Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2000.11.06GG� BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME = CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD REGULAR MEETING — NovEMBER 6, 2000 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 PAGE 1 OF 3 SUGGESTED ACTION ❖ CLOSED SESSION: a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government 6:30 p.m., Conference Room A Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Fran Buchanan (IEDA) and Dennis Argyres; Labor Organization: Police/Fire Administrators b. Authorization to initiate litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(c)) - unnamed defendant 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of October 16, 2000 Approve 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Consideration of Declaration that Property at 1204 Palm Hearing, Action Avenue, Burlingame, CA constitutes a Public Nuisance - APN 029-016-120 b. Appeal of Planning Commission Determination on the Use of Hearing, Action an Existing Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area c. Public Hearing to approve plan for spending of Local Law Hearing, Action Enforcement Block Grant Money d. Use of State COPS Grant to Fund Two Additional Police Hearing, Action Officer Positions e. Adoption of ORDINANCE Amending PERS Retirement Hearing, Action Contract to Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits for Local Police Members Only 6. PUBLIC COMIV ENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Broadway Streetscape Improvements Discuss/Direct BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 6, 2000 PAGE 2 OF 3 b. Traffic, Safety and Parking and Civil Service Commission Applications 8. CONSENT CALENDAR - Items on the consent calendar are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action are requested by a council member. a. RESOLUTION for Budget Amendment for Police Department Air Conditioning and Ergonomic Furniture b. RESOLUTION authorizing Acceptance of Improvements, Tyree Organization Ltd. - Lower Deck, Landfill Closure, Phase III c. Special Encroachment Permit for a Wooden Fence at the rear Easement of 1359 Columbus Avenue d. Special Encroachment Permit for a Brick Retaining Wall at the Back of 1329 Cabrillo Avenue e. Special Encroachment Permit for a Wooden Fence at 113 Loma Vista Drive f. RESOLUTION Awarding Contract for Top Deck (Golf) Teaching Station, Burlingame Landfill and RESOLUTION Transferring Funds from El Camino Real Tree Management to Golf Range Teaching Facility g. Appointment of Interim Advisory Board for Formation of San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District h. Request for Street Closure for Holiday Open House, December 8, 2000, 5:30 to 8:00 p.m. i. Conceptual Approval of Contract Staