO2
Ilistory of the Determination:
Since second unit amnesty is an administrative permit, the application process allows a property owner to
appeal to the Planning Commission the City Planner's decision regarding whether an existing second unit
complies with the code requirements.
In the case of this unit the City Planner based her denial on the findings of the Chief Building Oflicial who
inspected the unit. In his inspection the CBO looked for indicators such as casting dates on pipes and fixtures,
construction materials, and construction methods evident which would establish that a second unit had
existed on this site before 1954. Other than the shell of the building for which there was a 7952 building
permit, observable evidence indicated that the improvements date from the 1970's and later. The Chief
Building Offrcial concluded that the existing second unit did not meet the requirement of being in place prior
to January l,1954, because :
(l), the materials used did not exist in 1952;
(2), the diffrcultly of fully finishing (electrical, plumbing, insulating, wall finish etc.) an illegal unit in
the brief time between finaling of the 1952 building permit and the second unit amnesty deadline of "built
before December 31,1953"; and
(3) the termite inspection report in 1973 which indicated that the wall between the existing garage and
the 1952 addition was 507o open, along with the fact that older wiring and plumbing (for the 1952 approved
plumbing fixture) exist in the original 1948 portion of the garage The City Planner's determination was based
onthese findings of fact.
The applicant was notified of the City Planners denial of his request for amnesty for the second unit and
appealed to the Planning Commission. On August 26,2002,the Planning Commission upheld the City
Planners determination. Actions by the Planning Commission are appealable to the City Council. The
applicant appealed the Planning Commission's denial of his request for amnesty for the second unit, and the
item was set for public hearing on September 16,2002. All property owners within 300 feet were noticed
about the hearing.
ATTACIIMENTS:
Dave Mani, letter August 30,2002, to Margaret Monroe, appealing Planning Commission determination.
Dave Mani letter Augu st 1, 2002, to Margaret Monroe, appealing Planning Commission action on a rear set
back variance but also addressing second unit amnesty.
Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes, August 26,2002
Planning Commission StaffReport, August 26,2002 with attachments
Reduced site plan, April12,2002
Reduced In-Law unit diagram, not to scale
Photographs of the existing garage and existing second unit submitted at Planning Commission Hearing
August 26,2002
Public Notice Appeal Hearing, mailed September 6,2002
EONORABLE UAYOR AND CITY COI]NCIL:
PLEASE SET AN APPEAL HEARING
rOR 824 ALPINE FOR TIIE COUNCIL
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER TA, 2002.
CITY CLERK
RECE,V[..
AUG 3 O ?AO;
t'll^?irir'd'Jlo.r ,.
REq€tvED
AU6 3 0 200?
8ffiStrifii,,$fiifiE
To: Margeret Munroe
From: Dave Mani
Re: Amnesty Appeal
Date: 08129102
Margeret:
Enclosed please find a check for $250.00 made to the City of Burlingame.
I intend to appeal the Planning Commission denial of amnesty regarding my
in-law unit at 826 Alpine Ave, Burlingame.
Please let me know when the City Cormcil can hear my appeal.
so much.,L
Dave Mani
826 Alpine Ave.
Burlingame, CA., 94010
MEMO
To: Margaret Monroe, City of Burlingame
From. Dave Mani
826 Alpine Ave.
Burlingame, CA., 94010
RE: appeal-Amnesty Program
Date:8/Oll02
Mani
826 Alpine Ave
Burlingame, CA., 94010
RECE,YED
Auc _ s /002
''llffi;r'g;p,.^u,
Dear Margaret:
Enclosed please find a check for $25.00 for the appeal process regarding the Amnesty
Progranr, and my inJaw unit at 826 Alpine Ave..
As you know, I am appealing two separate, but interlinked, situations. I would like to
appeal the denial ofmy inJaw unit as it applies to the Amnesty program first. The
second situation is the variance for set -back of an addition to my property. The inlaw is
the most important to me of the two situations. The reason it is primary to me is that a
legal inJaw unit will increase the appraised value ofmy property-without me having to
build any additions what-so-ever. Ifthe denial of the in-iaw is rlversed, and the in-iaw
legalized, then I intend to take down the structure that started this whole debate in the
first place. As I explained ro the Planning Commission, if I had known about the
Amnesty Program before my attempt to build an officdgym addition to my property, I
would have resolved the inJaw legality before ever attempting to build any iaaition.
', ,- - Fhave also sent a letter for an appeal regarding a variance set-back, along with a check
for $250, to Sean O'Rourke.
I realize the city has procedures, but, in my opinion, it would be redundanr to appea.l a
situation that is only of concern if my inJaw is not legal, and thus, becomes a simple
bedroom. I would have appealed the in-la Amnesty decision months ago, if I wluld
have been given the opportunity to do so. I was never notified that this was an option, or,
at least, I never saw anyhing to this effect in my paperwork.
you for your time and attention to this matter
a*1-
and
\.Ir.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 26, 2002
ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Itums on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. Thqt are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discassion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner pior to the time 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.
1524 Los Montes Drive- zoned R-1- amendment to an application for design review, hillside area
construction permit, side setback variance and special permit for declining height envelope for a first and
second story addition (Lionel J. Recio AIA, c/o SidneyHooverArchitects, applicant and architect; Michael
Berman and Betsy Haugh, property owners) (52 noticed) Project Planner: Catherine Keylon
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded oy C. Osterling. Commissioner asked if a condition could be added
to limit the variance so that if the structure were demolished or the building envelope were modified in the
future the variance would expire. The maker and second to the motion agreed to amend the conditions of
approval. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions that
if the structure were demolished or the envelope changed at alater date the side setback variance would
become void. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
V[I. REGT,LAR ACTION ITEM
4.826 ALPIIYE AYENUE _ ZONED R.1. APPUCATION FOR A DETERMINATION ON WHETHER
A SECOND UNIT QUALIFMS FOR THE SECOND TINIT AMNESTY PROGRAM (DAVID MANI,
PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
SEAN O'R
Reference staff report 8.26.02, with ^-ttarhments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Staff comments. Commission had no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. David Mani, property owner 826 Alpine Drive, spoke noting
that he wished to clariff, there is evidence in the city files that the addition to the garugewas built n 1952,
the question is when was the in-law unit built; there was a building permit issued for the addition to the
gara$e in 1952, the house was built in 1948; his parents purchased the house in 1978, in 1991 the second
unit was completely remodeled including upgrading the sheet rock, electrical and plumbing; he showed
evidence of the original plumbing which showed "T" lines for hot and cold water and gas, extending into
the garage addition; also showed pictures ofwhat remained of the original electrical wiring; the addition to
the garage is removed from the house, they may have called it storage when it was built but why did they
add the second cold water line if they did not intend to use it for a second urit. Feels that amnesty should
be forgiveness from the government, city needs affordable dwelling units, city condoned second dwelling
installation at one time, he only wants to bring this unit up to code.
Commissioners asked: what city document do you refer to that shows the garage addition being made in
1952? County Assessor's record for the property. CP Monroe noted that the city has the hard copy of the
2
3a.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 26, 2002
San Mateo County assessors records up to 1960 when they computenzed their system, a copy of the page
is in the staff report and it shows that a building permit was issued for a 13' x 21' addition to the garage in
September 1952. Is the unit you are referring to shown on the submitted plans, the dimension you refer to
is not shown? Plans show in-law unit including shed area added by father later and also attached new
addition to the rear for an office and a gym, if approved would remove the shed area and partially
constrrction office and gym and put the unit back to its original 13' by 2l' long, garage area of 1952. Is this
restored in-law area shown on the plans? No. Issue appears to be the plumbing, the Assessor's Report
shows one fixture in the garage (a toilet?) where is the rest of the plumbing in the in-law unit? The
installation of the in-law unit was illegal, suspect it was installed shortly after the addition to the garage was
completed, the builder is now deceased.
Commission asked Chief Building Offrcial Cullum to respond: in the original gura1e of 1948 construction
there was a half bath at the right rear, when inspected saw some knob and tube wiring but in the addition
all wiring seemed to be new in romex of a kind which was a material not used until the late 1970's; the only
dated evidence on the site was a toilet dated 1991. When looked at as a whole the second unit appeared to
be built after 1991; no evidence that the in-law unit was built in the l5 months between completion of the
building permit for the garage addition and the December 31, 1953, qualiffing date for the second unit
amnesty ordinance; a termite report prepared in 1973 for the sale of the house does not note the rear of the
garage being used as a second unit, in fact indicated that the wall between the original garage and addition
was open 50%. Commissioner asked about the age of the plumbing in the bathroom in the original garage.
CBO noted that if the "T" were installed anytime close to 1954 itwould look old. Commissioner asked if
the termite report noted a kitchen in the garage addition. CBO commented that the termite report noted that
the wall between the original and addition to the garuge was open 50Yo,repair was needed to the window
in the new portion of the garage as well as to the window in the original garage, the termite report did not
show the door to the left side of the inJaw unit as existing either; generally a termite report identifies
existing conditions, for example it noted damage under the kitchen tile at the sink in the main house.
Commissioner asked if the "T" in the water pipes noted by the applicant could be explained by the addition
of a washer and dryer in the garage. CBO said yes. Commissioner asked about the condition of the rest of
the house, was it also remodeled in 1970's? CBO noted that he did not see the rest of the house. Applicant
noted that the in-law unit was remodeled in 1991 when he moved into it in order to take care of his elderly
parents. He lived in the unit 5 years giving care. He had a termite report done in 1998 when he purchased
the house from his parents, the report did not identiff the in-law unit, it was caiffi garage. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: feel that the facts presented by the applicant are not adequate to refute the CBO;
evidence is gray in both directions; interesting Assessor's Report notes plumbing fixtures in 1948 but
makes no mention in next years that there were plumbing fixtures in the in-law unit; it is the Building
Department's role to determine the vintage of the second trnit, not feel personally qualified to date a unit,
should follow staff s guidance; need housing, the purpose of the program is to contribute to the affordable
housing stock in the city, program is going to be reviewed as part of the Housing Element work program,
the review may include a change in the eligibility date, but not at this time. CBO was not able to look at
photos provided this evening, would that be helpful. CBO noted that he felt that there was nothing to be
added to his inspection unless the applicant had found a dated fitting.
C. Boju6s moved to uphold the staffs determination that this second unit did not complywith the second
unit amnesty requirement that it was built before January l,1954,because insufficient information had been
submitted to refute the Chief Building Official's opinion. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
3
5.
6.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 26, 2002
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the staff s determination on the date of
construction of the second unit. The motion passed on a 6-0-l (C. Brownrigg absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m.
UPDATE RULES OF CURRENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROCEDURES
This item was continued to the Commission meeting on September 9,2002
1108 CORTEZ AVENUE. ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (LARRY AND VERONICA MORSELLO, APPLICANTS
AND PROPERTY OWNERS; BRUCE BALLENTINE, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYI,ON
Reference staff report 8.26.02,with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Bruce Ballentine, architect, 1109 N. Thomson Road, Lafayette,
and Larry Morsello, property owner, represented the project. The architect reviewed the changes on the
plans briefly. Commissioners asked about the material to be used on the outside of the structure. Applicant
noted that it is called hardytoard, afabicated fiber-cement-wood material which will look like wood siding
when painted, but is more durable and cheaper; the boards xe 318 inch thick and 8 inches high like real
wood siding. Commissioner asked about the first and second floor plate height since it contributes to the
over all height of the building. Applicant noted the first floorplate is 9 feet and the second floorplate 8 feet.
There was discussion about the fluted corner boards and their proportional size to the battens. Applicant
noted that they were 1 inch by 6 inches with a 2x plinth block at the bottom. Commissioner noted that a
bigger comer board would read better because of the size of the battens; architect was concerned that I inch
by 8 inch might look a little wide. Commissioner noted that the plate heights were consistent with
recommended design guidelines and fit the style of this house, like the details added they spice up the design.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noting that the declining height encroachment was consistent with the design guidelines, moved
';i,v i esnlution to approve the application with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be buitt as
shownontheplanssubmittedtothePlanningDepartrnentdatestampedAugust l6,2\02,SheetsC-1,L-1,
and Sheets A-l through A-3,site plan, floor plans, building elevations and landscape plan, with I inch by
8 inch fluted corner boards on all comers of the building with a proportional plinth block at the bottom,
fluted garage corner boards to rernain at I inch by 6 inch; 2) that any increase to the habitable basement floor
area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding
the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or
changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling
Specialist, City Engineer, and Chief Building Official's memos dated Iluly 29,2002 shall be met; 4) that
prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the
building envelope; 5) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certiff the first floor
elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 6) 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; 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 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
4
City of Burlingame
Determination of Second Dwelling Unit
Address: 826 Alpine Avenue Meeting Date: 8126102
Request: Request that the Planning Commission review whether a secondary dwelling unit meets the
requirements for the City's Second Unit Amnesty Program.
Applicant and Property Owner: David Mani APN: 029-026-220
General Plan: Low DensityResidential Lot Area: 6,000 SF
Zoning: R-l
CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a), repair and
maintenance or minor alterations of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of use
beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination.
History: The Planning Commission reviewed an application at this address for side and rear setback variances
for existing illegal construction at the rear of rhe garuge on July 22,2002. The Commission voted 6-0-1 (C.
Vistica absent) to deny the setback variances (see attached P.C. minutes dated July 22,2002). The applicant has
appealed this decision. At the applicant's request, City Council is scheduled to hear this appeal on October 21,
2002- The applicant wishes to pursue the determination regarding the second unit before he pursues the appeal
of the Planning Commission's denial of the setback variances.
Summary: In January 2002, the property owner, David Mani, applied for the City's Second Unit Amnesty
Program to legalize an existing attached second unit at 826 Alpine Avenue, zoned R-l. Planning Department
staffand the Chief Building Official, Fred Cullum, completed a site inspection on the unit on February 27,2002.
The Chief Building Official's inspection showed that there was no evidence to support that the 390 SF second
unit existed before 1954 and therefore, the unit did not qualiff for second unit amnesty. The inspection report
by the Chief Building Official indicates that he was unable to find any evidence that this area was converted to
a dwelling unit prior to 1954. It is his opinion that the garage addition was completed in the early 50's, but the
actual second unit was not installed till the mid-to-late 70's. Please see attached inspection report.
The property owner is requesting the Planning Commission review the decision that the second unit was installed
after 1954. To qualify for the second unit amneslprogram, all of the following requirements must be met:
o The second unit must be located in an R-l zone
o The second unit must have been built before January 1,1954;
o Required on-site parking shall be provided for the primary dwelling and additional parking for the secondary
unit shall be at least one uncovered parking space, which may be provided in tandem to another existing
parking space;
o No more than two (2) persons may occupythe secondary dwelling unit;o An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units at all times;o The floor area of the secondary dwelling shall not exceed 640 SF; ando The secondary dwelling unit shall be able and made to conform to the requirements of the Califomia Health
and Safety Code.
This application for second unit amnesty came to us as the result of a "red tag" on construction being done
without a building permit. The second unit was found to meet the criteria for size and parking. Since the second
unit did not qualify for amnesty based on the date of construction, and City Planner determined that the second
unit must be removed. This would include the capping of any gas lines and the removal of the sink and
Item #4
Regular Action ltem
Determination of Second Dwelling Unil 826 Alpine Avenue
cementing of the sink pipes (see attached letter dated March 22, 2002). Under the Second Unit Amnesty
Program, the Planning Departrnent does not generally require abatement of second units that do not meet the
requirements. However, in this case the second unit was discovered as a result of illegal construction adjacent
to the living area.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The action is a
determination. The decision is whether the second unit meets the requirements for the date of construction of
the Second Unit Amnesty Program.
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
Attachments:
Dave Mani, letter dated August 1,2002, to Margaret Monroe, City of Burlingame, re: Appeal - Second Unit
AmnestyProgram
Planning Commission minutes from the JrlJy 22,2002PC meeting
Erika Lewit, ZorungTechnician, Memo dated March 22,2002to 826 Alpine Avenue File, re: code violations
on property
Erika Lewit, Zonrng Technician, Letter dated March 22,2002 to Dave Mani, 826 Alpine Avenue, re: letter to
abate second unit
Fred Cullum, Chief Building Official, Secondary Unit Inspection Report dated Febru ary 27 , 2002 for 826 Alpine
Avenue
Erika Lewit, ZonngTechnician, Letter dated Februxy 4,2002to Dave Main, 826 Alpine Avenue File, re: code
enforcement of illegal construction and second unit
Second Unit Amnesty Application
Appraisal Report - Assessor's office - san Mateo county, cA dated July l, 1948
2
MBMO
To: Margaret Monrog City of Burlingame
From: Dave Mani
826 Alpine Ave.
Burlingamg CA, 94010
RECE,YED
AUG - 5 ZrJrJZ
''11ffi1'gggpi,,
RE: appeal-Amnesty Program
Date:8101102
Dear Margaret:
Enclosed please find a check for $25.00 for the appeal process regarding the Amnesty
Prograr4 and my inJaw unit at 826 Alpine Ave..
As you know, I am appealing two sepaxatg but inter-linked, situations. I would like to
appeal the denial of my inJaw unit as it applies to the Amnesty program fust. The
second situation is the variance for set -back of an addition to my property. The inlaw is
the most important to me of the two situations. The reason it is primary to me is that a
legal inJaw unit will increase the appraised value of my property without me having to
build any additions what-so-ever. Ifthe denial ofthe in-law is reversed, and the inlaw
legahzed, then I intend to take down the structure that started this whole debate in the
fust place. As I explained to the Planning Commissio4 if I had known about the
Amnesty Program before my attempt to build an office/gym addition to my property, I
would have resolved the inJaw legality before ever attempting to build any addition.
I have also sent a letter for an appeal regarding a variance set-baclg along with a check
I realize the city has procedures, but, in my opinioq it would be redundant to appeal a
situation that is only of concem if my in-law is not legal, and thus, becomes a simple
bedroom. I would have appealed the inJadAmnesty decision months ago, if I would
have been given the opportunity to do so. I was never notified that this was an optiorl or,
at least, I never saw anything to this effect in my paperwork.
and you fior your time and attention to this matter.
A.9ra--
Mani
826 Alpine Ave
Burlingame, CA., 94010
C@{Bwliigarie Planaing Corunisston Unapproveil l,finuta
1A 543CORBITI -zol\tEn
AND
AND
STORY (ALFREDO
LA[.,RAB
PROJECT P SEANO
1B.BALBOA
STORY SIN
C.moved
FORDESIGN FORA
o ) (s6
based facts in report,
in the
July 22,2002
CANT
TWO-
NOTI
and
ofth€
in the with and by
2.
resolution.on was Chair called for vote on the
motion passed 7-0.proce&[es concluded :45 p.tr0.
VIII. REGULARACTIONTTEM
826.ALPII\TE AYENT]E _ ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK
VARTANCES FOR A FIBST FLOOR ADDnON (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNE& DAVID MANI, PROPERTY OWNER) (5I NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNEK SBAN
O'ROTJRKE
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Dave Mani, property owner, 825rA,lpine, apologized for trying
tn do conskuction without a permit, he did nc$Unk that rcplacing and expanding a shed built by his frther
and not visible from the sheet, was such a big deal; he provided d. ocumentation ofwork done previously by
his father at the rear ofthe original garage, he noted that the in-law unit was added in 1952 but had been
redrodeled a number of times including most recently ih 1984 so that there was nothing left of the 1952
improvements, therefore it did not qualify for amnesty; his second altemative was to treat the in law unit
area as an additional bedroorL decided to make it a master bedroom suite with a gm area offof iB wanb to
appreciate the value of the property. Commissioner asked where is the garage and room attached to the
house. Applicant noted that the front side of the garage atd house ire attacbed for about 6 feet at the rear
side ofth. e house, the mom is at the back of the garage and accessible only by going through the yard thrc
only way to access the .room from the house would be to put a door in the rear wall ofthe garage and use the
door from the kitchen into the garage. Commission asked about the hardship on the property for he2'9"
rear setback Applicant noted that he is only replacing what is there, there is no other place on the property
which makqs sense for this addition" will take too much yarrd, is located in a rear comer ofthe lot away from
neighbors. C,ommission discussed with the applicant the possible uses ofthe room and possibility oftaking
offthe shed area and replacing the original rear wall of the garage which appears to be about 13 feet from
lhe rear property line. Applicant noted that he wished to appreciate the value ofthe property by adding to it,
2
FAMILY D
_ZONED
WNER;
GANDD
KEYLO
FORA
Reference staffreport 7.8.02, with attacliments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staffcornments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration Commissioners asked: can a room be
rented in the single frmily zone, staffnot6d yes so loag as there. is no second kitchen in the house; iyhat' constitutes a kitcher4 staff noted a cooking elemen! will this hotse be inspected for the removal of the
kitchen, staffresponded yes, a building permit will not be fnaled until the plumbing has been removd
decommissioned or ernployed for some other use such as a bathroor& commission action can be so
conditioned. There were no further questions from the Commissioners.
bv c.
City of Buliagane Planniag Conuaission Uupprovd Mihuta
SPECTAL
APPLICANT;GAITCTT DESI
stalfrgport 7.8.02
ONAL AND
July 22,2N2
wantod to make it family friendly. There were no furtlrer comments from tte floor and the public hearing
was closed- C. Vistica excused hirnself fiom the meeting.
Commissioner discussion: difficult to support this reques! cannot meke the findings required the addition
would b€ close to the neighbor's fencr, ttere are othe: places on the site to build rhis exercise roorn, cannot
supporg the existing room at the back ofthe garage could be used as a S@ catrnot see hardship on the
propqty for the variance, other houses in the area are required to meet rear setbaclg once a variance is
granted it stays wilh the property, would not be surprised if this area werc used as an in-law unit in the
future, there are lots ofother ways to add a g1nn.
C. Boju€s noted thSt there are a lot of ways to add a g5m to this property, in side the house, add bn to the
existing house, add a second story, therefore a hanlship does noi exist on the property for this application
and uoved to deny the application by resolution based on the facts presented in t[e record and the absence
of hardship on the property, there are altematives. The motion was seconded by C. Auran
Cornment on the motion: object to both the replacement of the rehabilitated shed and the additional
construction of the gyrq concemed that if it were in a detached structure in the'reii yard could consider it
with a conditional use permit; the code requires the primary shucture to have a 15 foot setback for the gym
and office, does not me€q if applicant wants he can make a different proposal.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the request for si<le and rear setback variances.
The motion passed on a 6-0-l (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:20 p.m.
3. 36ARUNDELRO -.2,o NED R-l -ON FOR
R AN ACCES STRUCTI,]RE RAGE) (Ml
how wide would roll up door be;
in and out as a motor cycle; no
roll up door about 6 feet
no further
discussion:
PROPERTY O (68
reviewed and staff
There no questions.F
Minerva,and property represented
toallow in the storage
asked for of the the
types of doors "storage unit"
was so mrich space needed ofthe
move large
type ofdoor was since this a storage
to keep clean and ofthe house.were
RITA
attachments. CP presented
Four condi were suggested for
Chair Keigbran the public
project He he would bhange to the
and he happy to answer
existing and the need for
applicant the existing shed 20 SF, the roll up willnnkeit
fromthe and the public was closed.
that this large can be built to rear property
this is a large structure in a family
a house
could have SF in a garage
J
without a conditional permit and special and get the neede( could to from 35
C.
up dooE were
r
ner
rl'({lI
rumtnr
tlsslrtners
B
nol
ranor
neannt
no
noe
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
826 Alpine Avenue
Erika Lewit, Zoning Technician
code violations on propertY
3.22.02
Property was originally redtagged by the Building Department for illegal work at the rear of the
garage.
Investigation showed that a legal addition, 30'-0" in length and l3'-0" in width, was done in 1952 at
the rear of the garage. This information shown in the appraiser's report, although the length of the
addition is reported to be 2l'-0". Per the Building Official's inspection, the original addition length
was actually 30'-0".
The red tag given by the Building Dept. for a l0'-3" x 25'-0" section being erected at the rear of
thelg12addition, with a 3'-6" side setback, where code required 4'-0" anda2'-9" rear setback, where
code required 15'-0". Further investigation by the Planning Dept. showed that there was a second
unit on the property, in the 1952 addition.
Property owner was informed that in order to apply for variances to finish construction of the
adCltioa, the property would first have to be made conforming with regards to the second unit (see
letter frbm Planning Department dated Febru^ry 4,2002). Property owner submitted an application
for second unit amnesty. Building Official's inspection showed no evidence that the second unit
existed before 1954 and therefore, the property did not qualiff for second unit amnesty (see
Secondary Unit Inspection Report, inspection date February 21, 2002 and letter from Planning
Department dated March 22,2002.)
Second unit amnesty purview did not involve abatement of second units for which an application
was received if they did not meet the requirements. However, in this case the second unit was
discovered as a result of the red tag on the property.
Planning Department determined that the second unit must be removed, including the capping of any
gas lines and the removal of the sink and cementing of the sink pipes (see March 22,2002letter).
Once unit is removed, owner can apply for the variances to have red-tagged addition approved. Ifthe
owner chooses not to apply for the variances, the construction must be entirely removed (10'-3" x
25'-0" section atrear of 1952 addition).
The City of Burlingame
PLAI.IND,IG DEPARTME Tf
crrY HAII 501 PRIMROSE ROADTEL (650)55&7250
BITRLINGAM4 CAUFORNIA 940IG3997FAX: (650)69C3790
March 22,2002
David Mani
826 Alpine Avenue
Burlingame CA 94010
DearMr. Mani,
Attached is the Secondary Unit Inspection Report for 826 Alpine Avenue. It is the determination of the
Building Official that the second unit on site does not qualiff for the amnesty program; there is no
evidence that the kitchen was installed prior to 1954.
Itis notinthepurview ofthe SecondUnitAmnestyProgram to abate secondaryunitsthatdonotqualify
for the program. However, in this case the application for amnestywas zubmitted as a direct result ofthe
Red Tag (stop work order) issued by the Building Department to the property for illegal consfruction.
Therefore, the following items must tre done o{r-the propertyto avoid code enforcement action bythe
CityAttomey's office:
1. A permit must be obtained from the Building Deparhnent to remo've the kitchen sink and the gas
line in the 30'-0" x 13'-0" area behind the garage; removal of the kitchen sink includes filling the
waste line with concrete or an equivalent material and removal of the gas line includes capping ofr
the line behind the wall or floor;
and
2. An application for a variance for the illegal, Red-Tagged, partially constnrcted l0'-3" x25'-0"
addition must be submitted to the Planning Deparfinent. In the event that the variance application is
approved, a permit must be obtained from the Building Departrnent for the construction of the
addition; or
3. A dernolition permit must be obtained from the Building Deparment to remove the illegal, Red-
Tagged 10'-3' x25'-0" addition partially constructed at the rear of the lot.
A refund of the remaining fee for your Second Unit Amnesty application is currently being processed.
Please submit for the required permits in the Building Department or Planning Departlent by April 12,
2002. Permits issuedbythe BuildingDeparfinentto eliminatethe sinkandgas lineinthe secondunitor
to demolish the Red-Tagged construction must be completed by May 17,2002.
If you have any questions, you can contact me at 65q 558'7252.
Sincerely,
Erika Lewit
ZonngTecbnician
dJ"*d,-*
SECOI\DARY T]i\tIT INSPECTION
CITY OF BI]RLINGAME
Address: 826 Alpine Avenue
Inspection Date: February 27r2002
Note: Inspection was performed to check for compliance with the minimum requirements
of the State Health and Safety Code Secti on 17920 and to determine whether the unit was in
place prior to 1954. The Health and Safety Code provisions assure minimum levels of safety and
health of occupants but do not imply compliance with current State Code requirements for the
structure or its systems, current energy conservation standards or any local zoning ordinances.
Brief Description of Unit:
Unit occupies space in an addition to the rear of the original garage. The garage addition was
done in 1952 under permit, but the dimensions exceed those indicated in the old assessor's
appraisal report. The unit is a two-room apartnent with a full bath and kitchen with gas range.
The unit is approximately 390 squrlre feet in area.
lnspection Results:
I see no evidence that this area was converted to a dwelling unit prior to 1954. The older wiring
in the garage addition is knob-and-tube, appropriate to the 1950s in this area, while the wiring for
the unit's outlets and fixtures are a much more recent installation of non-metallic-sheathed cable.
The windows in the unit have been replaced (without building permit) to vinyl framed slip-ins.
The foundation stemwall is exposed in the unit as is customarily seen in garages. The toilet was
manufactured in 1991, and is most likely contemporary with the rest of the remodeled area. There
is no plumbing vent on the kitchen sink, which violated the plumbing cade at the time of the
sink's installation and the range hood is a ductless, filtered unit not available prior to the late
lg70k.''f '
In my opinion, while the garage addition was completed in the early 50's, the unit was not
installed prior to the late 70's, but most probably in 1991 or later.
Recommendations;
Remove the kitchen sink and the gas line supplying the range. Permanently fill the kitchen sink
waste line with concrete or equivalent material. Procure permits for this work as well as all
electrical work in the addition and call for inspection of that wiring.
Cullum
ICBO Certified Combination Dwelling Inspector #1315
ICBO Certified Plans Examiner #76774
The City of Burlingame
PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT
CTTY HALL 5OI PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME CALIFORNIA 94010'397
TEL: (650) 5sE-7250
FA)(: (6s0) 69637q)
February 4,2002
David Mani
826 Alpine Avenue
Burlingame CA 94010
DearMr. Mani,
Attached is the plan check for the second unit amnesty applicationatS26 Alpine Avenue.
A Red Tag was issued on November 19, Z00i to the stnrcture being built at the rear of the second unit on the
property. This structure is considered an extension to the existing second unit. You have the following options
to resolve the code violations on the property at826 Alpine Avenue (refer to page 2 of the plan check):
l. To continue withthe secondunitamnestyapplication, youmustremove the RedTaggedworkattherear
of the propertg or
2. To retain and legalize the Red-Taggedwork atth-,e rearofthe property, you must remove the secondunit
(kitchen and bath) and aprry for the necessary permits/ variances for the addition; or
3. you can remove the second unit (kitchen and bath) and remove the Red-Tagged work at the rear of the
property.
please contact me by March lr2002,to inform me of the course you wish to pursue. Demolition permits will be
required by the Building Department to remove any work on site. If you have any questions, you can contact me
at (650) 5s8-72s2.
Sincerely,
Erika kwit
ZnningTechnician
c. Mark Robertson
crry oF BURLTNGAME PLANNTNG DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 69G3790
Project
Parcel Number:
APPLICATIT PROPERTY OWNER
Phone
u1, i{,/t -l'1/-A l;-ir
Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project.
AI'I'ADAYITISIGNATURE: I hereby certiff under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and best of my and belief.
Applicant's
I know about the proposed application hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning
Properly owner's
Date
Note: Property owners and applicants will not be penalized if the second unit on the
property does not meet the amnesty requirements.
RECEI,VED
JAN 1 7 ?OOZ
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
SECOND T]NIT AMNESTY APPLICATION
CitylstatetZip:
Phone (w):
Date: z (3, "
t
t87,,I kkt/
t,YALLT €34fi7fbck
coNolTtoN
toR
PITCH
Yg.lz( - fr/nrn,"ST
pae s.rt.o r
guil.DtNc /
{#
ExcAVATEoE GhADE LEVE.-E
lLgS
coSt 7i)cooo ear,ua.'
AASEMENTGAf,AO€ 4r? x 134zr ? <l.r trooRs /* oy'"'"H!'o
wALLa rt - '3 BooF{7tttr n e.altto --r?-r'+rLOOR
ZrlrrPda,t/2
GARAGEG ra /6C /o2.)
YSIF Dutt't GOOD MEDIUMotr
FgORtr
NEvl,
.p!l*
FutwrrdrsAL. AND EGoNoM rc or:FEcrs\. ,lA
aa -aa
TOTAL 7L.f+/
zoNr!{G APPRAIAEOLer,atzE
.t.'nl'' .r"li.
;il:
t'
i'lrai:*.'
i5t i,:
't'; I
NG
FIXTURES NO-
. WALLS
.r ?;4 64A4C€
EliorflER6
WATER HEATER
F
BU .IN F
4
APPRAISER'S OPINTON OF
ADDITlONA
PRIcE
FOR
P
I
ao
CEILING6 ,
t/'
tl
)
K
.r'::
"{
I
tr,
4
!,'- t
i:.'.
,t
&
'q
\
1
,t
-
M
',.,b-..
s
,:.:,
J,
| .:,
Rm,tcs quf<- $an
hO^\ tz-,76L
EZb hpi^!a_ frlpouq*
;04tt 9flrr.188fii.,6 (fli+r. ,
t
I
L,-
-
l$ftfio-i,
i$b
T;*,1*.Dysl.r:
nd-a -, 11!6,f
o'--id 'a 4r!z>!
6L-gW
irfi
:tltiEf,rD,
'i)
t
+-
+
I
I
rrrorals@
S,sPr
\F))
-'1
$rt;'rr
{+
h4il
I
I
I
/1
0 Dit
Qs
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.4
Zqa',v* 1r'tSlk alAtt o'c fr/u1)
hrc,C €laaZ Ey'rrHrrtce
8.Zb.vL
i
Yld' 51EC' t!l'":)
'7
I
I
I
!'ii
::
i.'-
t.', ,:.t
I
1
I
I
I
i; ,.
1I
'i i
fi)ll
I.!
ilt.ti
.,1.:ta!!
l:
I
I
,
Ir:€
',\.
,i ,
!
I
il
t
ri
d
\
:,,:
fltl3t(/
l(f
E,Z-{-,sz
v6t'R
,1,
+
a-'-'7
*--7
'g:s
'.' 'l
-.:*.-.tri-
rl
i
i't t
t
\
-_-?:"1
#GAS
A\n
8.zc-.tz
.ft-
s.'!
t,
e4i)
6142<
{,
wld<
/lDf
CAS
^._->
i)
-*
--->
r
lrl/
,//actt,
b
o \
:ln.i
\\\\
Lt IItII
&zt *
---)-
' )..'
@
':t
+.
TJt *:-
:{(
I
::'- *.r
#
1i?f'
.
a
i.
:,.
.b.
i, l
li {
"t.i ; I
't' rJi:. i .,*-at.:; a!.. v.: -: t
f;
\./-
I
'..-" :
\;
.. ::::
-a-
\a\t -+
-->,)
Hof
WA|EK
oR)C-
Pt?E
?-zUe
'FH;,,#,'
**i;i"ft;':
- T:*
a
*.' .,r.:: : .r"S
l
:
I \
I r,t
I
- i:J-S.,-.i.
'' ,+..;.-!.. - ;+'
,i ''*it
I ;8.
- :i&t
{
"; .i
tr
s
E
B
g
E-z-{-.62-
a
{+
t
.!
I
i
i
I
J
Bzt.oz
J,
.. -* "a
&!'
ji,)\
l, ,:. i,tl i
i,
$r
i;-t
!i
: -:.,:,.-
!l.r --. - . .- .-
I
_.' i :..
:,,.
,t
g7r_.a_
.':;"'
q
,
\
{
,-lt:: '
..,..-.
'. ifti*i
\\---------1,'-..,'.
.-.. *r.::.r
- -:.', f....,'L\' {tt'
,- *'._::x =-.^'.
8?J*cZ-
t;
&d
It
{
*
i
.j, :
wt*
;,:,.
€ffI+
J
oRr&645L\NB
oR\G
6AsLIl.tE ORIG
N
J.
/
l(rq{'rt{
ua(T
.l,
f
\€NT
,t /ril
Z.Z-l*.Dz-
+jts
'L,*
abo
t
6
!.
I,itt,
F
I
Idt
6a1
I
rh*
eI
I
'.}.:::"
.!......
;:
s
L
it, :
EZt-,oL
\-
..\
t_:::-t"'
-: L.1{
\
I
I zs-.;t
forR
8.zt-;L
i,}*. '"'-*" .t. . . .:lr-;.t "'--*fqfu-- ;"d,1## " ',;
..t
.'t'"1
.,:1,
FIEc
@#,fliui**$;r
825 AIPINE AVENUE
APPeal of a Planning Commission
deEerminafion on whether a second unit
i.r"iiii"" roi tt'" second unity Amnesty
program at 826 Alpine Avenue' zoned R-1'
laplr, 029-026-22o)
The CitY of Burlingame CitY Council
announces the following public hearing
on 15 2002 at 7:00
P.M.tshe Ey HaI1 Council Chambers
located at 501 Primro se Road,
Bur,lingame , California
Mailed SePtember 6' 2oO2
(Please refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAJI4E
A copy of the
to the meeting
Burlingame,
If you
raising
, described
at or prior
Property
tenants
558-7250.
Margaret
City Planner
PU CE
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE
be reviewed prior
Primrose Road,
be limited to
hearing
to the city
their
call (650)
CaLlro xrA.
(Please refer to other side)
I
)x-T>.on)' S ft^,Q/.^4
I
f-
I
I
i
t,,A
l"..rt- ,L
1- r 3 - o z-
LL4le
t-rv
Fa*l*/*Ar^-
tlh*l{/L
A*,L w
W
p-il*,
To: Ann Musso
Burlingame City Council
From: David Mani
826 Alpine Ave., Burlingame
RE: Amnesty Appeal
Date: 091 13102
RECEIVED
8,'#8iilfii,'$[[]fiE
A-,"*
k*1r4 f"-iu-l.L
Dear Council Member Musso,
Enclosed is a preview package regarding my Amnesty Appeal.
I would also be delighted to have you see the property for yourself So I am inviting you
to come on by this week-end, if you can find the time. I can be reached at 650-347-6123.
Just let me know when you might be available, and I will be there to greet you.
Thanks so much.
I A-1<-
David Mani
und for Amnesty Ap aI,826 Al Ave., Burlingame
My name is David Mani, and I am the property owner of 826 Alpine Avenue,
Burlingame, CA., 94010.
I am scheduled to appear before you at the City Council meeting Monday, September
l6s,,2OO2. I wish to appeal my Denial of Amnesty regarding an inlaw unit located on
my property.
This package has been prepared for you in the hopes that you will preview the contents
priorio the Council meeting September 16ft. The enclosed photographs, an independent
finding by Lindstrom Plumbing, and subsequent observations, are being presented to
enable you to clearly understand and evaluate the extent of my evidence substantiating
the existence of my inJaw unit, with kitchen and battr, prior to 1954. First, I believe a
little background information is in order.
Why an Amnesty Program in the first place?
Burlingame inJaw units, both legal and illegal, became prevalent during, and after,
World War II. Kaiser built a large steel company in South San Francisco for the war
effiort. From this, and the enormous population migration to the West Coast after the
war, created the Peninsula's need for affordable housing. Burlingame condoned and
encouraged the building of these in-law units for these very reasons.
It is my understanding that the Amnesty Program was established to bring applicable pre-
1954 Burlingame in-law units up to current housing codes, and safety regulations. The
overall benefit is an increase in affordable housing for the City of Burlingame. Current
applicable "illegal" in-law units may also be "legalized" if found to meet the criteria set
out by the Amnesty Program.
The major pre-requisite for an inlaw unit to be granted Amnesty, basically boils down
to evidence substantiating the existence of a kitchen in the unit prior to 1954.
How can the existence of a kitchen be proved?
l) City Assessor Reports, dated prior to 1954, indicating a legal in-law unit, with
kitchen, as part of a given properry. If this report is not available, then...
2) Inspection of the actual in-law unit by a City inspector, to determine if an inlaw
kitchen existed prior to 1954. Bathrooms, for some reason, are not part of the equation.
The inspector would be looking into
a) the in-law kitchen itself.
b) electrical wiring in the walls of the inlaw kitchen of the type commonly used
pre-1954.
c) original undisturbed plumbing associated with pre-1954, especially if a date
can be found cast into the cast iron plumbing pipes.
d) construction techniques peculiar to 1954 and earlier, such as foundation,
roofing, windows, doors, etc..
3) At first glance, this all seems rather straight forward. But I have run into the following
problems:
a) Burlingame City Housing Records , during the pre-1954 era, have been found
to be missing, vague, or inaccurate.
b) Many Burlingame property owners have remodeled their in-law units, legal or
illegal, with or without permit, once, twice, or even three times over the past 50
year period What if the inJaw kitchen was completely remodeled after 1954, to
include new sheet rock on the walls, new electrical service, new plumbing,
fixtures, and all the rest associated with a remodel? What would an inspector look
for under these circumstances?
Primarily, inspectors would be looking for supporting evidence of "original" undisturbed
plumbing, possibly with a date stamp, original pre-1954 gas lines, pre-1954 electrical
wiring, etc.. Inspection of the actual structure itself could also lead one to believe that the
construction was consistent with the rest of the dwelling, and of the period.
It needs to be mentioned here that manufacturers of cast iron plumbing pipes, of the type
used at 826 Alpine, typically did not stamp dates onto, or into, the metal of their pipes.
So this leaves us with the problem that without a verifring Assessor's Report, and/or an
un-remodeled 48 year old kitchen, how can anyone truly prove the existence of a pre-
1954 kitchen? This is exactly why I feel I am being unfairly denied!
826 Alpine, Burlingame, was built and completed in 1948. An addition was added in
1952, behind the existing garage, according to an Assessor's Report found in the
Burlingame city files. By 1973, when the property was sold to my parents, Amedeo and
Nancy Mani, a kitchen and bath had been illegally added to the "addition". Shortly after
my parents purchase in 1973, an 8 x 10 ft "workshop" was added (without permit) to the
AI Overview & Su rti Docum
back of the "in-law" unit. In 1991, the interior of the in-law unit was completely
remodeled, without permit, to include new electrical service, some copper plumbing
upgrades, new sheetrock, relocation of the kitchen sink with new cabinets and fixtures
The purpose of this remodel was to allow me to move into the unit to care for my ailing
parents. I purchased the home from the Mani Trust in 1998, after my parents passed
away.
In 2001, the 1973 "workshop" was in severe need of dry rot repair, so I demolished it,
and construction of a larger, second structure was initiated to take the place of the
demolished workshop. Both demolition of the "workshop", and the new construction
were performed without permit.
The new construction was "red tagged", afler a noise complaint, in December,2OOl, and
work stopped. During the "red tag", the illegal in-law unit was discovered by city
inspector's, and the following ultimatum was given to me by the City of Burlingame.
apply for Amnesty Approval for the in-law unit, and remove the existing new
construction; or give-up the possible legalization of the in-law unit, remove the
kitchen, and ask for a "set back variance" from the Planning Commission to
allow the completion of the new construction.
The "set back variance" was denied by the Commission, and the City found the "in-law"
unit not applicable for Amnesty approval. On August 26,2002, I appealed the Amnesty
decision to the Burlingame Planning Commission, and again was denied Amnesty
approval. An appeal to the Burlingame City Council is scheduled for September 16,
2002.
A Demolition Permit was issued to me by the City of Burlingame on Sept 10,2002, to
remove the "red tagged" structure. Demolition was completed Sept 12, ZOOZ.
Evidence Su lied For Amn roval
1) Placement of the inlaw unit on the property footprint-detached from the main house,
located behind the garage.
2) Photo documents , taken by myselfl showing original, undisturbed plumbing, to
include gas line, hot and cold water, and "knob and tube" electrical ail teading.to the in-
law unit. The photo's also show the original plumbing and wiring above the present
ceiling of the in-law unit.
3) Close inspection of the construction of the roof above the garage and inJaw unit
disagree with the Assessor's Report from 1952. The roofingionslruction ind.icates that
the addition was added in 1948, as part of the original construction of the house. A
majority, about 75%o of the roof s sheathing lx 10 inch x 16 foot planks, run continuously
I
from the garage into the in-law area without any saw cuts what-so-ever. Assuming the
garage roof had been completed in 1948, and an addition added in 1952, all the roof
sheathing planks associated with the garage roof would have been cut offat the point of
the "seam". I found 75o/o of the sheathing planks uncut at the point where they pass over
the "seam". The only possible explanation for this, is that the 1948 garage roof was
framed without any "addition" as part of the original plans. The roof framing was then
changed to accommodate the "addition", while the few rows of sheathing that had already
been applied were cut at the point of the "seam". The remainder of the now "twice-as-
long" garagelin-law roof was completed as original construction.
4) If item #3 above is true, then the plumbing at 826 Alpine, including the lines to the
in-law unit, which appear to have never been altered accept for the 1991 remodel, would
have been installed in 1948, not 1952.
5) The 1952 Assessor's Report showing the "addition" also contains major mistakes, and
is of little use. For example, the "addition' is shown as measuring 21 feetx 13 feet, when
in reality, it is actually 31 feet x 13 feet.
In 1948, during a period of intense construction of new homes, at a time when affordable
housing in the form of in-law units was prevalent, what was the intent and purpose of
adding a detached (from the main house) "addition" to 826 Alpine, if it wasn't to be an
inlaw unit? This unit has existed for as long as Mani family have been associated with
the property, Frankly, considering the spirit of the Amnesty Program, I am shocked that
I'm being asked to remove it.
David J.
Property
826 Alpine Ave., Burligame, CA., 94010
--^>/./
)
,/oo,urvG 4r /Saa( alatt oF -fr/utA)
7i*Z 6;t,aCE E4/rre4,.\/ctz
L
a
-EI a\
I
I
I
tl
ll
.ff
F
I
a8.!rE&[gts!'o
I
I
*-n
f.
--+>
,1,
,4of
tA/AdR
Hor4ffttD /o *-*
+
@45 rt
S.,ffi
at
fo
I **T
w
-
*-V
t'
--"'-'
WI
l$i
lffi"t
LIast
T
i
<.-GASfblAlr/
I
@s
r#iisa --->.
E.
t
I
1
r/
I
I
II
-.r'
!ffi
{
6 -->
-f.VUtvl
,L
&$)
614&
*-v
-*
c4S
---*
,//uld,h
l*',fo l,!
I
rLw. --t
I
)
-i+
\
-1
0
.a
b.
-::1Q1,*
t
€
!
*9,
II.,ilfE
E'ts
EEE
E
'4.t;tJ
=--_-
I
I
t
,
,
II
./I
L
/lvf
,L
-->
.-_>>HofN4|EK
__>oR) e-
Fr?E
I
..-
t
- .,1
i
I
1
I
I
[ 'u
] ?.
['' '
E',
Er
I
,, {,'1,
lkrr---,3r-.
-
1
*
,. g,l
t
tl
?
Fsr
w{r€.2
*;r
t
{
/%*.ffi.w E
t ,f
\
-
n
z ./
L.
[}.
7
w
i-
7
D
t
-a
-
Eae'-ITI
E-
t )
1Ii
I
,1,
rr? l
,1,
I
\\
!t-..-
ail
,lr-
+_x__,\*i
g
h
t
-
Er&r":fr3i-
/
\: -.'
G:ry
x+
oRt6
€t"w
'.1,
t
t t
r
\
-L-a
+
a
E,
i
-r-
!T
',1,
oRt6&45
LINE'
"ega-l ,.{ t"
,t
I
BAT}I Y
VEtT-+
;
Hrcilrt1\'4(r
t,
\}-
aE
L.L.-L.
I
L.{
I
*;
b
T .,_T \
\
-
lr.lst
{F
l/
//
otu(,
VENf
l{otE,
VENI- --+-BAiX
t},
oRl&
G4SL\NB
J,
oR rG64sLlNE
+'o'
galGf,s
. lg$
/
KIK*fl{ua(r
l/
$
It
I
VENTDfrt
I
3
,
q
,
aAc
E
?,,6
T
I-I.
7,
t;AiIIilHrt
?l
\
\
l--r-*-
'44/*d
\
I
br
I
l
I
C
t
E
l--
ORIG
Ootd tr\
L
l(?,f il
Y
I
Sq
,l
Eit
,1tr
&
C
i
I
oR\6
64St] F\E
FOR
.SrclfE
1+
fl
\d
OR\GF'Pa
rcH
-l1ur",z --*
->-
ORIG
Ei-Ec
FoR,5uw
t )
I
.!l;
L)/VCa / 's/*?*ANCAi
siliAlfoi?tG
sfiEarftGA@ @ @@o@
J,1411
.A)/E
/\t Cur47
JEa*1 /[\
$
!
//l*4
olerei€
I
)-,/
s,I
F=
E
I ,,
,tr
J /
-
,
-
2-{
'1I
\?
-
D "'.- -lh,-
II
\
-
\
-+s81t4
LINE
I -:.qir-
Ebait -.:i.-:!
{t
I
,l
,Jtt
aaka
I
rl'l,t
II
SEArYuNt -_-_>?
//,,/
trnquE
€
If- =--.-___
i - -::i,
ar
a
I
-t
3I
I
U^/atf '
9147,{I
@
@
I
T
r
.v
l{Il
-
- - --..-- .i.'
*r;.j
try$
Tt-
I
u-":-:=
I
I
L I t\!3 l KUt-r LU t53kl s{f :j '+5AE A-q/ 16/42 @3 r '35pm P . AAI-
i:!:l rct-t9
A /.\I I n i r t f r r B 4 t ,tr^a t f, tL I 11 L{/ fl ffi {-l,rtr1 t* LJ.,
l1;i BAVSWATE{t AVt:}.rt,,(: f -iA\.1 l!-4,1.1ir-!. C}1 !+44ili ! P 1('.r.1;: i4i il 343 4ir4.?
Septerber 16, 2002
Mr. Darrid l'h:ti
826 Alpine Avem-re
Buriingane, Ca 9401+
Dear 1,1r. l4ani,
'r,{ith refererrce Eo ycnrr resiclance ar 826 Alpine Ar,naRre, &rr}ilgarre Ca,
I hawe physiealiy inspected the larmdr,v sink arrd all pha:rbing originating
aE the hor warer ireater a:d leadirg to the rnain house and in*late u"ri-t, as
i're-i l- as rhe 3as 1ines anrcl have fc,rmri thsn all to be original il their dateof insraliat-ion; nrli:sit 1ike1y installed r.i:en rJ:e h<me r..as built-
Tn checkir-rg rhe oieb:::es .sr:.oplj-ed by I4r. lllarri: it appears tlrat f-here has
bem no nsnr work dcne, or perfortned, to t*te roof as yctr can see r}re old
style 'hob and tube" elecrrical iines througlr the roof rafters for the
srtire latgth of rite garage/in-1aar roof .
if ;rou have any firther questicrrrs or concerns, please ccfntact np at che
^CC: ^^UI!ICE.
A1 Petriac
E'nrmrrr
lrllLrDLrr-/t:i v{-r. r J.Lrr.tuJJ-LtFr
lt l,/-a{-
sTnTi: i. r{l hr(f 2445()cifiA4( lalEl l,rir--ntr[!FQA r f'a]il-T]tacT,]R\
llt
iF
f\\
*
..r I
D )i :t
li
t' :: l.
..')
t,..'
1
L
-r-\!lII
Irll t
t -:->-.r '-*tI ''
--_
L-I
.
t,, ,i1g
I
fllfi,l
YIl.r""*<
To: Cathy Baylock
Burlingame City Council
From: David Mani
826 Alpine Ave., Burlingame
RE: Amnesty Appeal
Date. O9l l3lg2 L ilF,*
tt)A,o W")--
CTY
cffY
Ar'r^-ved&)-
CEI
sff 1 z ifr8?
CLERK'S OFFICE
OF BURLINGAME
Dear Council Member Bayloclc,
Enclosed is a preview package regarding my Amnesty Apped.
I would also be delighted to have you see the properf for yourself. So I am inviting you
to come on by this week-end, if you can find the time. I can be reached at 650-347-6123-
Just let me know when you might be availablg and I will be there to greet you.
Thanks so much.
David Mani
I
Background for Amn esty A 826 Atpine Ave.,Burlingame
My name is David Mani, and I am the property owner of 826 Alpine Avenue,
Burlingame, CA., 94010.
I am scheduled to appear before you at the City Council meeting Monday, September
16-,2002. I wish to appeal my Denial of Amnesty regarding an in-law unit located on
my property.
This package has been prepared foryou in $e hopes that you will preview the contents
prior to the Council meeting September l6e. The enclosed photographs, an independent
finding by Lindstrom Plumbing, and subsequent observationq are being presented to
enable you to clearly understand and evaluate the extent of my evidence iubstantiating
the existence of my inJaw unit, with kitchen and bath, prior to 1954. First, I believe a
little background information is in order.
Why an Amnesty Program in the first place?
Burlingame inJaw units, both legal and illegal, became prevalent during and after,
World War tr. Kaiser built a large steel company in South San Francisio for the wareffort- From thiq and the enormous population migration to the West Coast after the
war, created the Peninsula's need for affordable housing. Burlingame condoned and
encouraged the building of these inJaw units for these very reasons.
It is my understandin_S that the Amnesty Program was established to bring applicable pre-
1954 Burlingame inJaw units up to current housing codes, and safety..grtutionr. The
overall benefit is an increase in affordable housing for the City ofBurlirg*" Current
applicable *illegal" inJaw units may also be "legalized" if found to meet the criteria set
out by the Amnesty Program.
The major pre-requisite for an in-law unit to be granted Amnesty,. basically boils down
to evidence substantiating the existence of a kitchen in the unit prior to 1954.
How can the existence of a kitchen be proved?
l) City Assessor Reports, dated prior to 195{ indicating a legal inJaw uniq with
kitcheq as part of a given property. Ifthis report is not available, then...
2) lnspection of the actual in-law unit by a Crty inspector, to determine if an in-law
kitchen existed prior to 1954. Bathrooms, forsom-e reason, are not part of the equation.
The inspector would be looking into.
a) the in-law kitchen itselfl
b) electrical wiring in the walls of the in-law kitchen ofthe type commonly used
pre-1954.
c) original undisturbd plumbing associated with pre-1954, especially if a date
can be found cast into the cast iron plumbing pipes.
d) construction techniques peculiar to 1954 and earlier, such as foundation,
roofing windows, doors, etc..
3) At first glancq this all seems rather straight forward. But I have run into the following
problems:
a) Burlingame City Housing Records , during the pre-195 4 er4 have been found
to be missing, vaguq or inaccurate.
b) Many Burlingame property owners have remodeled their inJaw units, legal or
illegal, with or without permit, once, twice, or even three times over the p*t so
year period. what if the inJaw kitchen was completely remodeled after 1954,to
include new sheet rock on the walls, new electrical servicq new plumbing,
fixtures, and all the rest associated with a remodel? What would an inspector look
for under these circumstances?
Primarily, inspectors would be looking for supporting evidence of "original" undisturbed
Pl-ulbing, possibly with a date stamp, original pre-1954 gas lines, pr"-1lS+ electrical
wiring, etc.. Inspection ofthe actual structure itself could also lead- one to believe that the
construction was consistent with the rest of the dwelling, and ofthe period.
It needs to be mentioned here that manufacturers of cast iron plumbing pipes, ofthe type
used at 826 Alpine, typically did not stamp dates onto, or into, the metai of tfreir pipes.
So this leaves us with the problem that without a verifiing Assessor's Report, and/o. a,
un-remodeled 48 year old kitcheq how can anyone truly prove the existence of a pre-
1954 kitchen? This is exactly why I feel I am being unfairly denied!
826 Alpine, Burlingamg was built and completed in 1948. An addition was added in
1952, behind the existing garage, according to an Assessor's Report found in the
Burlingame city files. By 1973, when the property was sold to my parentq Amedeo and
Nancy Mani, a kitchen and bath had been illegally added to the'idtition". Shortly after
my parents purchase tn 1973, an 8 x l0 ft "workshop" was added (without permit) to the
AI Overview & Su Documen
back of the "in-laur" unit. In 1991, the interior of the in-law unit was completely
remodeled, without permit, to include new electrical service, some copper plumbing
upgrades, new sheetroclg relocation of the kitchen sink with new cabinets and fixtures.
The purpose of this remodel was to allow me to move into the unit to care for my ailing
parents. I purchased the home from the Mani Trust in 1998, after my parents pug"a
away.
In 2001, the 1973 "workshop" was in severe need of dry rot repair, so I demolished it,
and construction of a larger, second structure was initiated to take the place of the
demolished workshop. Both demolition of the "workshop", and the new construction
were performed without permit.
The new construction was "red tagged", after a noise complaint, in Decembeq 2001, and
work stopped. During the "red tag", the illegal inJaw unit was discovered by crty
inspector's, and the following ultimatum was given to me by the City of Burlingame:
apply for Amnesty Approval for the inJaw unit, and remove the existing new
construction, or give-up the possible legalization of the inJaw unit, remove the
kitcheq and ask for a "set back variance" from the Planning Commission to
allow the completion of the new construction.
The "set back variance" was denied by the Commission, and the City found the .'in-law,,
unit not applicable for Amnesty approval. On August 2,6,2002, I appealed the Amnesty
decision to the Burlingame Planning Commissioq and again was denied Amnesty
approval- An appeal to the Burlingame City Council is scheduled for Septembei 16,
2002.
ADemolition Permit was issued to me by the City ofBurlingame on Sept 10,2002,to
remove the "red tagged" structure. Demolition was compleied Sept 12, zoo2.
Evidence Su For
1) Placement of the in-law unit on the property footprint--detached from the main housg
located behind the garage.
2) Photo documents, taken by myse[, showing original, undisturbed plumbing, to
include gas linq hot and cold water, and "knob and tube- electrical d reaainiio the in-
law unit. The photo's also show the original plumbing and wiring above thelresent
ceiling of the inlaw unit.
3) Close inspection ofthe construction of the roof above the garage and inlaw unit
disagree with the Assessor's Report from 1952. The roofingionstruction indicates that
the addition was added in 1948, aspart of the original consiruction ofthe house. A
majority, about 75Yo of the roofs sheathing lx lOlnch x 16 foot planks, run continuously
from the garage into the inJaw area without any saw cuts what-so-ever. Assuming the
garage roof had been completed in 1948, and an addition added in 1952, all the roof
sheathing planks associated with the garage roof would have been cut offat the point of
the "seam". I found 75Yo of the sheathing planks uncut at the point where they pass over
the "seam"- The only possible explanation for this, is that the 1948 garage roof was
framed without any "addition" as part of the original plans. The roofframing was then
changed to accommodate the "addition", while the few rows of sheathing thai had atready
been applied were cut at the point of the "seam". The remainder ofthe now "twice-as-
long" garagefin-law roof was completed as original construction.
4) If item #3 above is true, then the plumbing at826 Alpirre including the lines to the
in-law unit, which appear to have never been altered aciept for the l99l remodel, would
have been installed in 1948, not 1952.
5) The 1952 Assessor's Report showing the "addition" also contains major mistakes, and
is of little use. For example, the "addition' is shown as measuring Zl feitx 13 feet, when
in reality, it is actually 31 feet x 13 feet.
In 1948, during a period of intense construction of new homeq at a time when affordable
housing in the form of in-law units was prevalen! what was the intent and purpose of
{9ing a detached (from the main house) "addition" to 826 Alpine, ifit wasn'f to be an
inlaw unit? This unit has existed for asiong as Mani family have been associated with
the property. Frankly, considering the spirit of the Amnesty Progra4 I am shocked that
I'm being asked to remove it.
David J.
Property
826 Alpine Ave., Burligamq CA, 94010
Z*urrg /r /slk a/,att o,c -fr/aaa)
/i*a €-t,aar 5:47rs47lcE
i
li;:l
a
:'
al
i_-
|-'t';t;
i]! -'
en-n;*fC' fl':l
I
j
I
.l
I
;
I
:
I
I
I
I
I
I
,i
i
!:f,f:
?/ofvAffi
+to
f,(1.r4\,(/
lC);-*,rrt
\^/
-zfo
i,
\
o
-6
.:.
-;;-i
l
t
f,
I
:1i
I
- .:t.:;i-i
. ,,i-:.
..--- \:'-,
4. ..
ii;irfi
.r{!:5;ii€ir
<_GAS-'i2alv
lAv./
,L
coo)
6,i478<
t)
+
^_>
r
b,
*->
c4S
,//ctt4
,b EBG
.'-'-:;*-.5, ,.. ...I
?
II\l'lc.\{\1 \\
-__>-
, ,a-'
.:i' ::,fr'
'., .
...
Pnt;;'
_ .'_:. :..
G
i.
I
I
.b.
.)a
:1.;.'S.:
+j
a-
f;v
.a
"-';.-FE=
' ::.-
f
fF- -- I
t:*l:..
I
//Df
{,
,i
..-->
.*->>HoTN.4ER,, T,,
--+-oR)a
Ft?E
,
+-r$
i
fi
.l
:
\I
I
t
;.
J
I
I
i
i,
:.\
' r, .1: t l.t
4
.lq:.'
q
: r-
€
t
a
s
--a
I
t
i j:!l
I
1
i ...: ..l-,-l'-
t
!
B
,t
KrCH
.l: -'"
G
',, )
t.
t . .t ti
$
t!
.,,.',
i .,:
,1,
I
i
t
4
t,
€t#c.
i;
oet6eqslJNE
IArl+
/EtT-
Yil'tr
{,
. ]..:{-. ,:.:_
I
t.i
'?.n'-4
:-. ...
oBr6
VEsT
HOeE
//
e
J
o
GASL\NB
t{T<*(fl{ua(r
t,
f
V€^fTuftr
.lji:
"i:
.':: :
1
a
o
i
l-
i,
ao,,
''l(t
II
t
jrttlt
i
,T
nI
L
{
.11
":'.i..
jt,t
oI
::' I
'.-l:'':'l-- "'-'
5;
OR\G
. GASLlNE
J.
t,
g*lge$g a
:i
:i
-::,'.>
-a:\
'.i
I
I
I
i
ORIG
64S
,J NE
FOR
=Srq/6
+
,'
I
,:
:..r'.
- ri
ORIG
Et tr.)
-*
,";tffii-:: -,:v
k,; '':;i-*'
Wka*- -
l-..r . -.. .:--,.. ..t_: !:i. - \
i'lirrr:,il,tirj;:
q.', r-:.'f,Ii.r '.
. ., _11::_
Et^pc
Alea/ ,,9/a*Ltlcltf t
.984r/l
\
6@@ @ @@o@
ORIG
S/lE#/
caruf
-@4
,...,.-.
!
I
..:.'r : i
?;.' /-' l.'
i,' i. r:-_.
.i
.- ... .:::,-1. :r-..
'a-,$2 -.-\---.\\
''.5
:;1.r
fi--"-/ i'; e.-
---:';,h:--
ff
,I
p-, j::
.i,:i.,:: j. L:3:;,:ii:-i*LgE*i!iia'' r 4rc:#::r_
:\
,i,.!I
Ii'i
/
I
-... _-..-:::1.--,-. -
,.:;-:-',1 -- i,.:": .: {
=:.....:r, :'=-H-j
*:i1i=-. _ !'-}i}!EtS; :
-=i:,=:r.= i_:: !-j-:_t I,--4!- l
-::-=:"rr'-'!
.:J i
--: I
i
-:-- f.- ;,:.,-: --
n
t,:
;:
_-.'-'._'.-::::--_j - -
s
.i
:
r -.-
':--:. - I -.-:.*: _ :.-i
t:
' _ : _":g'rttg_:i
SEAP|-'UAIE'
,-,
:1 aI
,
Itr
r,,.)
,
o *, ----
fl
eji.,
L_.
Ot
ch,{arj
tJ
i -r.... ,--,i{ :-,{-,_:e.j'::- . -...'l: _- -.-.., ... ,
t
EE
"-1,'. ._t:
t: ffiae'
rB I
ds
r'\
STAFF REPORT AGENDA
5b
9t16tO2
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BYSeptember 6,2OO2
APPROVED
ORDINANCE O F THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AN URGENCY ORDINANCE
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36937 FOR NO PARKING ZONES ON
CARMELITA AVENUE FROM CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO EL CAMINO REAL AND FOR ONE-
HOUR PARKING ZONES ON PRIMROSE ROAD FROM BELLEVUE AVENUE TO FLORIB UNDA
VENUE
Chapter 13.36.02A -'No Parking During Specified Hours,,:
The amendment codifies parking prohibitions on Carmelita Avenue between 7 AM and 9 AM on the south side
of the street, and 4 PM and 6 PM on the north side of the street. These restrictions facilitate smoother traffic flow
along Carmelita Avenue between El Camino Real and Califomia Drive during the morning and afternoon peak
commute hours.
Chapter 1 3.36.030 -'oOne-Hour Parking":
The amendment codifies the one-hour parking restriction on Primrose Road between Floribunda and Bellevue
Avenues. This restriction improves the parking tum-over rate in the area.
No community noticing or Traffic Safety and Parking Commission hearing was necessary since the parking
restriction signage was installed many years ago. Staff is requesting that this ordinance be adtpted as an grgency
ordinance since the signage already exists.
ITEM
MTG.
OATE
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC WORKS BY
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt an urgency ordinance designating No
Parking During Specified Hours (7 AM to 9 AM and 4 PM to 6 PM on any Aay except Sundays anA nonaays; on
the south side and north side of Carmelita Avenue from Califomia Drive to Bt iamino Real, urra a.rigrating Cine-Hour Parking on Primrose Road from Floribunda Avenue to Bellevue Avenue by:
l. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed urgency ordinance;2. Waiving further reading of the ordinance;3. Adopting the proposed ordinance by at least a four-fifths vote.
BACKGROTIND: Police and Engineering staffnoted that the existing parking restrictions on Carmelita Avenue
and Primrose Road are not specified in Chapter 13.36 ofthe Burlingar;e Munic-ipal Code. The attached ordinance
corrects these omissions.
DISCUSSION: The Police and Engineering staffis requesting this ordinance to correct omissions and to accurately
reflect the current parking signage and enforcemeni on portions of Carmelita Avenue and primrose Road, as
follows:
Parking Restrictions - Carmelita & primrose.wpd
Staff Report
September 6,2002
Page2
BUDGET IMPACT: There is no impact on the current Public Works Maintenance budget as all of the signage
for these restrictions is already in place.
E)GIIBITS: Ordinance
Chou, TrafEc Engineer
558-7230
cc:City Clerk
Police Department
TSP Commission
Parking Restrictions - Carmelita & Primrose.wpd
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6
l7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE No.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ADOPTING AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTIONS 36937 FOR NO PARKING ZONES ON CARMELITA AVENUE FROM
CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO EL CAMINO REAL AND
FOR ONE.HOUR PARKING ZONES ON PRIMROSE ROAD FROM BELLEVUE
AVENUE TO FLORIBUNDA AVENUE
The CITY COTINCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1 Govemment Code Section36937 allows the City of Burlingame to adopt an
urgency ordinance for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety.
Carmelita Avenue is a key route for traffic between California Drive and El Camino Real to
take vehicles off Broadway and improve pedestrian and vehicle safety on Broadway. No
parking zones on Carmelita during heavy traffic periods have made Carmelita safer to use for
both pedestrians and vehicles. Primrose Road is a key office area for Burlingame, and in order
to provide adequate parking access to users of the medical and government offices as well as
the Main Library, it is imperative that parking be limited to no more than one hour during office
hours.
Section 2. Section 13.36.020 is amended to read as follows:
13.36.020 No parking during specified hours.
It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park the vehicle on the following
streets on the designated hours and days:
(1) Adrian Road, east side between eight a.m. and six p.m., Sundays and holidays
excepted;
(2) Airport Boulevard, east side, from Beach Road to Fisherman's Park, between ten
p.m. and six a.m.;
(3) Broadway, both sides from El Camino Real to California Drive, four a.m. to six
a.m., Sundays and holidays excepted, unless otherwise prohibited or limited;
19t6t2002
1
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
t6
t1
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
21
28
(4) Burlingame Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Occidental Avenue
between eight a.m. and six p.m.;
(5) California Drive, west side from Juanita Avenue to Broadway between seven a.m
and nine a.m., and between four p.m. and six p.m.; east side from Sanchez Avenue to Oak
Grove Avenue between midnight and six a.m.;
(6)
(7) Carolan Avenue, east side, from Burlingame Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue
between three p.m. and six p.m.; east side between Broadway and a point two hundred
twenty-five feet southerly from the southeasterly right-of-way line of Broadway from eight a.m.
to nine a.m.; west side from Sanchez Creek to the centerline of Larkspur Drive from ten p.m. to
seven a.m.;
(8) El Camino Real West Service Road from Trousdale to Murchison from two a.m. to
six a.m.;
(9) Gilbreth Road, both sides, from Cowan Road to Mahler Road, between ten p.m. and
six a.m.;
(10) Howard Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Crescent Avenue, between
eight a.m. and six p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted;
(11) Peninsula Avenue, north side from the Southern Pacific right-of-way to Humboldt
Street, between eight a.m. and six p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted;
(12) Rhineffe Avenue, south side, between eight a.m. and six p.m.; and
f,ill noUins Road, west side from North Carolan Avenue to Broadway from four p.m.
to six p.m.
Section 3. Section 13.36.030 is amended as follows:
13.36.030 One-hourparking.
Except where prohibited or otherwise designated for shorter term time periods, it is
29t6t2002
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
t2
l3
t4
15
t6
l7
18
19
20
2l
22
Z)
24
25
26
27
28
unlarnfirl for any person to park a vehicle for a period longer than one hour between the hours
of eight a.m. and six p.m. on any day, excepting Sundays and holidays, upon any part of the
following streets or portions of streets:
(a) Broadway from El Camino Real to Califomia Drive;
ftl eurlingame Avenue, from California Drive to El Camino Real;
qcl,,California Drive, west side, from Douglas to Bellevue Avenue and from Carmelita
Avenue to Broadway;
id} Ingold Road, north side, 48 feet west from the curb return of Rollins Road to 128
feet west from that same curb return;
(b) Magnolia Avenue, east side, from the intersection of Magnolia Avenue to 300 feet
north of the center line of Trousdale Drive;
Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certily that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the _ day of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
C:\FILES\ORDINANC\parkingurg.pwd.wpd
2002, by at least a four-fifths vote as follows:
39t6t2002
City Clerk
(f) Primose,Road;,*om Bellevue :fusrlue to Flbribunda Avenue.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #7a
DATE 9-1 6-02MTG.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Gity Gouncil
DATE: September 9,2002
FROM: Gity Manager's Office (558-7204)
SUBJECT: GOMMISSIONER TERM EXPIRATIONS
(Beautification, Givil Service, Parks & Recreation, and Traffic Safety Parking)
During the next few months, the term of the below-listed commissioners will expire
SUBMITTED il;,^,BY
BY
APPROVE
Term Expires
1017102
10t7t02
//aW
Commissioner
Laura Hesselgren
John Webb
Jack Erickson
Mary Lawson
Russ Cohen
Jim Evans
Jack Heffernan
Doug Schwartz*
Commission
Beautification
Parks & Recreation
Traffic Safety Parking
Terms Served
Civil Service
11t6t02
12t1t02
tl
D
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
1
* Doug Schwaftz was first appointed to the Civil Servrce Commission on January 4, 1989, seruing four
consecutive terms until his resignation on January 26, 2000. On July 12, 2001, Doug was again
appointed to the Civil Service Commission to fillthe unexpired term of resigning commissioner Keith
Kutner.
The council's commissioner appointment policy calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in
the same manner as all other candidates. The attached table is provided for council members to quickly
reference commission candidates interviewed within the past two years.
With the recent resignation of Civil Service Commissioner Hipps and the upcoming term expiration of
commissioners Heffernan and Schwartz, council may wish to consider reducing the size of the Civil Service
Commission to that of the Library Board and Traffic Safety Parking Commission (from 7 to 5 commissioners).
Given the time commitment required of Civil Service commissioners in attending regular commission meetings
and serving on panels, staff recommends council seriously consider the option of reducing the commission to
five members and fill one vacancy at this time. Staff would recommend the vacancy be filled by opening up the
vacancy and accepting commissioner applications.
Council may choose one of the following or other option(s) and direct staff accordingly:
Reappoint incumbent commissioners;
Appoint candidates from 2-year list (attached); or
Use the current Council policy as reflected in the 1994 Council Resolution 21-94 (attached) and establish a
filing deadline of Tuesday, October 15,2002, for accepting commissioner applications, and select a Council
interview team for eventual interviews.
V [B:coMMISSIoN\CoMMTERM]
Attachment
c: HR Director
Katz, Dorothy I 1 l0 Douglas Ave #l Beautification I I -2-01 I t -19-01 Janney/Spi nel I i Nov 2003
Carcia, Bill I .l48 Cambridge Road Civil Service r 0-30-00 l2-18-00 Calligan / Spinelli Dec 2002
Fuchs, Elaine I I l7 Hamilton Lane Library 6-13-00 r 0-1 2-00 O'Mahony / Calligan Oct 2002
Hipps, Carolyn '1649 Balboa Way Lib rary 6-13-00 't 0-r 2-00 O'Mahony / Calligan Oct 2002
Morton, Mary Lou Forest View Library 6-r 3-00 r 0-r 2-00 O'Mahony / Calligan Oct 2002
Berman, Michael Library 5 -3-02 6-17 -02 Coffey / O'Mahony Jun 2004
Cottrell, Richard .l685 Hunt Drive TSPC r 0-30-00 r 2-4"00 Coffey / O'Mahony Dec 2002
Page, Howard 'I ll Central Avenue TSPC r 0-30-00 12-4-00 Coffey / O'Mahony Dec 2002
Winkler, Erik 36 Victoria Road TSPC r 0-30-00 12-4-00 Coffey / O'Mahony Dec 2002
Dobiles, Bruce 524 Oak 6rove Ave Planning 4-17 -41 5 -3-0 r Coffey / O'Mahony Apr 2003
Ernst, Jay I 434 Capuchino Plan n ing 4-17 -01 5-3-0r Coffey / O'Mahony Apr 2003
Friedman, Marc 748 Walnut Planning 4-17 -01 5 -3-0 l Coffey / O'Mahony Apr 2003
Crandcolas, Mark 1432 Alvarado Planning
Planning
I I -6-01
4-17-01
'I 1-26-0r
5-3-0 l
Jan neylCoffey
Coffey / O'Mahony
Nov 2003
Apr 2003
Jacobs, Ruth 2965 Arguello Planning 4-17 -01 5 -3-0 r Coffey / O'Mahony Apr 2003
Popin, Richard 760 Walnut Avenue Planning 4-17 -01 5-3-0 r Coffey / O'Mahony Apr 2003
Conway, Daniel 14 Highland Avenue #8 Plan n ing r 0-23-0i I I -26-0r Jan ney/Coffey Nov 2003
Crange, Randy 2l Dwighr Road Planning I l-9-0r 'r r -26-01 Janney/Coffey Nov 2003
Carroll, Ken .l609 Albemarle Way Planning 3-29-02 4-1-02 Baylock / Calligan
Cray, Patricia l6l6 Adeline Drive Planning 3-29-02 4-1-02 Baylock / Calligan Apr 2004
Jackson, Russell 835 Walnut Avenue Planning 3-29-02 4-1-02 Baylock / Calligan
McCleary, Chris 323 Dwight Road Plan n ing 3-29-02 4-1-02 Baylock / 6alligan Apr 2004
Berman, Michael 1 524 Los Montes Drive Library s -3-02 6-17-02 Coffey / O'Mahony June 2004
t,
Apr 2004
Apr 2004
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
II
T2
i3
l4
l5
l6
t7
18
l9
20
2T
22
23
24
25
26
: F. COLEMAN
/ ANORNEY: EURLINGAHE
ll,lROSE ROAO
{M€, CI.UF. 040to
RESOLUTION NO. 21 -94
RESoLVED by the CITY COITNCIL of the Ciry of Burlingame as follows:
WHEREAS, it is the determination of this Council that procedures should be
established for the appoinrment of members of ciry commissions;
NO!7, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED rhat rhe
following procedures shall govern the appoinrmenr of members of commissions of the
Cigy of Burlingame:
section 1' All persons desiring to serve on ciry commissions shall complere the
application fortn provided by the ciry manager's office. Applicarions shall be accepted
only for specific commission positions wirh deadlines established by the ciry council.
Applications sllall be accepted for at least a rhree week period following rhe announce-
ment of a vacancy.
' Section 2. Applicants shall be interviewed for the specified commission by a
committee of rwo council members. That committee may refer the application ro a
committee interviewing for vacancies on another commission.
Section 3. All cornmissioner appoinrments shall be for a single term. Any
commissioner desiring reappoinrment for a subsequent term upon the commission shall
apply in the salne manner as all other candidates. This provision shall not apply to a
commissioner appointed to an unexpired term of less tlran one year.
Section 4' The number of years in a term shall be as set forrh in the ciry ordi-
nances or state laws at tlte tirne of the term's commencement; this rule shall appl y f9r
both appointees ro full rerms and to fiil vacancies'in unexpired terms.
Section 5' lrhenever possible, appointmenr ro the planning commission s6all be
1
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I
t0
II
I2
13
I4
l5
i6
t7
t8
I9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
UE F. COLEMAN
IE AIORflEY
OF AURLINGAME
'Rh{ROSE ROAO
iGAr.tE. CAUF. 940tO
made at least three months prior to the expiration of a term; appointees shall be
encouraged to attend all commission hearings and shall be provided all materials for
commission meetings. They shall not, however, participate as commissioners until the
official commencement of their terms.
Section 5. This resolution supersedes all prior resolutions regarding comrnissioner
' ,, Judith A. Malfatti, Ciry Clerk of the Ciry of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
rhe foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held
on the 2nd J day of M"y, 1994, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
terms.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Cotxctlt"tEMBERS:
COUNCII-I,TEMBERS:
CouNcrI-UEMBERS:
HARRISON, KNIGHT, OIMAHONY, PAGLIARO, SPINELLI
NONE
NONE
{B: CO MMISSIONCOM MAPTI .RESI
Z
i
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 9-L6-O2
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE:Saniomhar 6 2fifi2
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307)
SUBJECT: TEMPORARY TEEN BACILITY
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council give direction on two related points: given the current
financial situation ofthe City, (l) should staffand the Parks & Recreation Commission continue pursuing a location
to be used as temporary teen center and (2) if so, how should such a center be funded. Also please see attached
recommendation from the City Manager.
BACKGROIIND:
At the City Council meeting of March 4,2002 the Council accepted the feasibility study on the long-term needs for
a new recreation facility. Because the new Community Center proposed in the feasibility study would be at least
five years away from completion, Council asked staffand the Parks & Recreation Commission to consider options
for a temporary teen facility.
Over the past few months, the Commission has reviewed several properties as potential teen facilities. During this
searctr, one property, 783 California Drive, was identified by the Commissioners as meeting the general criteria
established (location, size, low impact on neighbors, not a school site, etc.). The 6,000+ sfsite, adjacent to fire
station 34, has enough program space for a wide variety ofteen activities, including basketball, game tables,
homework/computer rooms and hang-out areas.
After an inspection by the City's Parks & Recreatioq Public Works and Fire Department personnel, the property
would require approximately $125,000 of improvements prior to occupancy and another $90,000 annually ($70,000
rent, $20,000 maintenance). The Director of Parks & Recreation and the property owner's realtor had a biief
discussion regarding a lease agreement. The property owner would be requesting a five to seven year lease at
approximately $6,|25lmonth with a $1,000/month deduction if the City makes the improvements. Specific
negotiations would not begin until so directed by Council.
While staffrecognizes the difficult financial situatioq several potential funding options have been identified should
the Council decide to pursue a lease agreement. The funding options are:
l. Use City's reserve funds;
2. Reprioritize Department CIP funds - $100,000 was approved in the 2002-03 budget for improvements at
the Recreation Center;
3. Earmark an increase in revenues - example: an increase of $2.00 in the class registration fee would
result in a revenue increase of approximately $60,000 annually;
4. New revenues - donations (private, corporate, service clubs), grants, sponsorships, leasing ofCity
facilities (i.e. Depot or teen center food service).
Funding for new programs staffand materials will be offset with revenues from membership cards and new
programs (dances, tournaments, etc.).
AT'TACHMENTS:
l. Memo from City Manager regarding his recommendation2. Information regarding the property at 783 California Drive
BUDGET IMPACT:
Impact on the budget depends on the option(s) preferred by the Council. Due to the City's current financial
situatiorg Director and Manager both agree that no money from the general fund should be allocated to this project.
7b
BY
BY
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor Janney and City Council Members
September 1A,2002
Jim Nantell, City Manager
Interim Teen Facility
Despite my olvn professional experience and bias for the value of recreational programs,
particularly for youth and teenagers? as City Manager I feel compelled to caution the City
Council regarding your review of options for providing an interim teen center.
I believe that the Park and Recreation staff and Commission have identified a good sight
for an interim teen facility, however, when the discussion about the desire to provide a
facility that would better meet the recreational needs of our teenagers began about four
years ago, the City was in a much different financial position than we are today. Given
the current need to reduce expenses and/or increase revenues by $3 to $7 million annually
I would recommend that we not commit our selves to an additional $90,000 annually for
the operation of an interim teen facility.
If the City Council were inclined to support leasing property I would recommend that any
consideration of funding the operation of a teen facilrty should be pursued only if
additional funding to cover the annual operational cost could be identified. By additional
funding I mean funding that would not otherwise be available to the city without the
operation of the teen facility or teen programs. For example if the Council were
interested in considering uses of the Bus Depot that would generate some revenues I
would recommend that those revenues be used to address our "strucfural" financial gap
between revenues and expenses before we use it to fund an expansion to current services.
On the other hand should the recreation deparfinent be able to partner up with a yogurt
franchise that could use the front of the space for the interim teen facility and provide part
time jobs for teens while defraying some of the rental costs for the facility than that
revenue would appropriately be credited against the cost of operated the interim teen
facility.
a
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Attachment "A"
Information regarding the property at 783 California Drive
for use as a temporary teen facility
SIZE
Approximately 6,000sf of usable program area. (5,000sf on ground level; l,000sf in balcony)
TEEN US
Computers
Basketball Hoops
Lounge Areas il Couches, etc.
Classroom
Game Tables (pool, ping-pong, Foosball)
NON-TEEN
Teen use of this focility will be limited to after-school, evening, weekend and vacation hours.
During the mornings on school days, thefacility could be usedfor:r Pre-school classes: several classes are not currently being offered because ofa lack of
space
' Other City departments (ex. The Fire Department's conference room is often crowded
and extra meeting space would be desirable)
CONCERNS
' Parking - The facility only has four designated parking spaces. Street parking would
need to handle the overflowr Teen Access - The facility is a short walk from Burlingame High School. Students using
public transportation from other schools would utilize the one northbound and one
southbound bus stop
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 9-1 6-02
8a
STAFF REPORT
TO Honorable Mayor & City Council SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: September 5,2OO2
APPRO
FROM: City Manager's Office 1558-72041
SUBJECT: S pecia! Event Permit/Street Closure - Halloween Safe Street (Primrose Road)
RECOMMENDATION: To authorize the closure of Primrose Road between Burlingame Avenue and
Donnelly Avenue as the site for the community Halloween Safe Streef program on Thursday,
October 31, 2OO2.
BACKGROUND
For the sixth Yeat, the Burlingame Rotary Club, in cooperation with various local merchants and
the police and fire departments, wish to conduct a Halloween Safe Street program on
Thursday, October 31 , 2OO2. from 4:3O to 8:30 p.m. The plan, which is the same as last
year's (see attached copy), is to close a portion of Primrose Road between Burlingame Avenue
and Donnelly Avenue to have supervised activities for young children and their parents. Also
attached is Police Commander Tom Marriscolo's September 4, 2OO2, memo reviewing this
year's event. Steve Karp will be contacting the merchants in the affected area.
Based on the success of previous events, I recommend that the city council approve the street
closure subject to the usual insurance requirements, and approve police and fire participation in
the event.
V tD:\My Documents\MANAGERS\Halloween-stf-rpt.wpdl
Attachments
c: Steve Karp
Police Chief
Police Traffic Sergeant
Fire Chief
Public Works
BY
/L"1.*
09/05/02 10:22 FAX 650 697 0771 BAY AREA BUS. CARDS
ROTARY CLUB OF BURLINGAME
Charlered January 29, 1925
Post Office Box 323
Burlingame, California 9401 1
September 5, 2002
Vi Weber
City Manager's Office
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Rotary Club of Burlingame's
Halloween Safe Street -'X999)c'o.}
Dear Ms. Weber:
The Burlingame Rotary Club is planning to sponsor our 6ft annual
Safe Street. This year's plan will mirror our previous year's
programs.
Attached you will find a completed special event permit application.
We appreciate your cooperation and suppoft with this process.
Please review and advise if you have questions. I can be reached at
697-1988 extension #L7 or alternatively you send can send e-mail to
steve@babc.com
@ oo2loo8
very /rulv,yours,
S/.*1r",p
Steven M. Karp
Enclosure
ffi
rxg*.Etl og.r:,i7r?Boz{1:io:':E AI..t FerrJ I0905/02 10:22 FAX 650 697 0771 BAY AREA BUS. CARDS @ oo3/oos
TEL: (650) 55e.7204
FAX: (650) 55&9281
@h, fi.rlg sf. Wurlin game
CITY HALL _ 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 G3997
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR ANY TEMPORARY CLOSING OF ANY CTTY STREET OR USE OF CTTY SIDEWALK OR PROPERTY
(Please tvpe or pint clearlv,)
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Company/Agency
Contact Person:
Name:trr Daytimern*",M
FAX#: 6?]- o't1lv
Address:t ,t Vs Adnin^r R".
Representing
lnsurance Carriec Limits:
EVENT INFORMATION
Date(s):-3
Event Purpose:
Staging Time:v
Ending Time:8?q
Starting rim": S'OG /a
De-staging rime:8. 3D t+t
L[o t]o..^r.-,,Sef. S4ec
Any Hazardous Activity? (lf so, descrifr..)Mo
Number of Participants: /f.>S Type lactors, cruvt, pafticipants)i c 1.,4- (,.cA<
Number of Equipment:Type:
Q-rut€-cbe €o*->Location:t=E^J bOz-,.JGA r.laParking Permit(s) Requested:
Pol ice Service(s) R equ ired g4s par oft cet Nr hout)'.L,rte 1 Douu-r
ATTACHMENTS
Please attach the following information with this application:
- Letter of intent (dehiled description of event);
- Map of street(s)/area to be closed;
- Petition of property owner(s) affected by evenUclosure;
- Barricade plan (if appropriate); and* Certificate of insurance.
I agree to hold harmless the Clty of Burlingame, its officerc and employees, whether elected or appolnted, from any and all
llablllty arising from the event planned and descrlbed above. Further, I undsrstand that priorto the lssuance of any permlt as doscribsd
above, I shall flle a certiflcate of insurance wlth the Clty Manager naming thB City, its offlcers and employees, whether elected or
appointed, as addltlonal lnsured, and that I must pay all Clty costs to the issuance of thb permlt.
Date
g--o 2_Applicants SignaturB:Q1r
a
\a
**Hii
Jsoafttad P
?1r"
IP OlOU
00
,0t
6\\s/
cl
sqj\
s
t
ta
l1
el
qo
tJI\(rt
-.1cna
.e,
q
1
ly
I
1
Eq
u '37)
)
(
f
P
t.
I
l.
Ita
I
h
rt
E
0
9
E!
d
Jg
0
6
.i
@
. .b.(t'
;r]
t?
,ol,
e,
6.\\!-'
b
@hrl,
N
\
- -tfr-
\
/in\yt1l
@
--ltf
-@
t,
t
\
{
Uc
{
/i\!/
/x
o- ,tl
o
\rlt @
,,,u lt
t'
Ic@
@l@
E@
(ltuGtrt-&t'
N
N
t!
@
@*frt|*l
(t
g ],.-_.
:EYr !Ia
vl
--7f'
I
L
q
t,t a'
q @t\
\e
lE
\
o
rl'\-6
o'6.
{'.fr'
ut$
ll-_ -1t )
llrtlrl
cV
.tr
.''l
,(r.
\
\
\
I
'J
BI]RLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT
INTER OFFICE MEMO
TO: All Sworn Personnel
FROM: CommanderMarriscolo
DATE: September 4,2002
RE: Halloween Detail (2002)
B. PRIMARY AIID SECONDARY DETAIL OBJECTTVES:
1. The Primary Objectives for this year's Halloween Detail are twofold: To supplement
..B,, Squad personnel ana taUs for service, provide for the safety of children "Trick or Treaters"
using t^he concept of "Safe Streets", and to protect all persons liring in or visiting our city. The
Secondary Objective of this detail will be to protect personal and public property.
A. PAST HISTORICAL STRATEGY:
l. During past years, the Burlingame Police Department has mobilized a large operation to
manage anticipaied HJloween night problems in the residential distria surrounding the Hillside
ur.". i{o*.rei, in most recent years, anticipated Halloween night problems have diminished due
to proactive measures (school admonishments and a "no tolerance" position of enforcement) by
oui department. Due to diminished problems surrounding the Hillside Drive area, the focus of our
enforcement has now changed. Special attention to areas such as the Downtown Business
District, the Broadway Business District, Burlingame PlazaArea, Burlingame Parks and
Hotels/Bars that characteristicatly have increased calls for service are now the primary focus of
this detail.
2.Lastyear our department scaled down our Halloween Detail Operation and didn't
experience .ny rigninrant or major problems. Due to Halloween fa[ing on a week night this year
(T^hrirsday), iiappears that probiems associated with teens and young adults will be minimal.
in..rfori, our dipurt."nt will replicate last year's detail (a Sergeant and squad of 4 officers), to
gather intelligencJ infoqrption and to supplement "B" Squad personnel'
C. OVERALL STRATEGY:
1. To accomplish these objectives, personnel assigned to the Halloween Detail will present
an increased uniform presence and provide additional roving patrols throughout the city by
supplementing "B" Squad. Special attention and frequent checks will be made at locations that
present the potential for an increased number of calls for service and in areas where problems
have developed or occurred in the past. These areas of potential problems are identified as
follows:
-Downtown Business District
-Broadway Business District
-Burlingame Plaza Area
-City Parks
-City Schools (Public and Private)
-Bars and Restaurants that have planned events
-Hotels
-Hillside Drive and other Northern Residential fueas where problems have occurred in the past
-Easement signs
2. Safe Streets.
a) The Burlingame Rotary Club, in cooperation with various local merchants are
once again sponsoring a "Safe Streets" event for small children from 1730 hrs - 1930 hrs. This
supervised event will include a street closure of PRIMROSE ROAD between BURLINGAME
AVENUE and DONNELLY AVENUE. Officer Rumbaugh has been assigned to work on this
project with the sponsoring merchants. Staging for Officer Rumbaugh and the Police Cadets
assigned to this detail will occur approximately one (l) hour before the event. Conversely, break
down which will occur approximately t/zhour following the end of the event.
b) Banicades will be placed on Primrose Road @ Burlingame Avenue, Donnelly
Averrue and at the driveway exit to the rear of the Baby Gap store on Primrose Road. Officer
Rumbaugh and all of our Police Cadets assigned to this event will post the barricades as needed to
block offthe "Safe Streets" area at the above locations. The street will be posted for NO
PARKING at the requirdd time (at least24 hours in advance) to allow for vehicle removal (if it
becomes necessary). Sergeant Cutler will insure that the posting of signs is made no later than
Wednesday, (1Ol3Ol2O02), and see to it that the corporation yard will leave a sufficient number of
barricades in the area no later than Thursday morning, 1013112002.
c) Our Police Cadets will assist Officer Rumbaugh in closing the street area,
providing security for all event participants, assist in monitoring the safety of all involved persons,
direct and (or) monitor traffic and the placement of barricades, as necessary. Since this event will
end at approximately 2000 hrs, it is anticipated that the roadway will be opened to trafiic at about
2015 hrs to 2030 hrs.
D. ASSIGNMENTS, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITMS AND ARf,A CHECKS:
1. Assignments
a) Officers assigned to the Halloween Detail (refer to the attached document
identifying the personnel assigned to the detail) and reporting for duty will initially report to
briefing at 1900 hrs. They will receive specific instructions involving specific duties, briefing
assignments and information from Sergeant Matteucci (the WC) and the Sergeant McDonnell
who will be in charge of the Halloween Detail.
2. Duties and Responsibilities
a) Personnel assigned to the Halloween Detail will work from 1900 hrs - 2300 hrs,
unless increased calls for service require they work longer hours. All officers working the
Halloween Detail will be assigned to supplement the personnel assigned to the "B" Squad on
roving patrol, checking local parks, schools and monitoring potential problem areas (hotels, bars,
etc.). Once deployed, Sergeant McDonnell will assume command and control of the of;Ecers
assigned to the Halloween Detail. Sergeant McDonnell will coordinate Halloween Detail
information and operations with Sergeant Matteucci and Communications (dispatch).
b) All personnel assigned to the "B" Squad and the Halloween Detail may wear the
departmental authorized two piece jumpsuit. Helmets and Long Batons will be required safety
equipment for the members of "8" Squad and the personnel assigned to the Halloween Detail. All
personnel assigned to the "B" Squad or the Halloween Detail will have these safety items
immediately available and canied in their patrol vehicles in the event problems arise.
3. Broadway Business District Area Checks
a) NortH End Halloween Detail Units will also monitor the Broadway Business
District. In the past there has been a minimal number of calls for service around this area,.
However, with the focus now moving from the residential to the business district areas, increased
calls for service or problems may develop. Halloween Detail personnel will monitor local parks,
schools and bars in their area and immediately noti$ the WC and Communications of any
potential problems that are developing or that could occur.
4. South End/Downtown Business District Area Checks
a) Halloween Detail Units will patrol the Downtown Business District Area,
including Washington, Heritage and other parks in the south end of the city. They will monitor
and check local bars and immediately notify the WC and Communications of any potential
problems that are developing or that could occur
5. East Side/Bay Front Area Checks
a) Sector C, City Units and Halloween Detail personnelwill constantly monitor the
hotel and bar activity and advise will advise both the WC and Communications of any potential
problems that are developing or that could occur.
E. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
1. Polaroid cameras, additional film, or Digital Cameras, flex cuffs, FI cards, etc., will be
for available for distribution (if necessary) by Sergeant Nakiso, the Administrative Services
Supervisor.
Z. The Radio frequency for Patrol and Halloween Detail personnel will be the
Burlingame Primary Channel #1.
cc: James Nantell, City Manager
E
tlll D
AGENDA
ITEM #8b
STAFF REPORT
Honorable Mayor and City Council
August 27,2002
Fire Department
Vehicle Maintenance Agreement
MTC.
DATE 9-L6-O2
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT
SUBM
BY:
APPROVED
BY:
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve by resolution the attached agreement between the City of San
Mateo and the City of Burlingame to have San Mateo Fire Department vehicles serviced by the City of
Burlingame Fire Department.
Backoround:
The Burlingame Fire Department has operated a vehicle (fire apparatus) maintenance shop since the
1950's. The shop has been staffed with firefighters who are cross-trained as mechanics. our mechanics
are qualified through the California State Fire Marshal's Fire Mechanics training and certification program.
Required fire apparatus maintenance and testing is unique as compared to that of commercial trucks and
transport vehicles.
ln L994, we realized that we were not getting the maximum use of our mechanics. Consequently, we
offered this service to other fire departments in our area with the intention of recouping some of the costs
of the shop services. We currently provide apparatus maintenance to Millbrae Fire Department,
Hillsborough Fire Department, Colma Fire Protection District, Brisbane Fire Department and Foster City Fire
Department. In addition, we provide maintenance for a shared reserve aerial truck with South County Fire
Authority. This agreement with the City of San Mateo will be in addition to those we already serve.
Exhibit:
Agreement between the City of San Mateo and the City of Burlingame
Budqet Impact:
This will have a positive br.rdget impact enabling us to provide an increase in our revenue generating
service provided under a time and materials agreement.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND
THE CITY OF SAN MATEO TO PROVIDE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Fire Department has been providing vehicle
maintenance and repair for both its own vehicles and those of some neighboring fire departments;
and
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo wishes to have some of its vehicles and equipment
serviced by the Burlingame Fire Department; and
WHEREAS, this arrangement will save San Mateo money, provide additional revenue to
the City, and enhance the working relationships between San Mateo and the City,
NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed execute the Agreement attached hereto as
Exhibit A by and on behalf of the City.
2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
MAYOR
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the city council held
2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
hereby certify that the foregoing
on the _day of
AYES: COT]NCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COTINCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR PROVISION OF MAINTENANCE AND
REPAIR SERVICES ON CITY OF SAN MATEO FIRE VEHICLES
This Contract is entered into this _ day of _ ,2002, by and between
the City of San Mateo [hereinafter San Mateo] and the City of Burlingame [hereinafter
Burlingamel.
This Contract is intended to allow San Mateo to have its vehicles serviced by
Burlingame and to establish the expectations and obligations of each party with regard to
such service.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to modi$, or interfere with any agreement that
each party may have with its own employees or contractors or agents.
A. TERM OF CONTRACT
1. CONTRACT TERM. The term of this Agreement will be for a period of one year from
the date written above. The Agreement shall be automatically renewed for a single one-year
term at the end of the first year and continue to be renewed for additional one-year terms
thereafter, unless either party gives the other party written notice to the contrary at least thirty
(30) days in advance of the expiration of the existing term.
2. OTHER SERVICES. San Mateo reserves the right to have its vehicles serviced by other
persons as it may deem convenient. Howevet, any warranties, guarantees, or indemnities
provided by Burlingame under this Agreement may become null and void when a vehicle
subject to such warranty, guarantee, or indemnity under this Agreement is serviced by a
person other than Burlingame. See Section C(1) below.
3. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days'
written notice to the other. Upon receipt of such notice, Burlingame shall, unless the notice
directs otherwise, discontinue all services in connection with the performance of this
Contract and shall proceed to promptly cancel all existing orders and contracts insofar as
such orders or contracts are chargeable to this Contract. As soon as practicable after receipt
of notice of termination, Burlingame shall submit a statement to San Mateo showing in deiail
the services performed under this Contract to date of termination that have not previously
1autoshopsanmateo.drf .wpd
August 26,2002
been paid for by San Mateo, and San Mateo shall pay the charges shown subject to the
provisions of Paragraph 2(b) of Section C below.
B. SCOPE OF SERVICES
L SCOPE OF SERVICES. Burlingame shall provide all superintendence, labor,
apparatus, parts, tools, and materials necessary to provide preventive maintenance, repair,
and service as generally listed in Exhibit A hereto.
2. ASSIGNMENT; SUBCONTRACTING. San Mateo agrees and understands that there
are certain vehicles and certain repair and service work that Burlingame may find that it is
either not qualified or capable of performing. When Burlingame finds such a situation exists
as to a particular vehicle that San Mateo has delivered to Burlingame for service,
Burlingame shall notifu San Mateo in writing of the situation and reasons therefor.
Burlingame may suggest and with San Mateo's concurrence, may subcontract work to
qualified subcontractors for repair or maintenance. Burlingame shall inform San Mateo of
the warranties and guarantees offered by those subcontractors, which may differ from the
warranties and guarantees offered by Burlingame.
3' INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. In performing the obligations under this Contract,
Burlingame shall act as an independent contractor solely for its own account and not as an
agent, representative, or employee of San Mateo. No employee, agent, or representative of
Burlingame shall be considered an employee of San Mateo nor be eligible for any benefits,
rights, or privileges available to San Mateo employees.
4. PERSONNEL.
a. EMPLOYEES. The selection, assignment, reassignment, transfer, supervision,
management, and control of Burlingame employees in performance of this Contract shall be
the sole responsibility of Burlingame.
b. OUALIFICATIONS.
(i) Burlingame shall ensure that Burlingame employees possess a valid driver's license
for the type of vehicle to be operated as required by california law.
(ii) Burlingame is responsible for maintaining qualified mechanics for performing the
services offered.
2autoshopsanmateo.drf .wpd
August 26,2002
5. SAN MATEO OBSERVATION. San Mateo personnel may from time to time observe
Burlingame's operations under this Agreement. However, these personnel may not interfere
with Burlingame's performance.
Burlingame shall perform maintenance and repair service on all vehicles and pieces of
equipment covered by this Contract in its facilities in Burlingame. It is not expected that
Burlingame shall provide any services under this Contract outside the city limits of
Burlingame.
7. VEHICLE/PIECE OF EQUIPMENT PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE
On request, Burlingame shall maintain vehicles and pieces of equipment to meet
standards established by the original equipment manufacturer and as further amended by
agreement between the parties.
8. REPAIR AND WARRANTY WORK
Burlingame shall provide repair and warranty work on an as-requested basis. Warranty
work shall be provided when repairs fall into categories covered by equipment or parts
warranties or in response to manufacturers' directives for corrective action.
All work shall be done in conformance with manufacturers'manuals. At all times,
Burlingame shall ensure that shop procedures and controls provide thorough documentation,
accountability, and responsiveness.
Once the cause of a breakdown or deficiency is identified, the Burlingame Service
Manager shall scope the cost of repairs and estimate the time required to effect the repair and
notif,z San Mateo for authorizationto proceed. Before seeking any necessary San Mateo
approval to proceed with repairs, Burlingame shall check for parts availability and inform
San Mateo if there are any parts availability problems that may affect the repairs.
If parts are unavailable, San Mateo may authorize Burlingame to order the necessary
parts. Following San Mateo atthorization, Burlingame shall then schedule the initiation of
repair immediately if parts are available, or as soon as ordered parts are received. Repairs
shall be completed as soon as possible.
3autoshopsanmateo.drf.wpd
August 26,2002
6. LOCATION OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICE
Upon completion of repairs, Burlingame shall check and operationally test the vehicle
or piece of equipment to ensure its condition and operation are satisfactory before it is
released for normal use.
9. AVAILABILITY. Because this Contract is non-exclusive, prior scheduling of
maintenance and repair is generally required. Maintenance and repair services are generally
only available from 0800 to 1700 during the day, seven days a week. San Mateo understands
and agrees that Burlingame may not be able to provide service or repair on the timely basis
that San Mateo requires in some instances, because of personnel shortages, equipment
unavailability, or prior commitments. When these occasions arise, San Mateo may request
Burlingame to provide a written statement of the estimated time when the service or repair
will be available. However, when these occasions arise, San Mateo shall not be entitled to
any damages or other claims against Burlingame, nor shall these occasions be considered
defaults by Burlingame under this Contract.
10. ADMINISTRATION
a. MEETINGS. The Burlingame Service Manager and the designated representative of
San Mateo shall meet on a regular and as-needed basis to discuss the management of the
Contract and concerns about particular work or vehicles.
b. MAINTENANCE MANUALS AND SHOP MANUALS. Burlingame has many of
the necessary maintenance manuals and relevant documents for performing the work under
the Contract. However, San Mateo shall cooperate with Burlingame in providing any
manuals or documents it may have upon request of Burlingame.
c. DAMAGE TO VEHICLES BEING SERVICED. Burlingame shall promptly report
to San Mateo any instance of damage to San Mateo vehicles or pieces of equipment while
being serviced or operated by Burlingame personnel.
d. INFORMATION MANAGEMENT. It shall be the responsibility of San Mateo to
document any maintenance or service history regarding a particular vehicle. Burlingame
shall maintain records of its servicing and repair of vehicles and shall cooperate with San
Mateo in providing those records in a form that is usable by San Mateo in its own record-
keeping systems. Because this is a non-exclusive agreement, Burlingame shall not be
responsible for providing a maintenance history or evaluation of particular vehicles except
insofar as Burlingame maintains records of the work actually performed by Burlingame on
any particular vehicle.
4a utoshopsanmateo.d rf.wpd
August 26,2002
1 I. INDEPENDENT REVIEW.
a. Review of malfunction. If a malfunction in a vehicle or piece of equipment indicates
to San Mateo that Burlingame may not have adequately performed a repair or service under
this Contract, designated representatives of Burlingame and San Mateo shall meet to discuss
the matter.
b. Mutually-agreed upon consultant. Should San Mateo or Burlingame determine that
an independent consultant is appropriate to determine the cause of the malfunction, San
Mateo or Burlingame may obtain the services of a mutually agreed-upon consultant to
determine whether Burlingame was responsible for the occurrence of or the failure to prevent
the malfunction. Payment for such a consultant shall be as follows:
(i) If the consultant determines that Burlingame was responsible for the
occulTence of or the failure to prevent the malfunction, Burlingame shall pay the
consultant's costs;
(ii) If the consultant determines that Burlingame was not responsible for the
occulrence of or the failure to prevent the malfunction, San Mateo shall pay the
consultant's costs; and
(iii) If the consultant cannot determine responsibility or determines that both
Burlingame and San Mateo or one of San Mateo's other vendors or contractors were
responsible for the occulrence of or the failure to prevent the malfunction, Burlingame
and san Mateo shall each pay one-half of the consultant's costs.
C. CONTRACT PRICE
l. TIME AND MATERIALS. San Mateo agrees and understands that services under this
Contract will be provided on a time and materials basis. Upon request of San Mateo,
Burlingame will provide an estimate of the time and materials costs involved in a particular
service or repair before beginning work, and San Mateo agrees that the cost of the service or
repair may deviate up to ten percent (10%) above the cost estimate before additional
authorization is required to complete the service.
Burlingame guarantees the quality and quantity of its work under this Contract.
Burlingame warrants and guarantees all maintenance and repairs that it performs on vehicles
and pieces of equipment. However, because this Contract is nonexclusive, Burlingame's
guarantees and warranties cannot and do not apply if the vehicle or piece of equipment
5a utoshopsanmateo.d rf.wpd
August 26,2002
subsequently receives service from another vendor and it cannot be conclusively
demonstrated that Burlingame's service caused the defect, problem, or difficulty
a. SUBCONTRACTS. Burlingame shall charge San Mateo for outside services as
utilized and as documented in Burlingame's Work Orders. Such services shall be marked up
by ten percent (10%) to pay for the expenses incurred by Burlingame in obtaining and
administering the outside services. San Mateo may find that directly contracting for such
outside services will save San Mateo money. This ten percent (I0%) surcharge shall not
apply if San Mateo chooses to directly contract for such outside services.
Warranties and guarantees for subcontracted work shall be those given by the
subcontractor. Warranties and guarantees for work performed by Burlingame in connection
with that subcontracted work shall be as stated above.
b. PARTS AND SUPPLIES. All parts and supplies shall be billed at cost to Burlingame
except for oil and filters, which shall be marked up by fifteen percent (15%)to account for
the costs of used oil and crushed filter pick-up.
c. LABOR RATE. The labor rate atthe time of this Contract shall be Sixty-five and
no/00 dollars ($65.00) per hour. This rate shall be automatically adjusted by the percentage
change whenever the hourly rate of pay for the Burlingame employee classifications
performing the services is changed pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the
employee organization representing that classification and Burlingame. Burlingame shall
provide thirry (30) days prior written notice before any such change takes effect as to this
Contract.
2. PAYMENT. The Contract charges accruing during a given calendar month shall be paid
to Burlingame at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, california 94010.
a. SUBMITTAL OF INVOICES. Burlingame shall submit invoices on a monthly basis
in arrears for actual services provided and costs incurred. Invoices shall include an
itemization of parts, labor, and outside services. Invoices shall be provided within ten (10)
days following the month of service to San Mateo at the following address: San Mateo Fire
Department, 5l l 330 W. 20th Avenue, San Mateo, CA94403.
b. TIME OF PAYI\4ENT. San Mateo shall pay invoices within thirty-five (35) days of
submission. However, San Mateo may determine that it will pay only a portion of an invoice
because of a dispute over a specified item or charge. Should San Mateo determine that it will
not pay the entire invoice submitted, San Mateo shall specif,, in writing to Burlingame what
the item(s) disputed are and what the reason for the disagreement is rro lut.. than ihe thirry-
6autoshopsanmateo.d rf .wpd
August 26,2002
fifth (35th) day after submission of the invoice. San Mateo shall pay the balance of the
invoice that is not in dispute. However, payment of an invoice does not waive the right of
San Mateo to later determine that an item or charge was not proper or justified and to pursue
its remedies regarding such an item or charge. In the event that amounts not in dispute are
not paid within thirty-five (35) days of the invoice date, interest shall be paid on these
amounts at the rate of one and one-half percent (I-ll2%) per month, or such lesser rate as
may be the maximum interest rate permitted by law, on the unpaid balance computed from
the thirty-sixth (36th) day until the date paid.
3. AUDIT. San Mateo or its authorized agent shall have the right to examine all records and
data of Burlingame concerning Burlingame's performance and cost accounting under this
Contract at any reasonable time.
D. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION
1. INSURANCE.
a. BY BURLINGAME. San Mateo understands and agrees that Burlingame is self-
insured for almost all liability, workers' compensation, and property damage losses,
including any that may be suffered because of, or related to, the services to be performed
under this Contract. Specifically, San Mateo agrees that Burlingame shall not te required to,
nor does Burlingame intend to, procure or purchase any property insurance to provide
indemnity coverage on San Mateo vehicles to be serviced and repaired under this Contract.
b' BY SAN MATEO. Burlingame understands and agrees that San Mateo has its own
insurance program for liability, workers' compensation, and properfy damage losses.
2. INDEMNIFICATION. The following express indemnification agreements shall apply
to this Contract:
a. Burlingame shall indemniti and hold harmless San Mateo, its boards, commissions,
officers, employees, and agents, both elected and appointed, from and against all claims of
liability to third parties (including Burlingame, and Burlingame's subcontractors, employees,
associates and other persons assisting Burlingame on a paid or voluntary basis) for injury to
or death of persons, or loss of or damage to property proximately caused by the negligent,
wilful misconduct, or other conduct for which Burlingame may be held liable under State or
Federal law directly arising out of or directly in connection with the performance of
maintenance or repair of San Mateo vehicles under this contract.
7autoshopsanmateo.drf.wpd
August 26,2002
However, this provision shall not apply to liability arising solely from the negligent
actions or wilful misconduct of San Mateo in operating the vehicles. Neither shall this
provision apply to liability arising solely from negligent acts or wilful misconduct committed
by San Mateo, its officers, agents, or employees while in Burlingame.
3. DEFENSE OF SUITS. Burlingame shall defend all suits brought upon such claims for
which Burlingame indemnifies San Mateo as stated in paragraph 2 above and pay all costs
and expenses incidental thereto. San Mateo shall have the right, at its own expense, to
participate in the defense of any suit, without relieving Burlingame of any obligation
hereunder.
4. NOTICE OF CLAIMS AND LITIGATION. San Mateo shall give Burlingame prompt
notice in writing of the institution of any suit or proceeding by filing a claim in the form
required by the Burlingame Municipal Code and permit Burlingame to defend same, and
shall give all needed information to which San Mateo has access or possession to do so.
Burlingame shall similarly give San Mateo immediate notice of any suit or action filed or
prompt notice of any claim arising out of the performance of the Contract. Burlingame shall
promptly furnish San Mateo with copies of all pertinent papers received by Burlingame
regarding such a claim or lawsuit.
E. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. APPLICABLE LAWS. This Contract is subject to all laws of the federal government of
the United States of America and the laws of the State of California. All duties of either
party shall be performable in San Mateo County, California. The applicable law for any
legal disputes arising out of this Contract shall be the law of the State of California, and the
forum and venue for such disputes shall be the appropriate superior or municipal court in and
for San Mateo County, California.
2. NOTICES. All notices required or permitted hereunder shall be in writing (unless
another medium is expressly authorized herein) and will be deemed delivered upon the
earlier of the following: (1) the day when actually received or (2) the third (3rd) business
day following deposit in a United States Postal Service post office or receptacle with proper
postage affixed (certified mail, return receipt requested) and addressed to ih. ,.rp..tive other
parfy as follows:
To San Mateo: Chief
San Mateo Fire Department
330 W. 20tr Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94030
Iautoshopsanmateo.d rf .wpd
August 26,2002
To Burlingame: Chief
Burlingame Fire Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
3. MERGER; ENTIRE AGREEMENT; AUTHORITY. This Contract contains the
entire and integrated agreement between San Mateo and Burlingame and supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations and agreements, whether written or oral, unless otherwise
expressly provided in this Contract.
4. SURVML. Notwithstanding San Mateo's acceptance of services and payment of any
charges or purchase price therefor, and notwithstanding the expiration of the Contract Term,
Burlingame shall remain obligated to San Mateo under all provisions of this Contract which
expressly or by their nature extend beyond and survive such acceptance and payment.
5. FORCE MAJEURE. Timely performance by both parties is essential to this Contract.
However, neither San Mateo nor Burlingame shall be liable for delays in performing its
obligations to the extent the delay is caused by Force Majeure, provided that no time
extension because of Force Majeure shall ever be allowed unless: (a) promptly upon the
occulrence of a Force Majeure, the party whose performance is delayed thereby shall provide
the other party with written notice of the cause and extent thereof as well as request for a
time extension equal to the estimated duration thereof; and (b) within seven (7) calendar days
of the cessation of the Force Majeure, the party whose performance was delayed shall
provide the other party with wriuen notice of the actual delay incurred, upon receipt of which
the time of the delayed performance shall be extended for the time actually lost by reason of
the Force Majeure.
6. NON-WAIVER. Failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any of the
terms and conditions hereof, or failure or delay to exercise any rights or remedies provided
herein or by law, or failure of either party to notify the other properly in the event of default
shall not release the other par:ty from any of the obligations of this Contract, and shall not be
deemed a waiver of any right of the parties to insist upon strict performance hereof or any of
its rights or remedies as to prior or subsequent default hereunder.
7. REMEDIES CUMULATM. The rights and remedies contained in this Contract shall
not be exclusive but shall be cumulative of all rights and remedies now or hereafter existing
whether by statute, at law, or in equity; provided, however, neither parfy may terminate its
duties under this Contract except in accordance with the provisions hereof.
Iautoshopsanmateo.drf.wpd
August 26,2002
8. AMENDMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS. No amendments or modifications of any
kind to this Contract shall have any effect or be binding on either party unless the
modification or amendment is in writing signed by both parties.
This Contract is entered into on the date first written above.
CITY OF SAN MATEO CITY OF BURLINGAME
By_By
Recommended by Recommended by:
Chief, San Mateo Fire Department Chief, Burlingame Fire Department
ATTEST:ATTEST:
City Clerk City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
San Mateo City Attorney Burlingame City Attorney
autoshopsanmateo.drf.wpd 10
August 26,2002
EXHIBIT A
OUTLINE OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
General repairs offered :
Brake work
Drive lines
Pump packing
Valving
Electrical lighting and wiring
Batteries
Starters and alternators
Gauges
Repair work not offered:
Engine replacement, overhaul or rebuilding
Transmission replacement, overhaul, or rebuilding
Pump replacement, overhaul, or rebuilding
Preventative maintenance offered :
Safety inspections pursuant to an agreed-upon checklist (vehicle and equipment)
Oil and oil filter changes and lubrication of chasses
Transmission oil changes
Filter changes and replacements (transmission, hydraulic, coolant, fuel, air)
Cartridge changes and replacements
a utoshopsanmateo.d rf .wpd A-1
August 26,2002
STAFF REPORT 8c
9lt6l02
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBMITTED
BY:
APPROVED
BY:September 9,2002
PUBLIC WORKS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGR EMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP
FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE
BURLINGHOME, EASTON NO. 5 AND EASTON NO. 7 SUBDIVISIONS - CITY PROJECT NO. 80770
Agenda
Item #
MTG.
Date
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing a
professional services agreement with The Culver Group in the amount of $509,265.
BACKGROUND: City Council has approved an annual water system capital improvements program (CIP)
budget of $4,500,000 to replace aging water system infrastructure within the City of Burlingame. The first CIP
project involves the replacement of undersized, inaccessible water mains at the end of their service life located
within the Burlinghome, Easton No. 5 and Easton No. 7 Subdivisions. The water mains are located in
easements behind the homes, rather than in the street as is typical.
DISCUSSION: A request for proposals (RFP) for the design of the water main replacements was sent to a large
number of prospective consulting engineering firms on July 23,2002. The City received six proposals,
interviewed all six prospective firms, and verified individual project references. The Culver Group was selected
as the firm with the best qualifications based on their experience with both the engineering design of water main
replacement projects and with public interaction on similar projects.
The scope of work includes the following:
o Coordinating approximately 500 individual home inspections with home owners within the subdivisions
. Inspecting existing water service connections
. Obtaining approval from approximately 500 individual home owners regarding the final service
connection routing and hookup
. Surveying
o Preparing a pre-design report and detailed construction cost estimates
. Preparing30%o,90Yo, and 100% design submiual packages
o Distributing final design packages to prospective contractors
o Assisting with bidding and award of the construction
The City has negotiated the scope of work and fee for the design and finds it reasonable for the level of
anticipated effort. The design effort proposed by The Culver Group was similar to that proposed by the other
competing consulting firms. Additionally, the $509,265 cost for design engineering services represents
approximately l4Yo of the estimated $3,500,000 total construction cost to replace the water mains. This design
fee is within the normal industry range of l0%o to 20%o of total construction costs and is reasonable given the
scope and complexity of the project.
Staff Report
9 September 2002
Page2 of 2
The project will involve constructing new mains within the streets which will provide better access for
maintenance, improved water quality, water pressure and flows for the residents and is intended to increase the
amount of water available for fire protection. Design work is scheduled to start immediately with the first
phase of construction scheduled for summer 2003.
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement
BUDGET IMPACT: Financing of the long term water main replacement program will be accomplished
through the issuance of bonds. Funds for this project are available in the 200212003 Water System CIP.
c:City Clerk, City Attorney, Phil Scott,
EKI, The Culver Group
S :\APublicWorksDirectory\Staff Reports\CulverGroupDesign. doc
:"
RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
THE CULVER GROI.JP
WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE
BURLINGHOME. EASTON NO. 5 AND EASTON NO. 7 SUBDIVISIONS
CITY PROJECT NO. 80770
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this
Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in
the title above.
2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and
on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certit/ that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
dav of 2N2, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
AGREEMENT FOR PROFBSSIONAIJ EIIGTNEERING DESIGN CONSI'I.TNIT SERVICES
WATER IIAIN REPIJACEI{EIrTS WITEIN TIIE
BI'RL I}IGHOf,'E NO. 5 AIID EASION NO.7 SI'BDIVISIONS
CITY PRO"ECT NO. 80770
THIS AGREEMEIiIT is enE.ered into bhis d,ay of _, 2OO2 ,by and between the City of Burlingame,SEaEe of California, herein called Ehe
'City', and THE CITIJVER cROIrp, engaged in providing ENGII{EERING DESIGN consulEingservi-ces trerein calIed Ehe,,Consultant.,,.
RBCTTAIJS
A. The City ia considering undertaking activiEies for engineering d.egigTrconsulEing aervic€a for th€ water uain ReplaceoenEa within the BurlinghoBe,Eaaton No. 5 and Easton No. 7 SubdLvigLong.
B. The city desiree to engage a.. corrsEructioa Management consurEant to provideinspection testing services i-n conjurcEion with resurfacing major city streetsbecause of the consultant.'s experience and quali.ficaEions to perform the desi-red.wolk -
c. The consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and wilring Eoperform the desired work pursuanE Eo this Agreement.
AGREEMETCIS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOI,LOWS:
EXHIBIT A SHAIJL BE UIDE AS PART OF THI9 AGREEIIENI.
1. scope of services. The consulEant sharl provide a1r services as set forEhin Exhibit A of this agreement.
2. Time of performance. The servi-ces of the consurtant. are to commence uponthe execution of this Agreement. wiEh cor.pletion as on or abouE April 2003.
3. compriance wiEh Laws. The consultant sharl comply with ar1 applicableIaws, codes, ordinances, and reg.ulaEions of governing federal, staee ana focatlaws. Consultant represents arld warrants to CiEy that it has all licenses,permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legallyrequired for consultant Eo practice its profeesion. consultants represenEs a.dwarrants tso CiEy that Consultant shaLl, at its sole cost and expense, keep ineffect or obtain at all times during the term of this AgreemenJ any ]icensee,permits, and approvals which are 1egal1y required for conaurtant. to practice itsprofession. consulLanE shatl maintain a City of Burlingame business license.
1
E : \A Purrric rlolks Dl,!ecro.y\pRdrECrS\SO77O\COXSUL' REVISED.3con,rpd
4. SoIe Responsibilitv. Consultant shall- be responsible for employing or
engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under Ehis Agreement.
5. lnformaL ion/Report. Handlinq. A11 documents furnished to consurtant by thecity and aLl reports and aupportive data prepared by the consultant under this
Agreement are Ehe city's property and sharl be delivered Eo the city upon thecomplet.ion of Consultant,s services or at the City,s written request. AtIreport.s, informaE.ion, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant. inconnection with the performance of its services pursuant tso this AgreemenE areconfidentiar until released by the city to the public, and the cons;ltant. sharrnot make any of the Etrese documents or informatioB available to any individualor organization not employed by the consurtant or the city withouts the written
consenE of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that the reportsto be prepared by the Consultan! pursuant tso this AgreemenE are for the purposeof evaluaEing a defined project, and city's use of the information contained inEhe reports prepared by Ehe consultant in connection vrith oEher projecte shallbe sole1y at. Cily's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents Eo such use inwriting. City further agrees that it will not. appropriate any methodology ortechnique of consurtant which is and has been confirmed in writing by consultantta be a trade secret of Consultant. Consultant may reEain a copy of suchconfidential documents for its records.
6. compensation. comperraation for consurt.ant.,s professional aervices 6har1noE exceed S509,255.00, and payment shall be based upon City approvaL.
Billing shalI be accompanied by a detailed explanation of che work performed bywhom aE whaE rate and on what date. Also, plans, specification", do.lraa.,.t, o1:other pertinent materials shall be submitEed. for City review, even if onty inpartial or draft form.
7. Availabilitv of Records. consultsant shall maintain the records supportingthis billing for not. less than tshree (3) years following completion ot lle wort<under tshis AgreemenE. consultant shalr make Ehese records available toauthori-zed personnel of the city at the consurtant's offices during businesshours upon wriLten request of the Cj"ty.
8. Proiect Manaqer. The project Maaager for the consulLant. for the h'ork rmderthis Agreement shal1 be Raeaev llLsaen.
9. Proiect Manaqement and Biltinqs Duriog the course of the project and tosupport each and every invoice the consultant sha1l furnish contror reporEs thatshal1 include the fotlowing:
(A) A narrative progress report of specific accomplishmenls during thereport.ing period, problems encounEered or anticipat.ed., plans forresolution of problems, accomplishments scheduled for the next reportedperiod, and resulEs of any significant acbivities.
2
s :\A Pub11. llork6 Direcrory\pROraCTS\aO7ZO\CONSOT,T RBVISm.3coa,rpd
(B) A cost report. for each task showing!
1. Current period and cumul-ative expenditures tso date.2. Eslimated cosE to complete and at completion.3. Est.imated date to complete.
4. Approved budget and approved contract amount.
5. A comparison of the estimated cost at. completion with the
approved budget. to show any variance.
10. Assiqnabilitv and subconEracEinq. The services to be performed und.er thisAgreement are uBique and personal to the Consultant.. No portion of theseservices sha11 be assigned or subconEracEed without the written consent of theCitsy.
11. Notices. Any notice required to be given sharl be deemed to be dury andproperly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed tor
To City:Syed Murtuza, P.E./City Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94 010
To ConsultanE:Ramsey His6en/ P. E.
The Culver Group
6850 Regional Street,
Dublin, CA 94 568
Tel: (925) 555-6252
Ste 210
or personally delivered Eo consultsant bo such address or such oEher addressConsultant designates in writing to city.as
L2. Independeni: ContracEor. IE is understood that the Consultant, in Eheperformance of the work and gervices agreed to be performed, shall acb as and. bean independent contractor and no! an agent or employee of the City. As ani-ndepeodent conEractor he,/she ehall not obtain any rights to retirement benefitsor other benefit.s which accrue to City employee(s).
3
s: \A Publ1c flortd Dllecrory\pRoracrs\so?7o\coNsULT RavrsED. 3con.,pd
Completed reports are Eo be submiLt.ed monthly, together with invoicesubmittal, unless dj.recEed otherwise by the Citsy,s project manager. Theinvoice shall be accompanied by a cost breakdown shovring specific personand classification being billed for the period by Eask. Failure ofconsultanE to submit. and updaEe plans or furnish required report.s asdirect.ed shall, consEitute cause for suspension of pa)ment of the invoj-ces -
Mark-up of subcontracted work ehall be no more Ehan l-O percent., and mark-up on any materials, supplies, and gervices shall be no more than 5percent. There strall be no separate palmenls for local Eravel in the BayArea, any phone service/ca1ls, routine reproduction excepE for print.ing offinal contract documents, or other support costs for consultant osubconsul"tant.
with prior writt.en consent, Ehe Consultant may perform some obligations underthis Agreement by subcontracting, but may noE delegate ulEimat.e responsj-biliEy
for performance or assign or transfer interest.s under this Agreement..
13. Confli-cE of InCerest. Consultant uDderstands that its professionalresponsibi-lities is so1ely to the city. The consuttant has and shalr not obEainany holding or interest within tshe City of Burlingame. ConsulEant has nobusiness holdings or agreemenEs with any individual me.nber of the staff or
management of Ehe City or iEs represenEatives nor shall it enter into any suchhordings or agreements. rn addition, consurlant warrants Ehat it does noEpresently and sharl- not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to thoseof the City in the 6ubject of this Agreement, and. it shaLl immediatelydisaasociate iEself from such an interest should it discover it. has done so andshaI1, at the city's sole discreEion, divest itself of such interest. consultantshall not knowingly and sharr take reasonabre steps to ensure that it does notemploy a person having auch an interesE in this performance of this Agreement.If afcer emplolment of a person, Consultant. discovers iE has employed a personwith a direct or indirect int.erest Ehat. would conflict with its performance ofthia Agreement, consultant shall promptly notify city of this ernploymenrrelationship, and shall, at. the City,s sole discret.ion, remove such person from
tshe proj ects .
15. Insurarrce -
A.Minimum Scope of Insurance:
i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duraEion of thecoaEract, ceneral Liability insurance policies insuring hj-m/her and his,/her firmto an amourrt. noE less tharr: one million doltara ($1,OOO,OOO) combined singlelimit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.
ii. Co4sultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of Ehecontract., an Autsomobile LiabiLity inaurance policy ensuring him,/her and his/herstaff to an amount not lesa than one million dotlara ($1,ooo,ooo) combined singlelj-mit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
4
s:\a rrrbltc ro*5 Dileciory\pRoJBcrs\3o770\cDNsrrLT REvrsED.3coa,II)n
consultant. agrees Eo Eestify in any litigation brought regarding Ehe subject of
Ehe work to be performed under tshis Agreement.. ConsulEant shall be compensat.edfor its cosEs and expenses in preparing for, Eraveling Eo, and Eestsifying in suchmatters at iEs then current hourly rales of compensation, unless such litigationis broughE by consultant or is based on allegations of Consult.ant's negligenEperformance or wrongdoing.
L4. Ecrual Emplovment. OpporEunitv. Consu1tanE. warrants that. it is an equalopportunity employer and shall comply with applicabJ"e regulat.ions governing equalemplolment opporlunity. Neither consultanE nor iEs subcontractors do and neithershal1 discriminale against persons employed or seeking emplo)ment with them onthe basis of age, sex, color, race, marital atatus, sexual orientation, ancest.ry,physicar or menEal disability, nationar origin, religion, or medicar condition,unless based upon a bona fide occupat.ional qualificaEion pursuant Lo theCalifornia Fair Emplo)ment & Eousing Act.
iii. Consultant. ahall provide tso tshe City all certificates ofinsurance, wiEh original endorsements effecting coverage. Consultant. agrees Ehatall certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the Citybefore work commences -
iv. Consultant agrees to have ald mainEain, for Ehe duraEion of thecontract., professional liabiLity insurance in amounts not less Ehan gt",OOO,o0o
which is sufficienE to insure consurtant for professional errors or omissions inthe performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement.
B.General Liability:
i. The City, j-Es officers, officials, employees and volunteers areto be covered as insured as respecls: liability arising out of act.ivitiesperformed by or on behalf of the consultant; products and compreEed operationsof consultanE, premises owaed or used by the consurtaot. This requiremenE doesnot appry to the professional liability insurance required for professionalerrors and omissions.
ii. The ConsulEant'a insurance coverage shall be primary insuraaceas respects the city, its officers, official,s, employees and volunteers. Anyinsurance or self-insurances maintained by Ehe city, i.ts officers, officials,
emproyees or vorunt.eers sha1l be exceas of the consurEant,s insurance and sha1lnots contribuEe with its.
iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policiesshall not. affecE coverage provided to the city, its officers, officials,employees or volunEeers.
iv. The consultant's insurance sha11 apply separaEely to eachinsured against. whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect tothe Limits of the insurer's liability.
C. AlI Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this iEem shatl beendorsed Eo state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, red.ucedin coverage or in limits excepE afEer thirtsy (30) days, prior written noEice bycerlified mai1, return receipt requested, haa been given Eo Ehe City. current.cerEification of such insurance ghalr be kepE oD fite at all times during bheterm of thls agreement with the City C1erk.
D. In addition to these policies, Conaultsant shall have and maintainI{orkers' compensation insurance as required by california law and shal1 provideevidence of such policy to the City before beginling services unaer gtris
Agreement. Further, consultant shall ensure that aLl subcontractors emptoyed byconsultant provide the required workers' compensation insurance for theirrespective employees.
16. rndernnification. The consurtant sharl save, keep aad hor-d harmlessindemnify and defend the citsy its officers, agent, emproyees and vol.urteers fromall damages, liabilit.j-es, penaltiea, costs. or expenses in 1aw or equity that mayaL any time arise or be set up because of damagea to property or personal injuryreceived by reason of, or in the course of performing work to the exEent caused
5
s :\a Publtc lloihs Dilecrory\pRoJBcrs\so77o\coNsur,T rsvrsEEr.scoa.vpd
by a wiIIfuI or negligent act, g.f.EgEEi or omissions of the Consultant, or any of
the Consultant,s officers, employees, or a5Jents or any subconsulEant.
L7. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or
remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right, or remedy that
party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this
Agreement constitute a contj-nuingr waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or
any other provision of t,his Agreement.
18. Governins Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, sha1l be
governed by and construed to the laws of the SEate of California. Venue for anyaction regarding this Agreement shall be in tshe Superior or Municipal Court, ofthe County of San Mateo or Santa Clara.
19. Termination of Aqreement. The CiEy and the Consult.ant shall have the rightto terminat,e this agreemenE with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen(15) days written notice of termination. In tshe evenE of termination, tsheConsultant shal1 deliver tso the City all p1ans, files, documents, reports,performed to datse by tshe ConsultanE. fn the evenE of such termination, Citsysha1l pay ConsulLant an amount t,hat bears the same ratio to the maximum contractprice as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated
under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event,
compensation, if any, shalI be adjusted in light of the part.icular fact,s and.circumstances involved in such terminat,ion.
20. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment ofthis Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and theConsultant.
2L. DispuE,es. fn any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement,, Ehe prevailingparty shall be entit,led to reasonable at.torneyrs fees, as well as costs nots toexceed $7,500 in total.
22. Ent,ire AqreemenE. This Agreement constsitutes the complet,e and. exclusivestatement of the Agreement between the City and Consult,ant. No Eerms,condiEions, understandings or agreemenEs purporting to modify or vary thisAgreement, unless hereafEer made in wriEing and signed by tshe party to be bound,shall be binding on eiEher part,y.
6
s : \A Public works Directory\pRoirBg[s\ 80 ??o\clcNslrLT RsvIsED. 3 con. rpd
IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement
as of the date indicated on page one (1).
City of Burlingame
Bv
City Manager
City of Burlingame
Consultant: The Culver Group
Print Name
TitIe
ATTEST:Approved as to form:
City Clerk CiLy Attorney
Revised: September 9, 2OO2 Page 7 of 7
CONSt LT. CON. wRD . doc
EXHIBIT A
Request for Proposal and
Request for Qualifi cations
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
Scope of Work:
The professional services in this contract include a predesign report, 100% PSE and
assistance during the bidding process for areas MRI and MR3. The predesin report will
include a discussion and cost estimate for area MR2.
Task 1: Predesign Report
The Culver Group will set up a meeting with the stakeholders and the involved parties;
the purpose of this meeting is to identify stakeholder representatives, exchange
information, and to develop constraints, requirement and opportunities. The stakeholders
are but not limited to the City of Burlingame staffin the Engineering Division, the Water
Division, the Street and Sewer Division, the Police Department and Fire Departrnent,
Pacific Bell, AT&T broadband, Public Affairs Management and Erler and Kalinowski.
The Culver Group will work closely with City Staffand Public Affairs Management on
all issues, in particular public and community sensitive issues. We propose weekly
progress meetings with City staffand other stakeholders as needed to provide a forum for
discussing project development, progress and next steps.
The Culver Group Team will coordinate meetings and will prepare minutes of the
meetings. We will develop action plans and action items to be carried out by various
parties. These action items will be clearly documented with corresponding due dates and
will be distributed to the meeting participants.
Task 1.2: Utilities Coordination and Verification
Accurate utility information is critical for the success of this project. Horizontal and
vertical locations of the utilities are needed to determine the optimal alignments for the
water main, the lateral service lines and other appurtenances.
The Culver Group Team will request for utility plans and information. The utilities
companies identified are, but not limited to, the City of Burlingame Street and Sewer
Division, The City of Burlingame Water Division, the City of Burlingame Electrical
Division, PG&E, ATT Broadband, Pacific Bell and other communications companies
I The Culver Group
Task L.1: Project Commencement and Information Gathering
The project will commence with a meeting between the Culver Group Team and City
staff. The purpose of the meeting is to exchange inforrration needed to commence the
successor tasks. During this meeting the Culver Group will present a schedule outlining
all tasks, durations and milestones necessary to successfrrlly complete each and every
task under this procurement.
Request for Proposal and
Request for Qualifi cations
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
It was noted during our field observation that many of the utilities are aerial and occupy
joint utility poles.
Subsequently, the underground utilities will be verified for grade and line. This effort can
be accomplished by various methods utilizing the respective utility's forces. To expedite
response, the Culver Group Team has retained the services of Miller Pipeline, an
established firm specializing in utility verifications. Miller Pipeline is available to
perform the necessary non-destructive services to ascertain exact line and grade of
underground utilities. Our proposed utility coordinator will oversee the utility verification
effort and will document field conditions. In many cases sewer line grades may be
verified by simple survey procedures.
The utility information will be documented in a utility matrix and will be transferred to
the plans.
Additional individual property service line verification may be needed. The Culver Group
will retain the services of utility line locator. This is to ascertain location of the service
lines such as gas lines, telephone lines and others.
Task 1.3: Site Reconnaissance, Photo Plans and Profile Sheets Showing All Utilities
The Culver Group Team will conduct a thorough site reconnaissance and information
gathering of the entire project. We propose to develop a photographic record of the
project. This effort will assist during the design phase and will provide for pre-
construction conditions.
This effort will commence after the property owners receive City public information
notice. This is estimate to be on October l,2OO2.
The Culver Group will supplement the currently available city maps and plans with new a
fieldsurvey as approved by the City. The survey will accurately ascertain physical
locations of improvements. The survey will also reflect information not available in
aerials, such as hidden areas, inverts, utility valves, affected signs and other features.
The utility information will be integrated onto the plans and will show horizontal and
vertical locations of all utilities. The utility information will be provided as part of the
contract plans and will also be used in designing the optimal alignments of the proposed
water distribution main, the new service lines and other appurtenances.
2 The Culver Group
Request for Proposal and
Request for Qualifi cations
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
Task 1.4: Service Line Connections Design
Each property will require an individual service connection plan. The Culver Group will
prepare an individual service line installation designs for each house on9 y2X 11 sheets.
This effort will be utilized in the final PS&E. A cost estimate for each home will be
prepared reflecting all restoration efforts needed.
Homes with water meters located in the rear of the property will pose installation
challenges. The traditional cut and cover methods to connect the new service line to the
existing water service point in the rear of the property will be disruptive and will have the
potential of physical and public relations impacts. We anticipate that this type of
installation would be, in most cases, costly and would impact certain improvements such
as concrete driveways, landscaped are€rs, fences, sheds, garages and other possible
improvements.
To provide an alternative, the Culver Group Team has contacted several firms
specializing in directional boring. This method of installation appears to be a feasible at
this time. Two trenches approximately 2 feet by 2 feetwill be needed to accomplish this
task. The directional boring trench can be located adjacent to the sidewalk and iurb area
or if feasible can be done in the utility easement corridor. The receiving trench can be
located adjacent to the new water meter. The preliminary cost estimates provided for
directional boring service ranged from $7 per LF to $12 per LF. This proposed method
will eliminate the impacts to the physical improvement to the properties and can be
accomplished with minimal disruptions to the resident. The Culver Group Team will
further research this altemative and make recommendations to the City foi approval.
The Culver Group Team has discussed the feasibility of the service point connections to
the properties. The exact location of the service connection points will be evaluated by a
site visit to each home. We also will recommend that the alignment of the directional
boring if utilized be adjacent to the structures and not underneath them. Generally
connecting the service line directly to the dwellings water system in the crawl space may
pose some difficulties. The homes, although well maintained, are old and potentially have
fragile plumbing systems. A break in the home plumbing system can become a liability
issue to the City. The Culver Group Team will conduct a thorough evaluation of this
issue, and determine the best approach for each property for property owner and City
approval. To assist in this general effort, the Culver Group Team has retained the services
of a plumber"
The Culver Group will contact each owner to arrange for an appointment to assess each
home. This effort will commence after receiving the executed right of entry. Due to the
time factor involved, the Culver Group Team is proposing to asslgn ffio frrll time staff
members to conduct this effort. Somelssuer *uy arise such as absentee homeowners,
rental properties and homeowners who may not be available during regular business
J The Culver Group
Request for Proposal and
Request for Qualifi cations
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
hours. The evaluation and analysis effort will require a significant amount of
coordination and in some cases may occur during the weekend or after hours.
The Culver Group Team has retained the services of a Landscape Architect. Their effort
will be optional and will be used in evaluating and quantifying the landscaping impacts.
Task 1.5: Stage Construction and Construction Activity Requirements, Constraints
and a Preliminary Construction Schedule
Preliminary stage construction plans will be developed during this phase. Properly
designed stage construction plans are key to the success of the project. The preliminary
stage construction plans will address logical sequencing of work and will take into
consideration specific City and stakeholder requirements such as occupancy of work area,
storage of equipment and material, allowed working hours, number of allowed displaced
parking spaces at one time, noise requirements, allowed time frames for the service
lateral cut overs and other City requirements.
The Culver Group Team will develop the construction sequencing plans. We wilt utilize
criteria to maximize the contractor's productions rates while taking into account the
project constraints.
The Culver Group Team will evaluate the logical phasing of this project based on fiscal
constraints. We will also evaluate the limits of the proposed construction projects and we
will recommend that the first construction contract address the less complicated areas and
installations. This proposal will allow City staffand the Culver Group Team to learn of
new opportunities that may be utilized in the subsequent construction projects.
We anticipate the need for a staging area for the contractor. The City may consider
providing an area for the contractor to store equipment and material during non-work
hours. This may provide for some cost savings.
Our Project Manager, Mr. Ramsey Hissen, P.8., will perform a thorough constructability
review on the construction documents
Task 1.6: Cost Estimate
The Culver Group Team will prepare a detailed cost estimate utilizing the estimated
quantities. The Culver Group Team will utilize the latest cost data and factor in the
project sequencing, modified production rates and a project contingency.
Task 1.7: Report Preparation
The Culver Group Team will develop a comprehensive report incorporating a narrative,
all derived plans, service line information, construction sequencing and cosl estimate.
4 The Culver Group
Request for Proposal and
Request for Qualifi cations
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
This report will provide an accurate scope of work containing project opportunities and
challenges. This planning and preliminary engineering information is neided for the next
phase of developing detailed plans, specifications and estimates. This report will be
submitted to the City for approval.
The City Stafl stakeholders and the departmental input will be of utmost imporcance
during this assignment. The Culver Group Team will make sure that there is an open line
of communication between all parties through the completion of the project.
Task 2: Prepare Plans and Specifications
Task 2.1: Prepare30o/o Plans, Specifications and Estimate
The Culver Group Team will work directly in association with WRECO, our water
resource-engineering consultant, in preparing the plans, specifications and estimates. The
Culver Group Team will prepare the complete set of construction documents that will
include the layout sheets, utility plans, profiles and alignments, stage construction plans,
construction details, contract quantities and specifications.
We will perform site visits to determine the feasibility of the proposed alignments of the
new water main. We will conduct a physical survey of the site and document all
observations including locations of fire hydrants, water valves and other appurtenances
and improvements.
The Culver Group Team will provide the optimal alignment for the proposed water main.
The alignment will be optimally designed to avoid utility relocationi. In the event of an
unavoidable conflict, the Culver Group Team will work closely with the effected utility
company in designing a utility relocation plan for the conIlict.
The Culver Group Team has retained the services of a Kleinfelder for Geotechnical
expertise and R.B. Welty and Associates, for structural engineering expertise. In the
event that the specialty services are needed, the Culver Group Team istapable of
mobilizing these sub-consultants immediately.
Individual property new service line plans will be incorporated into the pSE.
5 The Culver Group
Request for Proposal and
Request for Qualifi cations
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
The Culver Group Team will also complete fire hydrant connection plans and all other
necessary details and plans.
Right of entries will need to be secured prior to the construction phase. The Culver Group
Team is available to take the lead on this task or to assist the City in this effort.
During this phase contract quantities will be developed and the cost estimate updated.
The Culver Group Team will prepare the plans and specification suitable for public
bidding in CSI format.
The Culver Group Team will work closely with City staffand will provide the3}%plans
and specification for review and comment.
Task 2.22 Prepare90 o/" Plans, Specifications and Estimate
The Culver Group Team will continue with the effort to advance the design and
specification to the g}Yolevel. This effort will encompass developing the final details and
incorporating the comments from the City's review. The cost estimate will be updated.
Task 2.3: Prepare 100 7o Plans, Specifications and Estimate
The Culver Group Team will continue with the effort to advance the design and
specification to a 100% level. Comments from the City's review and all concerned parties
will be incorporated in the plans, specifications and estimate.
Task 3: Provide Assistance during Bidding
Task 3.1: Distribution of Contract Documents
The Culver Group Team will assist the City in all efforts necessary to successfully
advertise, conduct the pre bid meeting, address bidder inquiries, prepared necessary
addenda and assist in awarding the project
The Culver Group Team will distribute the completed Contrdct Documents to appropriate
bidders' exchange and prospective bidders.
Task3.2: Pre Bid Meeting
The Culver group Team will be available to assist the City with coordinating and setting
the pre bid meeting. We anticipate the need to document the pre bid meeting for future
-
reference. The pre bid meeting will require a specific agenda and rules.
6 The Culver Group
Request for Proposal and
Request for Qualifications
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
Task 3.3: Addenda Preparation
The Culver Group Team is available to prepare any and all required addenda and to
inform the city as to the nature and the costs involved.
Task 3.4: Contractor Bidder Inquiry
The Culver Group Team is available to address all bidder inquiries. As part of our
proposed effort we will propose to formalize the effort and request all bidder inquires in
writing. The Culver Group Team is available to create a web address and place all bidder
inquires and response onto the Internet. This will allow for an even playing field between
all prospective bidders.
7 The Culver Group
Request for Proposal and
Request for Quali{ications
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Projects
Cost Proposal:
The attached cost proposal is for providing professional services for a predesign report,
100% PSE for areas MRl and MR3 and for providing bidding assistance. The predesign
report will include discussion and projected cost for area MR2.
The attached cost proposal provides the hours for the project tasks and expands the
information by providing hourly staffrates and costs for the individual tasks and assigned
staff members.
Two provided City milestones, the notice to proceed of September 17,2002 andthe
award of the construction contract of April 1,2003 establishes the durations of the tasks.
Cost for transportation, printing and other direct expense will be billed at cost. These
expenses are estimated at $7,500.
We have retained the service of Miller Pipeline for pot holing services. We have
allocated an allowance of $10,000 for their respective services. On site utility verification
will be done on an as need basis and is estimated at $ 20,000.
The services of a survey crew will be necessary during the project development phase.
The Culver Group will perform the survey effort for this assignment. For estimating
purposes we have set an allowance of $20,000 and will be used as necessary.
Summary:
Pot Holing
Field Survey
Direct expense estimate
Possible Totals
$30,000
$20,000
$ 7.s00
$57,500
Total Cost for Professional Services $451,765
Total Cost of Project not to exceed $509,265
The Culver Group
0 0 17SEP02 -'10 Start Projoct
2 2 18SEP0220Meeting w/Clty Staff - Obtain lnformation
20 20 18SEP0230Utilitios Coordination & Verification
18SEP02Site Reconnalssance, Photo Plans & Proffle 20 2040
38 38 090cT0250Design of New Service lnstallation
14 14 12NOV0260Prepare Preliminary Construction Sequence
Prepare Preliminary Cost Estimate70
7 7 09DEC0280Prepare Pr€design Report
1 1 17DEC0290Deliver Predesign Report to City
020cT02Start Design Activities 0 0s5
52 52 020cT02100Preparo 30olo Plans & Specifications
5 5 09DEC02110Prepare 307o Cost Estimate
Submit 307o PS & E to City124
130 City Review of 30% PS & E
140 Prepare 90% Plans & Specificatlons
02JANOSlncorporate City Comments '10 10150
5 5 09JANO3160Prepare 90% Cost Estimato
1 1 16JANO3170Submit 90% PS & E to City
8 8 17JANO3180City Review of 90% Design
17JANO3Prepare 1007o Plans & Specifloations '15 15190
5 5 29JANO3200lncorporate City Comments
3 3 MFEBO3210Prepare 100% Cost Estimate
100%PS&EComplete220
1 1 OTFEBO3230Submit 100% PS & E to Clty
235 Design Effort Complete
lOFEBO3Assist City with Bid & Award of Constr 37 37240
19SEP02
OStart Project
f,Meetlng Wolty Steff- Obtain lnformatlon
ry Uulities Coordination & Verifrcation
,QSite Reconnaissance, Photo Plans & Profile
E Design of New Service lnstallation
150cr02
150CT02
02DEC02
02DECO2 ry Prepare Preliminary CQnstruction Sequence
frl Prepare Preliminary Cost Estimate
& PrcPare Predesign RePort
I Deliver Predesign Report to CitY
OStart Design Activities
06DECO2
17DECO2
17DECOZ
13DEC02 30% Plans & Specifications
'13DEC02 19Prepare 30% Cost Estimate
Esubmit 30% PS & E to Clty
Rl CiV Review of 307o PS & E
ryPr6pare 90% Plans & Specifications
16DEC02
31DEC02
1sJANO3
1 sJANO3 dn lncorporat€ City Comments
1sJANO3 OPrepare 90Yo Cost Estimate
f,Submit 9070 PS & E to City
frClty Roviow of 90% Design
FPPrepare 10070 Plans & Speclfications
1 6JAN03
28JAN03
06FEBO3
04FEBO3 lncorporate City Comments
06FEBO3 EPrepare 100% Cost Estimato
4100%PS&EComplete
ESuOmit 100% PS & E to City
O Deslgn Efiort Complcto
06FEBO3
OTFEBO3
OTFEBO3
OlAPRO3 Asslst City with Bid & Award of Constr Contract
OlAPRO3 tlCity to Award Construction Contract245City to Award Constructlon Contract
Run da .e O5SEPO2
Paoe number 'lA
E EarlybarA Early start PointV Early finish pointE Progress bar
-
Critical bar
-summarybara Start mil6stono PolntO Flnish mll6ston6 ooir
City of Burlingame
Water System CIP Proiects
The Gulver Group Team
1ol 1ol22NOVo2
1l 1[16DECo2
1ol 101 17DECo2
2ol 2ol 17DEco2
ol 0l
ol 0l
ol ol
Bte OI APRO3
a lgALJGO2
Page 1 of 2
Rcynoeo X. ey.., P.E
ScdorDcdgm Eeh.rr
tmaco
aJo6F
oooLo.
.ra!F
.o,o
oo
Eo.
A LctElldotr$, O. Eae., P.E
ScnlorArodd gtghc.t
U'RECOTask tlescriptim
tt
.
3120 3100Rate
l{our3 Totd/Test Hoorr Todlrt
I Prt&daRelort
8 3960t-t Protctt Courcnccaent end Infomelion Gr&cftu
Itiltrct Coordirullon rnd Vcrtfrcrttonl2
E 39CO t 3E00IJ:Sftc Rccornrbsre, Plrn , Pr,ofile ShGGa!, UtiEtlG. &
0Scrhc Lhc Corrrcctions Evetntlon udlhtkn1A
'16 31.920 16 31.600t.!Sirlc Conrtnrcahn md hcliokrery Conrtnrc{lon Scln
E $960 l5 31.600t.a CortErthe0c
8 396{'1 3,O01:t Reoort Preorrrtlon
hcnene Plenr rnd Soccificrtionr2
Prcoerc 30 % PbB. Secctfcetbru rnd Eilhr0c {o 34.U'0 20 32.000LI
{o m 3't.000L2h,cnerc !0'r5 ?ler. Socttfotlonr entErtlnitc $4,800
a0 s4r00 34 $3.{0023hcorlc 100 To Plrm. Spctrtlou rnd E afrr.ic
I Provldc Arkt na durfu Bidd&E
IXrffiutlen ef Contnct Documcrilrtt
1 3ae,!.1 Prc lfd Moe&E
3.l 2 J2{i0 E 3800Adderdr PrcD.rr{on ^
2 32aO Et..Centrrcner Hl&r Inmdry $Eoo
776 321.120 134 3t3JOoTotd llourslCoet Dcf,Tean Xember
The Cutver Group
Page 2 of 2
.xo6F
.o
=o
(,o
o
o-
Ethl{ludqror l(cyln
Trn Englnoqlne
Tcctot rmTOG Totd lloon TOTALTASK
SUbTASK
Tet
3m
_fi:! !
Prcoere Prederbr Rcoort 1.6(,;t t1t.960
t.t Prolcct Coamenement md Infometien Gr0rcrhc 16 32.r)(}
l2 Utlltdc. Ccordhrtlon md Vcrifceaion 1tu 313.600
'J
Sltc Rccomrbrtcc, Plrn , hoflc Shcctr, Udfitlcr Phnr 216
IA Scrvlcc thc Comccdou Evelrrrloa md Ilcrbl 314J00 9E0
i.5 Sarae Conrtnrc{on rnd Prcthh.ry Comtnrctlon Sdredule 96 310.960
l.c CortErdmile E'3E.1EO
1.7 Rcrort Pneparrtim 66
2.811
Pre-plrc 3O 96 Plrnr, Spccifcefonr rrd ErtlmrtcL7 t oTt-.-
2-2 lo44 ssE.lm
zt Prtprrc f00 % Phrr, SDccffc.tldu rd Ertlmerc 719 $712s5
Provl& ArBarncc &rrfq BildiE x21
tt Dfuarihrtton ef Cenarrc{ Decrmrar a 32.480
t.2 32 33.520
t-3 ,Addcndr Prtparetlon EE 3E'260
t4 tContrrc0o r Bld&r Inguirv 76
Totat ]lourslCost pqrTeanr llernber zu 3t{.mo 4.667 t't51,765 3as1.765
Task
Rate
f-EiJ'Bs-lProject Total
The Culver Grcup
32rJ60
2fi
t6 7m
tt02-590
37-tao
:
I
I
I
I
I
I
;
i
:
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
.t
:
,
:
i
.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, September 9, 2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
ilI. MINruTES
V.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
No study items for review.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
1a.
1b.
Chair Keighran called the Septemb er 9, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at7:04 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Auran, Boju6s, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
StaffPresent: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zorung Technician, Sean
O'Rourke; City Attomey,Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Donald Chang
Staff noted three editing changes to the minutes of the August 26, 2002
meeting page3,line 3 constructed instead of construction; line 11, ...romex
of a kind which was a-material not used..., ffid line 27, l99l-93. The
minutes were approved as amended.
IV
CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON T,HE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CINSIDERED To BE RIUTTNE. THEY ARE
ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY WLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY T'HE APPLICANT,
A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PruON TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION YOTES 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.
2012 DAVIS DRTYE - ZONED R-l _ APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE
STORY ADDITION (LISA STRIEBING, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY oWNER; STEWART
ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (52 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATFIERINE KEYLON
r8T9 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND
HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION (BINEY SAGOO, RYS
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN PATEL,
PROPERTY owNERS) (45 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: sEAN o,RouRKE
1419 COLTTMBUS AVENUE . ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG
ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROBERT AND MICHELLE SMITH, PR6PERTY
OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O,ROURKE
lc.
,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
ld. 1471 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED R-I _ APPLICATION FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION AND UPDATE FOR MINOR CHANGES (KENNETH AND VANESSA
KAMMULLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PHILLP R. DIXON, ARCHITECTA.IESTOR C.
REGINO, DESIGN ADVOCACY, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
KEYLON
1e.1832 & 1860 ROLLINS ROAD _ ZONED M.l _ APPLICATION FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO
AN APPROVAL FOR A FRONT SETBACK AND TOTAL SITE LANDSCAPING VARIANCES,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO VARY FROM THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS IN THE M-l
DISTRICT AND FOR VEHICLE PARKING IN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR AN INCREASE OF
OFFICE SPACE [GARCIA/WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, C/O PACIFIC BELL, APPLICANTS; AMVALL
rNC. (1832 ROLLINS ROAD) AND ART MTCHAEL (1860 ROLLINS ROAD), PROPERTY OWNERS;
GARCIA/WAGNER & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT] (27 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE KEYLON
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. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
VUL REGULAR ACTION ITEM
750 WALI\UT AVEI\IIE _ ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ASI
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; FITALI RUSLI AND JAJE DU, PROPERTY
owNERS) (75 PRO.IF,CT PI-ANNER:AN O'ROI]RKF,
Reference staffreport,g.Og.Oz,with attachments. ZT O'Rourke presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Thomas Woo, representing the project, spoke noting that they
tried to address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the suggestions made at the last meeting.
Commissioner noted that the front porch recedes back, would like to see the front porch moved forward.
Applicant stated that they were concemed with guests coming over arld wanted to make sure they had a place
to fark. Commissioner noted that the entry does not seem quite balanced, recommend that applicant look
at changing front entry; excellent job of adding trees and shrubs along left side elevation, concerned that
going to become a jungle, recommend removing the shrubs along left side. Applicant stated that they would
*ut i that change. Commissioner asked if light fixtures have been added to the rear since the last review,
concemed about high wattage bulbs affecting neighbors; applicant stated that they added light fixtures at the
rear so that the owners could watch the children in the rear yard at night, the lot is big and light should not
affect neighbors. There were no frrther comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Osterling noted the new changes are nice, need some work at the front entry, lights at rear are a concem.
Made a motion to approve the project with changes to the front entry. The motion died from lack of a
second.
C. Auran made motion to place this project on the consent calendar with changes to the front enty to make
it equallyproportional. There was no second.
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
Comment on motion: This is an enormous house, should come back uN an action item, sifuation at front enby
needs redesign to add balance, landscape changes and provide code compliant exterior lighting.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions had been
made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by Chair Keighran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote to place this on the regular action calendar at a time when the
revisions had been made. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This
item concluded at 7:28 p.m.
A SECOND STORY DORMER ADDITION (RICK SOSS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY owNER) (61
NOTICED)PLANNER O'ROURKE
Reference staff report,9.09.02, with attachments. ZT O'Rourke presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Rick Soss, the property owner, was available to answer
questions. Commissioner asked if there was room for any more dormers, would Commission see applicant
again. Applicant noted that he would not be proposing any other dormers, does not want any more windows
on the south elevation because its too hot. Commissioner asked if applicant has spoken to the neighbor at
114 Bloomfield. Applicant noted that he had spoken to the neighbor and the neighbor was in support and
in the audience. 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 August 27,
2002, sheets 1 - 5, with three dormers on the second floor and that any changes to the 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, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) and attic area, moving
or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to
design review; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's and Recycling
Specialist's September 3,2\Oz,memos shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet atl the requirements
of the California Building Code and Califomia Fire Code, 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 on a1-1voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:32p.m.
4.1509 HOWARD AYEI\II]E - ZOIIED R.l _APPLICATION FORAN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(DENZ SALON,APPLICANT AND OWNER; MATTHEW BOLLAK,DESTGNER) (6s NOTTCED)
PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA
Reference stalfreport,9.09.02,with attachments. ZT O'Rourke presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Deparhnent comments. Six conditions were suggested for considerati,on.
ChairKeighran opened the public hearing. Matthew Bollak, 1505 Cypress Avenue, San Mateo, architect
for the project spoke stating that he originally worked on the project a few years ago. Now, there is a new
aJ
3. 110 BLOOMTIELD ROAD _ ZONED R-I _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
owner, Deniz Salon, who he has worked with in the past. In designing the project, the architect stated that
he studied the craftsman design and worked to implement these characteristics into the new design. The new
proposal includes adding another bedroom, eliminating the basement, changing the location of the stairs,
extending the right side of the building, adding triangular braces, and a small balcony in front.
Commissioner asked how the shingles were going to be finished? Applicant stated that the shingles would
be natural color. Commissioner asked would the slate tiles be real. Applicant stated that they would be real
slate tiles. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noted that the Commission struggled with this project in the past, the new design is very nice,
moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 30,2002, Sheets
A.l tlnough A.4, and date stamped November 29,2001, Sheet Ll;z) that the conditions of the City Engineer
and Chief Building Official memos dated October 22,2001and November 15, 2001 shall be met; and the
Recycling Specialist's memo dated August 26, 2002, shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable
basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would
include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a windory (s), adding
a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that all the windows
on the approved plans, shown as true divided light windows, shall be installed as true divided lights with
wood trim; 5) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition and construction recycling
ordinance recently approved by the City Council; and 6) 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 Chair Keighran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m.
5.1405 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R.4 _ APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO AN APPROVED
CONDOMINII.JM PERMIT, NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN (ROMAN KNOP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNE& MCHAEL CALTAN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN
HIIRIN
Reference staff report,9.09.Oz,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report; reViewed criteria
and staffcomments. Fifteen conditions, four of which were new, were suggested for consideration. CP
Monroe noted that this item came to the commission because of demolition work resulted in the removal
of a number of frees along the north property line which the approved plans showed to be retained. Of the
three trees left, two are of protected size. Commissioners asked: what was the parking variance for which
was granted in January 2OOl. CP noted the variance was for number of maneuvers for the guest parking
space at the rear of the driveway. Would root proof material be used for the drain on the north side. CP
noted it would be preferred. Letter at desks from Dr. Hunt, property owner of 141I El Camino Real asks
how the conditions addressing maintenance will be enforced. CP commented that the on going conditions
for maintenance of vegetation and sprinkler systems are generally included in the CC and R's and become
the responsibility of the owners in the condominium project. Commissioner asked owner suggests lowering
the grade on the north side of the lot in the side yard, there is a retaining wall at that location, looks like
removing the soil will create a lot ofproblems, don't know if the approach makes since. Staff refened the
question to the applicant during the public hearing. There were no further questions by the commissioners
of staff.
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Janet Fogerty, attorney for Mr. kop; Frank Gonzales, architect,
951 Old County Road, Belmont, Michael Callan, landscape architect spoke. She noted that Mr. Knop wants
to work with the city; he is not happy that the trees were removed; he proposed to excavate the side yard and
bring the property to the same grade as the property next door, this will remove the space needed for the
retaining wall and allow the root balls of the trees to grow below the "planter box" created by the retaining
wall and the wall of the garuge; wants to proceed with construction before it begins to rain. Have seen the
neighbor's letter; willing to work with neighbor and the City Arborist to place trees so that they create a
screen and survive. Would ask Commission to consider amending the plan to lower the grade rather than
relocate the utilities so that there would have to be fixed pipes under the driveway which would be hard to
repair; CC and R's could put homeowners under the obligation to maintain the vegetation, irrigation and site
improvements. Concerned that the neighbor is asking Mr. Knop to replace his driveway, the roots were cut
at property line. Tree removal may have been best in the end since the City Arborist now does not think the
trees would have survived construction. Architect noted that the proposal is to lower the grade in the side
yard so that it matches the neighboring property, install the utility lines immediately adjacent to the building
at the lower grade, enclosed in a box if the city requires it. The difference in side setback measurement
between the architectural site plan and landscape plan can be explained by the fact that the distance was
measured from the foundation on the architect's plan and from the location of the new wall on the landscape
plans. The difference was one foot.
Commissioners asked architect: what utilities would be placed on the north side, the fire line and the storm
drain. Staffnoted that the building departrnent would require anypipes attached to the wall of the building
to be enclosed in a box. Could these lines be placed on the other side of the building; yes, at a greater cost;
does public works agree about pipe location, Senior Engineer Chang noted that Public Works allows pCV
pipe above grade at single family houses, not multiple family. How did it happen that the demolition
contractor removed trees that the plans showed were to be kept? Demolition contractor was a sub, when
picked up demolition permit did not get a set of plans so when establish point of excavation had no idea the
hees to be retained; no way to save in five feet with an 8 foot retaining wall with water proofing and two
feet for utilities, trees were in the area to be excavated. Did you see the plans before demolition? Mr. Knop
noted he had seen the plans before but did not realize that the trees would not survive, it would save him
moneyto have kept the trees; he forgot during demolition that the hees were to remain. Demo permit said
nothing about keeping the trees? No. Attorney Fogerty noted that the issue is where do we go now, the City
Arborist'said the trees would not survive, want to get better trees and not damage the nei-ghbor's property.
Landscape architect commented willing to work with CityArborist and with the species recommended, can
plant once the conskuction is done and the utilities in place, will work with neighbor and arborist in
placement. Do utility lines have to go in that location? Don't know, some could be relocated, lowering the
grade will benefit the roots as will getting new plant material and good irrigation. Commissioner noted that
this is not a "blame game" important to note that the Planning Commission takes seriously adherence to
plans, if they are unworkable you come back to the Commission for review. Commission has faced a
number of builders who feel that they can do it their own way, it does not work. If you excavate the side
will it drop the whole building? No, just lower adjacent dirt. CA advised that it would be necessary to
submit revised plans to show the changes to the project caused by lowering the grade on the site. There were
no more questions for the applicant and his representatives.
Colleen Dougharty, attorney for Gary Hunt, property owner at l4l1 El Camino Real; Gary Hunt, one of the
property owners at l4l1 El Camino Real; Batina Houston, resident manager at l4ll El Camino Real; Anna
Kapa, Real Estate Agent for Mr. kop; Jack Satro, part owner of 14l l El Camino Real spoke. Have
submitted a letter and photos documenting issues that have arisen with the construction, ..*orul of the trees
prevented the people next door from finding a solution to issues raised by modifying the design of the
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
building, now lost privacy, view screen, subject to dirt, increase in noise. Two issues of concem want the
vegetative screen which was there before restored and want to know how to protect the property at 1411 El
Camino Real from the construction of the new building. Concerned there are no plans to lower grade; no
comments from the arborist on the lowered grade, concemed with effects on drainage on their property. In
letter made several suggestions want arborist to be present on site daily throughout consfruction and require
maintenance to be permanent; have the stumps removed without impact on the next door driveway; if trucks
go on the neighbor's property how will the driveway be protected; post a bond for maintenance of vegetation
and irrigation system; power wash building at 1411 El Camino because of dust and dirt; how will pipes
above grade affect the neighbor next door. Know that delay is costly to developer but want to review plans
and have staffreview before Planning Commission acts. Submitted pictures showing root damage along
driveway on t4l1 El Camino Real. Live on that side of the building, has had a big impact on the quality
of life; left notes for the contractor that the trees were not to be removed, called the city, he removed the
trees after the building was removed, city stopped before all were gone. Effect of removal is that aparhnent
is hotter, loss of privacy and view, dust and dirt (no site wetting during demolition), noise from El Camino
more obvious. Heard Mr. Knop tell the demolition man to take the trees down. Mr. Knop was not on the
site during the excavation he was in the East Bay on another project. She was the contact and no one called
her at her office in Redwood City to ask about the tree removal. Amenable to the removal of the retaining
wall, providing that there is no problem with the revised grading, concerned about drainage. Attorney
Fogerty asked that the public hearing be left open to submit a letter later to the Commission. Concemed that
lowering the grade on the north side of the building will make it more difficult to provide a vegetative screen
of the same height as the one removed.
Applicant responded: property owner next door wants trees on my property to shield his property and wants
him to pay for his driveway repair too, driveway was poorly built originally; under the impression that trees
were to be removed and gave order to remove them; concerned about the amount of time it will take to
resolve this; neighbors have no trees on their site and want him to provide them; would like to complete
excavation, grade side and prepare site then resolve the issue of landscape design; lower grade would be
achieved by a lower retaining wall, the front of the building would not change and roots of trees could then
extend below retaining wall. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
Commissioner discussion: How deep would a sprinklei line be required to be buried; in the street three feet,
on private property 18 inches, but should be confirmed by the Fire Marshall; two lines were shown in the
side yard, drain and fire sprinkler; would like to see new plans that show: retaining walls, regarding, issues
with neighbors should be addressed, including working together.
Chafu Keighran noted that there are to manyunknown issues, cannot speculate about what happened, would
like to see this item continued to address the items suggested by Mrs. Dourghty in her letter and revised
plans including front elevations, changes to proposed grading on sides, cross section to show difference in
grade existing and after lowered; revisions to retaining walls, utilities and irrigation systems, trees with
height at maturity (included on cross section), best management practices for NPDES should be included
so will move to continue this item until a revised submittal has been prepared including these and other
items mentioned and checked by staff. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Comment on the motion: agree that revised plans should include irrigation, utilities, kees, changes proposed
to grading, revisions to the retaining walls, and the developer should work with the neighbor; conditions
proposed by Mrs. Dougharty letter should be considered; encourage Mrs. Fogarty to submit a revised letter
with the plans; issue is not blame, the applicant is accountable to the city for compliance with the approved
6
6.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
plans, now we need to be sensitive to every aspect of the project as it goes forward; applicant needs to
provide information on how the tees will be maintained in the future and who will be responsible; will the
whole building be lowered as a result of grading in the side yard; will the slope on the driveway change,
might be good to lower the whole building, Iess impact on the neighbor's; want plans to show the building
as it will be built.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until revised plans with requested
information have been prepared, submitted, checked by staff and noticed for another public hearing. the
motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item is not appealable. The item concluded at 9:05 p.m.
819.849 & 863 MITTEN ROAD - ZONED O.M- APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MASTER SIGN PROGRAM (CLAIRE WILDE, SIGN CLASSICS, APPLICANT; ALEXANDRIA REAL
Reference staff report , 9 .09 .02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments' Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There *eir ro questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Claire Wilde, Sign Classics, was present to answer questions.
She noted that the applicants are eager to put in the new signs and they are currently upgrading thi signage
at all their properties. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chair Keighran noted that is unusual to see an applicant come in with a reduction in signage, noting that in
this case the new sign area complied with the current sign code area and moved to approve the appiication,
by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the signs shall be installed as shown o, itre ptans
submitted to the Planning Departrnent and date stamped July 26, 2002, (site plan and elevatio ns 8y2,, x I 1 ");
including an illuminated24'-5" x l'-10" wall sign and an illuminated two-sided 8" x 4'-0" shingle sign (per
side) and there shall be no window or other signage on the site; 2) that any increase in the rrrrrnb.r, tfo", o,
area of the signs on the sites, shall require an amendment to the master sign program; and 3) that the project
shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the 1998 edition Califomia Building and Fire
Codes as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motiou to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:13 p.m.
7. T'PDATE RULES OF CUR PLAI\[NING
Reference staffreport,9.09.O2,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report. Commissioner asked
what is the difference between an adminiskative application and an administrative hearing. CA Anderson
stated that they were basically the same thing. It all falls under the Brown Act. There are different levels
of noticing required.
Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Boju6s moved to recommend the proposed changes to the Planning Commission's rules ofprocedure
to city council, byresolution. The motion was seconded by c. Keele.
Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to City Council. The motion passed
on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at9:20p.m.
7
8.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Septetnber 9, 2002
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
1537 DRAKE AVEIITIE - ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATTVE DECLARATION,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORRE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ONE
ATTACHED GARAGE AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLINGS, (OTTO MILLE& APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU
DESIGN & ENGR.. INC.. DESIGNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT
Chair Keighran noted that she lives within 500 feet of the proposed project site so recused herself from this
deliberation. She stepped down from the podium. Vice-Chair Boju6s took the gavel. CP Monroe briefly
presented the project description. She noted that the previous proposal to build three houses on the three
emerged lots has been withdrawn. The applicant now proposes to build two houses on the two emerged lots
at the south end. With this proposal the third lot will be left vacant and used for construction staging.
Commissioner asked if this review should be considered to be an environmental scoping session as well.
Staffnoted that if,there were any issues with the negative declaration based on this proposal this would be
the time to bring them up. There were no further questions of staff.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment Mark Hudak, attomey representing the developer Otto Miller;
and James Chu, designer; represented the project. With previous application problem with the way the
house on Lot I I fit, the project was sent to a design reviewer who had a lot of good ideas, decided to
withdraw and resubmit for three lots, two houses and a vacant lot; the revisions to the structures reflect the
input from the meeting with the design reviewer, no variances are required although a special permit for an
attached garage is requested for the lot with the redwood trees, garage will break the fagade with a single
story element, reduce the FAR by 400 SF, and increase the useable rear yard; the third lot is vacant since
there was a lot of concem expressed by neighbors about the impact of construction activity on the neighbors
and the redwood trees, using the vacant lot will eliminate these concerns; for the environmental review staff
is correct the development of all three lots should be addressed. The house on Lot 9 with the attached garage
will also have a stucco exterior like more of the houses on the block. The house on Lot l0 will be a
craftsman shingle, same design but added a stone base to the columns at the front porch, oval windows over
the enbry doors and on side elevation. Commission asked what are plans for third lot after construction of
the two houses: Will be developed in the normal way of an infill lot any place in the city. Is attached garage
placed to respect the redwoods? Yes. What will the garage door be? Sectional. Have you considered two
houses on these lots? If develop as two houses the FAR of each of the houses will be greater, they would
be prettybig 4,000 SF each. Considered smaller houses on two lots? No, these are three legal lots and they
are all developable.
Public comment from neighbors: Box Boxer, 1510 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Janey Oaksley, 1512
Drake; David Taylor, 1566 Drake: original houses were too big, now two that are the same size and one
vacant lot, issue is on street parking reduction, not addressed; should deny request for re-emerging three
parcels pending historical evaluation of the use of the lot; don't know what is going on the third lot; object
to the subdivision look, concerned with the traffic not only during construction but after when the houses
are occupied; do not have much confide,nce in the protection of the redwood trees; consider dividing the site
into two lots would fit the neighborhood better; could put bigger house on bigger lot, would make same
profit and give less problem to the neighbors; these houses need more offstreet parking, and need to reduce
ihe impact of curbs on on-street parking; concerned about "accidental" removal of redwoods given hearing
just sat through, not want replaced; negative declaration should ask for fulI time arborist to be sure trees are
protected during construction; two houses on three lots is just a game, could have a surveyor redivide the
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
lots into two; the house on the southem most lot apperlrc to encroach on the lot to the south; object to garage
attached at front of house should be moved back to make a longer driveway for parking; submitted photos
taken after July 23,z}O}when a warning sign was placed on the creek after a sewage spill; be responsible
forhealth and safety of Burlingame residents and allow no development until the sewer line in the street is
replaced. There were no further public comments and the public comment was closed.
Commission comment: intrigued bythe notion of attaching the garage, reduces the size of the house, houses
next to Lot 1l all have attached garages, Lot 10 should have an attached garage too; nicejob on Lot 9;
significant concern about the compatibility of these houses with the neighborhood seek data, information,
statistics from the applicant comparing these structures to existing homes in the neighborhood includingsize,
height, number ofbedrooms, lot coverage, these concems have not been addressed asked for this information
before; design reviewer in his memo on previous project asks these same questions about the neighborhood
pattern, size bulk; this information is needed for the environmental review as well. There are a number of
craftsmen style homes in the area (Columbus, Bemal) they fit the design review guidelines and are tasteful,
this presentation is tasteful; am also concerned about how these houses compare to houses up and down the
block; these are an improvement over what saw before; both houses greater or the same as average front
setback on the block; drawing does not show the perspective of the large setbacks; good idea to use Lot 11
for constuction staging; when time to develop Lot l l will have to be reviewed by the Commission; cannot
see three big houses on those lots, will vote no; no matter what the rules say, decisions are precedents for
the community as a whole, encourage to rethink 2 houses on these three lots. Need to be sure size fits the
pattem of the neighborhood; concern weekly inspection by arborist not frequent enough and requirement
for developer to be responsible for redwood maintenance for three years not long enough; ask CA to clarify
rights of owner regarding three lots. CA noted based on California subdivision law the applicant has three
standmd lots based on apast accepted subdivision map, city has the right to review what he puts on the lots
so that it is consistent with current regulations, but not have the power to take away three lots, this was a
decision made previously and is consistent with the existing lots in the neighborhood. Does the applicant
have the option of dividing the site into two lots? Yes.
Commission discussion continued: what are the options for action tonight; CA asked if the application was
complete; for the scoping of the environmental document want the data on the existing development on the
block; should compare this to other cul-de-sacs.
",: :
C. Keele moved to refer this application to a design reviewer. The motion died for lack of a second.
Commission discussion on the motion: before decide to send to a design reviewer need the information on
the existing built environment in the neighborhood; may find other big houses, need to better define what
is appropriate on this block, then send it to ttre design reviewer.
Vice Chair Boju6s moved to continue the review of this item until the information requested on the
neighborhood is provided to staff and commission, this should include:
o siz€, height, number ofbedrooms, lot coverage, of all the houses on both sides of the skeet on this
block;
o the neighborhood pattem of attached and detached garages, two story and one-story buildings, and
bulk for the same area.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Vice Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until the applicant has
submitted the information on the character and pattem of existing development on the block requested by
9
I
9.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission (Jnapproved Minutes September g, 2002
the planning commissioners necessary for both the environmental document and for design review. The
motion passed 6-0-1 (Chair Keighran abstaining) on a voice vote. There is no appeal fcr ttris action. The
item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
1036 CABRILLO AVENUE _ ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT;
EUGENE AND MAI]REEN SI.JPANICH, PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN &ENGR.,INC D GNER) (65 NOTI PRO.TF,CT PI,A SEAN O'ROI
ZT O'Rourke brieflypresented the project description. Commissioner asked if the applicant, Otto Miller,
should be listed as property owner or if Eugene Supanich was still the properfy owner. ZT O'Rourke noted
that Eugene Supanich is still the property owner, but he has given Otto Miller permission to submit plans
for development of the creekside lot.
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, was present to answer questions
regarding the project. He stated that the Commission's job here tonight was to address the completeness
of the application, chief concem is the creek, applicant has worked with LTI Engineering and the public
Works Deparhnent to insure that the development meets city creek requirements. Noted that James Chu,
designer, was available to answer questions about the design of the house and Michael Callan was also
available to answer any landscape questions. James Chu, designer, noted that the house was designed to
preserve the creek, the house to be built on a piers foundation to maintain the existing stone wall, and an
erosion confrol plan wiil be provided. Commissioner asked how does the proposed house interact in a design
sense with the existing house. Designer stated that theyhad been doing Tudor and French designs, thought
they would ty something different, providing curved and rounded elements, firying to make the design
compatible with the creek setting, the existing house has a tile roof.
Commissioner asked if there is an opportunity to provide a planter along the driveway side by the powder
room/library to help break up the wall. Designer noted that it is possible to add a planter along that side.
Commissioner noted that the front porch should be deeper, would encroach into front setback, but would
be okaywith that; might be nice to match the existing porch of the adjacent house, does applicant have any
desire to retain the existing house. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure what the applicant was proposing
with the adjacent lots, he is in the process of leasing the existing house to someone. i
Public comment continued: Commissioner noted that if the house stays or goes, Commission needs more
information; how do houes correspond, concerned with mass and bulk of house; is it possible to lower plate
heights; would be nice to open the house to the creek, need stronger connection to creek, possible bigger
windows, Fre,nch doom, there are a couple details that can be added upon; beautiful setting, great opportunity
to add French doors at dining room; connected to ground, size of house is huge, don't see consistency with
adjacent house, there is opportunity for the site. Commissioner asked for verification on whether all 3 lots
were under the ownership of Eugene Supanich; is applicant under contract to purchase properties, when will
it close. Mr. Hudak noted that he was not sure of the contractual obligation of the applican! but would make
sure that that information is provided to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Steve Fong, l00l Cabrillo; Sally Downing, 1801 Bemal; Dan Griffins, 1030 Cabrillo; Vitus Vishon, 1704
Sanchez; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; spoke regarding the project. Was concemed with how the house will
fit in the neighborhood, in his mind the current house is a landmark property, he lives in a large 3,500 SF
house on the corner, has seen others build retangular houses in the past on similar developments, wants to
know what is going to happen to existing house, concerned with creek and Redwood frees, would like to see
10
September 9, 2002
a plan to protect trees and creelq concerned that garage at rear of house down long driveway will not be used,
would like to see more character added to the house; noted that there is a long narrow driveway proposed,
massive house on short street, should reduce massiveness, what to do with other 2 lots, should look at whole
block, should hold offtill other proposal, would like to know what the other plans for the 2 lots will be;
noted that there seems to be a lot of information missing, proposed house is at the maximum FAR and only
half of the lot is buildable; should protect landscape elements; existing house should have historical
designation; the proposed house eliminates the backyard of existing house, existing house is probably the
most significant house in whole Easton Addition, proposal should be studied more; would support more
study on this project, historically significant house. There were no other comments from the floor and the
public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this project is as significant as 1537 Drake Avenue. Commissioner asked for
clarification on lot emergence. CP Monroe noted that currently there is 1 lot, with the removal of the
swimming pool a 12,000 SF lot will emerge which meets the lot size requirements; the existing house will
sit on two 6,000 SF lots. CA Anderson noted that the applicant would require a conditional use permit to
re-emerge the two lots upon demolition of the existing house. With respect to design, house feels big,
should have more backyard; house too big, what will happen on adjacent lots.
Chair Keigltan made a motion to continue this project when more information has been submitted regarding
the future of the existing lots. This motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Comment on motion: compatibility how does the proposed house fit in the neighborhood, can house be
reduced; Commissioner asked why environmental scoping wasn't required, impacts as significant as 1537
Drake Avenue. CP Monroe noted that staff could prepare a negative declaration if Commission wanted,
would need to address issues, also tree protection requirements are included in conditions. CA Anderson
noted that Commission could focus on block patterns, what's block going to look like at maximum build-
out. Commissioner noted that they need to know what the current plans are for the adjacent lot, affects
overall planning, are soils studied. Donald Chang, Senior Engineer, noted that Public Works Departrnent
requires a soils report. Commission concerned about affects development will have on creek, is the soil
stable enough to develop on with piers, what will the on-site affects be; should look at other double lots,
what potential and how have they been developed - (1000 Bernal, 1008 Bemal); what types and sizes of
houses on these lots; Commissionernoted that if the applicant stipulates that the house wiii striy, then would
consider a larger house on adjacent lot; must assume everyone acts in good faith.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to continue this item when more information has been
prepared and the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning
Comrnission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m.
10.1751 ESCALANTE WAY - ZOI\TED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHEN YU MA, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT: MIMI SIEN. PROPERTY OWNER) (30 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
ZT O'Rourke briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked staff about the measurement
of uncovered parking space to the inner edge of the sidewalk. CP Monroe stated that existing uncovered
parking space dimension is allowed included in the area between the property line and the inner edge of the
sidewalk. There were no other questions of staff.
1l
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 9, 2002
Chair Keighran opened the public comment. Chen Yu Ma, P.O. Box 6365, San Mateo, stated that he was
representing the project. Noted the most houses on the block are similar to the project house, @ing to match
the existing conditions of neighborhood. Commissioner noted that design is minimal, concerned with roof
over bay window, is there a way to add gable roof above bay, addition is fine to neighborhood, bay window
not does flow right. CP Monroe noted that there was mix betweendivided light and clear windows.
Applicant stated that when the owner bought the house there was a mix of windows, is flexible about new
windows, would consider divided light or clear windows. Commissioner noted that applicant should keep
all the windowsills at the same height. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked.
o Add gable roofoverbaywindow;
. Keep windows consistent; and
. Keep all the windowsills at the same height.
This motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Comment on motion: Tlpically, Commission requires the installation of story poles for any hillside area
construction permit. Since there are no neighbors in the rear and views don't seem to be affected by
addition, there was no request in this case to put-up storypoles.
Chair Keighran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had
been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m.
X. PLANNERREPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of September 3,2002.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September3,2002. She also handed out
a letter received that day from the Safeway Corporation. The Commissioners noted that theywould
discuss the letter at their next meeting. :
FY[ - changes to an approved DSR at 1615 Willow Avenue
Planning Commission acknowledged the proposed changes.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Keighran adjoumed the meeting at ll:26 p.m
T]NAPPROVEDMINUTES SEPTEMBER 9. 2OO2
t2
Ralph Osterling, Secretary
Respectfu lly submitted,
CITY OF BARI,INGAME BAIIDING INSPECTION
IJIST YE}RTIIS t{OtrrE
* valuaElos
2 $X,000,000
0 $0
0 $0
24 $1,3s3,911
6 $1,410,789
7 $7,72s
0 90
1 $2,000
0 $0
27 5332,262
2 $8, s00
6 $32 ,344
I $47, 93 0
8rt{l tiorrfE
IJASI YIAR DIFF
valuatloD t
$57s,000 {8.1
$o . o
$0 .0
$1,017,000 33.1
$92S, 000 s2 . o
$0 .0
90 .0
$875 128.6
$1, 000 100.0-
12L4,993 54 . 5
$4,800 77 .!
;42,067 23,1-
$x13,800 57 .9-
IEIS TEI.n,
TO D}:€
# valualtoa
9 $3,488, 000
0 $0
3 $148,000
22]. $L0 , L77 ,72L
s3 $1s, 88s, 906
46 $21 , 82s
s $72, s00
22 9L24,479
2 $1, s00
176 $2,297 ,780
26 $155, 150
44 $306,701
5r. $L,].64,97L
valuatlotr
$3,4s2,1s0
1247 ,000
s6,485,000
$9, 049, 239
$7,157,200
$141, s00
$142,138
$78,328
$1,ooo
$L t737 t 4r9
$307,400
$3 01, s41
irt229,r73
FISCAI YEAR
TO
Valuatlo!
$1,378,000
$o
$o
$2,9s0,061
i2 ,207 ,9eo
$r .72s
$o
i76 ,479
$1, s00
i645 , r22
$8, s00
1s0,744
it24 ,963
TO DA DIFT
#
2
0
0
22
4
8
0
1
1
2L
1
I
9
*
1.0
100.0-
97.7-
12.5
L2L ,9
84.6-
49.0-
50.0
32 .3
49.5-
r.7
s,2-
*
3
0
54
16
15
0
5
2
57
9
19
TOTAIS......83 $4,189.461 77 i2t997,53s 39.8 568 $33,844,533 5Os 930,329,588 11.6 183 g?,44s,084
9/03/oz 7 t 34 :59
MONTIILYPER]VITTACTMTY AUGUST, 2002
P.:!rlt tyD.
New single Famlly
New llult l-Famlly
New Conmerclal
Alterauions-ReB
Alteraciona -NonReB
Demollt.lon
swlruning Pool
slgm Permit.s
Fenceg
Reroofing
RepalrE
wlndow RepI
MlsceIlaneous
DI'lrEI
*
11
1
6
.,'1€7
54
37
10
15
1
148
24
37
73
lnvestments
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
August 31,2002
Par Mark6t
Valu6
Book
Value
oh ot
Portfollo
Daya to
Maturlty
YTM
380 Equlv.
YTM
365 Eguiv.Value Term
LAIF & County Pool
Federal Agency lssues - Coupon
21,805,599.73
8,000,000.00
21,805,599.73
8,069,050.00
21,805,599.73
8,000,000.00
73.16
26.84 1,096
3.168
3.914
3.212
3.969
3.415
826
lnvestments 29,805,599.73 29,974,6/19.73 29,805,599.73 100.00%295 222 3.368
Total Earnings August 31 Month Endlng Flscal Year To Date
Cunent Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
Pursuant to State law, there
89,770.20
29,925,675.99
3.65o/c
sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure
is restricted by law (e.9. Gas
260,530.04
28,617,531.47
5.36%
requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and
Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds).Tax, Trust & Agency tunds,
7-tt-a?-
RAHN A. BECKER,DIR./TREASURER
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PMl) SymRept V6.21
Report Ver, 5,00
Run Date: 09/1 112002 - 10:2?
Average
Balance
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - lnvestments
August 31,2002
Purchass
Date
Stated
BookValue Rate
Page2
YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP
LAIF & County Pool
sYS77 77
SYS79 79
lssuer
LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD.
S M COUNTY POOL
Subtotal and Average
lnvestment #Par Value
9,042,951.93
12,762,U7.80
Market Value
9,042,951.93
12,762,847.80
365
2.580
3.660
Date
9,042,951.93
12,782,647.80
2.s80
3.660
18,990,192.02 21,805,599.73 21,805,599.73 2{,805,509.73 3.212
Federal Agency lssu€s - Goupon
3133M3TS4
3133MLMH5
3133MQDJO
312925PN4
3136F2AR9
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG,CORP.
FANNIE MAE
Subtotal and Average 9,935,483.87
476
505
507
506
506
03/1 7/1 998
02126t2002
o8112J2002
o6to6t2002
o8t14t2002
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,022,810.00
2,O',t8,120.OO
2,003,740.00
't,015,000.00
2,00s,380.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
6.020
4.000
3.550
4.'.t25
3.250
6.020
4.002
3.550
4.',t25
3.2fi
'197
817
1,076
E27
897
03t17t2003
1112612004
oat1?i2005
1210a12004
ozt1412005
8,000,000.00 8,069,050.00 8,000,000.00 3.969 828
Total and Average 28,S25,675.89 29,805,509.73 25,874,0/,9.73 20,805,509.73 3.4{5 222
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V0.21Run Date: 09il 1/2002'- 10:22
Report Ver. 5.00
1
1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Activity By Type
August 1,2002 through August 31,2002
Page 3
CUSIP
LAIF & County Pool
SYS79
# lssuor
Summary)
S M COUNry POOL
Subtotal
Beginnlng
Balance
Stated
Rate
3.660
Transactlon
Date
Purchases
or Deposlts
Redemptions
or Wlthdrawals
0.00
Ending
Balance
7S
r8,790,S87.15 3,014,6{2.58 0.00 21,805,59S.73
Federal Agency lssues -
3133MQ0J0 507
3136F0Y29 502
3136F2AR9 s08
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
FANNIE MAE
FANNIE MAE
Subtotal
Goupon
3.550
5.420
3.250
0811212002
o8t2812002
0811412002
2,000,000.00
0.00
2,000,000.00
0.00
4,000,000.00
0.00
8,000,000.00 4,000,000.00
Total 28,790,987.15 7,014,812.58
4,000,000.00
4,000,000.00
8,000,000.00
29,805,598.73
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept V6.21
Report Ver.5.00
Run Date: 09/1 12002 - 10:?2
3,014,012.58
GITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Activity Summary
August 2001 through August 2002
Yleld to Maturlty Managed
Pool
Rate
Page 4
Number
of lnvestments
Purchased
Number
of lnv$tments
Redeemed
Month
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
Number of
Securltles
Total
lnvested
38,002J67.12
34,930,381.22
32,614,594.78
33,056,179.95
35,671,743.'t2
34,732,791.56
32,802,148.54
30,605,734.76
35,999,602.'t l
32,433,148.91
28,726,372.62
26,790,987.15
29,805,599.73
32,782,4',19.35
380
Equlvalent
5.287
5.352
4.880
4.812
4.629
4.497
4.441
4.419
4.147
4,169
3.886
3.677
3.368
365
Equlvalent
Average
T6rm
1,089
1,289
1,028
1,014
940
928
933
880
749
718
547
451
295
Average
Days to Maturlty
860
1,020
791
763
691
662
658
580
480
428
356
327
222
14
15
12
12
12
11
11
10
10
I
7
6
7
5.361
5.426
4.948
4.879
4.694
4.559
4.s03
4.480
4.204
4.227
3.940
3.728
3.415
4.4U
4.214
3.809
3.683
3.474
3.232
3.237
3.317
3.134
3.237
3.258
3.195
3.212
4.428%4.489%3.499
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PM4) SymRept V6.21
Report Vsr, 5,00
Run Date: 09i1 1/2002 - 10:22
End
2001
2001
2o0t
200i
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
Average l0 10 835 603
GITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Distribution of lnvestments By Type
August 2001 through August 2002
Page 5
August Soptomber
2001 2001
Oclober November Decembor2001 2001 2001
January February
2002 2002
March
2002
April
2002
June
2002
July
2002
August
2002
Average
by Perlod
MaySecurity Type 2002
LAIF & County Pool 38.1 26.9 41.7 42.4 46.7 48.'t 45.0 47.6 55.5 56.8 65.2 70.1 73.2 50.6%
Certlficates of Deposlt .Bank
Certlficates of .s&L
Certificates of Deposlt-Thrift & Ln
Negotlable CD's ' Bank
CORP NOTES 8.0 8.7 9.3 9.2 8.5 8.7 9.2 9.9 8.4 9.3 7.0 7.4Yo
Bankers
Gommercial
Commerclal
Federal lssues .
Federal lssueg -
53.9 64.4 49.1 48.4 44.9 43.2 45.7 42.5 36.1 33,9 27.9 29,9 26.8 42.10
- Coupon
Treasury Securltles -
Mlscellaneous Securltles -
Miscellaneous Securltles .
Backed
Mlscellaneous Dlscounts Gost 2
Mlscellaneous Dlscounts -At Cost 3
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PMS) SymRept V6.21
Report Ver.5.00
Run Date: 09/1 12002 - 10:22
Non lnterest Bearing lnvestments
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
lnterest Earnings Summary
August 31,2002
August 31 Month Endlng Fiscal Year To Date
Page 6
CD/Coupon/Discount lnvestments:
lnterest Collected
Plus Accrued lnterest at End of Period
Less Accrued lnterest at Beginning of Period
Less Accrued lnterest at Purchase During Period
lnterest Earned during Period
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses
Eamings during Periods
148,400.00
45,091.79
155,294.30)
0.00)
197,258.33
45,091.79
162,765.13)
0.00)
38,197.49
0.00
79,584.99
77,500.00
38,197.49 157,084.99
Pass Through Securities:
lnterest Collected
Plus Accrued lnterest at End of Period
Less Accrued lnterest at Beginning of Period
Less Accrued lnterest at Purchase During Period
lnterest Earned during Period
Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses
Earnings during Periods
0.00
0.00
0.00)
0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00)
0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
Gash/Checklng Accounts:
lnterest Collected
Plus Accrued lnterest at End of Period
Less Accrued lnterest at Beginning of Period
lnterest Eamed during Period
0.00
331,572.72
280,000.01)
143,981.97
331,572.72
372,109.U|
51,572.71 103,445.05
Total lnterest Earned durlng Perlod
Total Gapltal Galns or Losses
89,770.20
0.00
183,030.04
77,500.00
Run Date: 09/l '112002 - 10:22
Total Earnlngs durlng Period 89,770.20 260,530.04
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PMO) SymRept V6.21
Reporl Ver. 5.00
((
((
(
(
(
(
((
95BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
August 31,2002
Par Mark€t
Value
Book
Value
lo oI
Portfollo
Oays to
Maturity
YTM
360 Equiv,
YTM
365 Equlv.Value Termlnvestments
Federal Agency lssues - Coupon 800,000.00 E27,752.00 802,000.00 100.00 1,756 379 4.995
379 4.995
5.064
800,000.00 827,752.00 802,000.00 100.00% 1,756 5.064lnvestments
Total Earnings August 31 Month Ending Flscal Year To Date
Current Year
Average Dally Balance
Effeclive Rate of Return
Pursuant to State law, there
3,416.67
802,000.00
5.02%
sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure
is restricted by law (e.9. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds,
9 -l r 'o>-
6,833.34
802,000.00
5.02'/o
requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and
Capital Projects,. and Enterprise funds).
Rahn Becker, Finance Dlrector/Treasurer
Portfolio 95BD
CP
PM (PRF_PM1 ) SymRept V6.21
Reporl Ver. 5.00
Run Date: 09/1 1/2002 - 10:23
95BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - lnvestments
August 31,2002
Purchase
Date
Page2
YTM Days to
CUSIP
LAIF
SYS79
#lssuer
LOCAL AGENCY INV. FD.
Subtotal and Avarage
Average
Balance
Stated
BookValue Rate
0.00 5.707
365
Maturlty
Date
79
Par Value
0.00
Market Value
0.00 5.707 1
0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0
Federal Agency lssues -
3133M5QB9 485 11t24t1998 800,000.00 827,752.00FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
Subtotal and Average 802,000.00 800,000.00 827,752.OO 802,000.00
802,000.00 5.125 5.064 s79 09/15i2003
5.064 375
Total and Average 802,000.00 800,000.00 827,752.00 802,000.00 5.004 379
Portfolio 95BD
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl V6.21Run Oate: 091'1112002 - 10t23
Roport Ver. 5.00
lnv€stments
98BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
August 31,2002
Par
Value
Market
Value
Book
Value
'/t ot
Portfollo Term
Days to
Maturlty
YTM
360 Equlv,
YTM
385 Equiv,
Federal Agency Coupon
lnvestments
'|,710,000.00 1 ,751,672.70 1,710,000.00 100.00 1,826 206 5.977 6.060
1,710,000.00 't,751,672.70 1,710,000.00 '100.00% 1,826 206 5.977 6.060
Total
Current Year
Average Daily Balance
Effective Rate of Return
Pursuant to State law, there
31 Month Endi
8,729.36
1,710,000.00
6.0't%
sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure
is restricted by law (e.9. Gas Tax,Trust & Agency tunds,
9-ll4i.-
Fiscal Year To Date
17,458.73
1,710,000.00
6.01%
requirements for the coming 6 months. Totial funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and
Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds).*W of
RAHN BECKER, Finance
Portfolio 98BD
CP
PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept V6.2 1
Report Ver. 5.00
Run Date: 09i1 1/2002 - 10'.24
98BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - lnvestments
August 31,2002
Purchase
Date
Page2
YTM Days to
CUSIP
Managed Pool Accounts
SYS6O 80
lssuer
LOCAL AGENCY INVEST FUND
#
Average
Balance Par Value
0.00
Market Value
0.00
365
5.124 '.l
Maturlty
Date
Stated
BookValue Rate
0.00 5.124
Subtotal and Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.000 0
Federa! Agency Goupon Securitles
3133M3XE0 478 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
Subtotal and Average
03/26/1 998 1,710,000.00 1,751,672.70 't,710,000.00 6.060 6.060 206 03t2612003
6.000 2061,710,000,00 1,710,000.00 1,7il,472.70 1,71 0,000.00
Total and Average 't,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 1,751,672,70 1,7{0,000.00 0.080 206
Portfolio 968D
CP
PM (PRF_PII2) SymRept V6.2'lRun Date: 09/1'll2otJ2 -'t}:z+
Report Vsr.5.00
lnvestments
01 BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
August 31,2002
Par Market
Value
Book
Value
%ot
Portfollo Term
Days to
Maturlty
YTM
360 Equiv.365 Equiv.
YTM
Value
Managed Pool AccounG
Fedoral Agoncy Coupon
3,753,703.42
1,100,000.00
3,753,703.42
1,104,807.00
3,753,703.42
1,100,000.00
77.34
22.66 1,096
1
1,090
2.545
3.205
2.580
3.250
lnvestments 4,853,703.42 4,858,510.42 4,853,703.42 100.00%249 248 2.694 2.732
Total
Current Year
Average Dally Balance
Effective Rate of Return
Pursuant to State law,
restricted by law (e.9.
Rahn A. Becker, Finance
Fiscal Year To Date
11,736.71 27,459.18
4,691,197.29 5,236,613.60
2.95% 3.09%
sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of some of these funds is
& Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds).
9* t t-oz
Portfolio 01BD
CP
PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept V6.2'l
Report Ver.5,00
Run Date: 09/1 1/2002 - 'lO:24
1
August 3l Month Ending
01 BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - lnvestments
August 31,2002
Purchase
Date
Stated
BookValue Rate
Page2
YTM YTM Da)rs to Maturlty
CUSIP
Managed Pool Accounts
SYS81 81
lssuer
Local Agency lnv. Fd
*Average
Balance 360 365
3,753,703.42 2.580 2.545 2.580
DatePar Value
3,753,703.42
Market Valua
3,753,703.42
Federal Agency Goupon
3135SMPB3 509
Subtotal and Average
FANNIE MAE
Subtotal and Average
3,971,509.87 3,753,703.42
1,100,000.00
3,753,703.42
0812612002
3,753,703.42 2.il5 2.580
1,100,000.00 3.250 3.205 3.250 1,090 08/2612005
I,100,000.00 3.205 3.250 I,090709,477.42 1,1 00,000.00 1,104,807.00
Total and Average 4,881,187,29 4,853,703.42 4,858,510,42 4,853,703.42 2.854 2.732 248
)
Portfolio 01BD
CP
PM (PRF_PMz) SymRept V5.21Run Dale: 09/1 112002 - 10:24
Roport Ver, 5.00
1,104,807.00
Louisa Lloyd Shields
1205 Drake Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RECEIVED
SEP - 5 ZOOZ
August 23,2002 CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
Subject: Broadway Business Area
Dear City Planner:
My family and I live a few blocks away from the Broadway Business District. We walk there almost
every day and are concerned over the high number of vacancies that remain empty over the months.
During the past few weeks we have discussed with our friends and neighbors, all of whom use the
Broadway district regularly, what businesses they would like added to the area. Below is the list by type
along with an example of an existing business. The latter is to provide a flavor sf virai we imagine.
Suggestions for the Broadway Avenue strip, but if not near Broadway, the restaurants would be fantastic
to have anywhere in Burlingame.
Business Type Example
Cafe Cafe Borrone in Menlo Park
Casual dinner spot, children friendly Pluto's Restaurants (in San Francisco, Palo
Alto and other locations)
Burger/Chicken joint Burger Brasserie or Jeffiey's, both in San
Mateo
Prepared'gourmet' foods Market Hall
5655 College Avenue, Oakland, California
Stationary/invitation/card store, perhaps with
magazines andlor books
Toy Store Talbot's in San Mateo
Children's clothing, fu rniture and accessories Lullaby Lane in San Bruno
Home Accessories Traditions (locations in Berkelq','!.rlalnut
Creek and Menlo Park)
1716 Fourth Street
Berkeley, Ca947l0
I hope that you will consider these suggestions for Burlingame. Attracting these businesses, or ones like
them will please the citizens of Burlingame and improve our city with increased revenues and keeping
everyone in town to conduct business and dine.
Thank you,
Xn^r.t/4- X//W
Louisa Lloyd Shields
gu:dda
Pluto's Restaurants "Fresh food for a hungry universe"
Frequently voted "kid-friendly" and "cheap eats" both categories that appeal to many Burlingame
families. Below is a short review of the restaurants, a local California chain.
This is a small chain of simple restaurants that feature fresh food, in large portions, at low prices, served
cafeteria-style. Their slogan is "Fresh food for a hungry universe."
Pluto's first restaurant opened 7 years ago at Scott St. with 45 seats. The Irving St. place has been there 5
years, and has 70 seats. Other Pluto's branches are located in Davis, Palo Alto, and Rosedale. The decor
of all the restaurants is kept simple and straightforward.
On getting in line, one gets a card which is punched at each station of purchase. When exiting one pays
what is on the card. Don't lose the card!
They roast their own turkeys, grill their own chickens, make their own desserts, and bake their own bread.
I cannot praise Pluto's enough for young people, especially those visiting San Francisco for the first time.
The best way I can describe it to them is for them to envision their school cafeteria, but with the freshest
gourmet food available - at knockdown prices. Even a hungry student can eat well, for under $10. One
can even stay under $5, if necessary. Of course, persons of all ages should find Pluto's exciting - in
terms of qualrty of food and price. It is also exciting to eat in a place where young people are having a
good time.
Soup, vegetables - Large bowl of soup S3.50, smashed spuds with beef sherry or turkey gravy $1.60,
baked russet potato S I .60, fresh vegetable galaxy pan-cooked $ 1 .60, mushrooms $ I .60, grilled garlic
potato itngs,"better than French-fried'S1.80, spicy onion rings with BBQ sauce $1.80, grilled eggplant
$1.60, chicken wings with dipping sauce, served with fresh carrots and celery, six $2.95, 12 55.50, l8
s7.50.
Greens and things - Caesar salad with sourdough croutons, side $3.95, main $4.80, with grilled chicken
or marinated steak, side $4.95, main $5.80, just greens, side $3.95, main $4.80, with grilled chicken or
marrnated steak, side $4.95, main $5.80, fresh baked bread25 cents slice.
Meats & poultry - Grilled marinated steak, carved $3.95, grilled sandwich $5.50, herb-roasted Sonoma
turkey, carved $3.75, grilled sandwich $4.95, smoked poultry sausage link $3.75, grilled sandwich $5.15,
grilled herb chicken, carved $3.95, grilled sandwich $5.75, eggplant and red-pepper sandwich 55.50,
gnlled Portobello sandwich $5.50.
Childfare - chicken wings $2.50, potato rings $1, cheese pretzel $1.25
Sweets - All homemade $1.25
Quenchers - Coffee $1.15, caffe latte $1.95, cappuccino $1.50, sspresso $1, kettle of hot tea S1.25,
Micro brews 52.75, bottled brews 52.25, Napa Valley wines $3.50 glass, milk $1.25.
The City of Burlingame
PLANNINGDEPART\iIENT
CITY IIALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BI]RLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9 4 I 4.397
TEL: (650) 558-7250
FAX: (650)696-3790
September 6,2002
Ms. Louisa Lloyd Shields
1205 Drake Avenue
Burlingame CA 94010
Dear Ms. Shields,
Thank you for your letter of August 23,2002. I just received it. I'm delighted that you and your family not only
enjoy using the Broadway Commercial Area so frequently but that you are also thinking seriously about its best
interests.
While it is the responsibility of the City Council, Planning Commission and Planning Department to make policy
for all of the land uses in ttre city of Burlingame, including the commercial areas; the city does not have the
structure to recruit individual businesses. However, we do our best to encourage those uses which are consistent
with our local development goals and who express an interest in being in Burlingame.
I have passed your letter on to the Broadway Business Improvement District board members who represent the
merchants and property owners in the Broadway commercial area. I am sure that they will be interested in the
observationr urd rugg.stions of a "regular" user of the area. I know what a special place Broadway has in the
lives of those who live nearby.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I will forward your letter to the City Council and Planning
Commission.
Sincerely yours,
trVwffiil,-tnrz-
Margarbt Monroe
City Planner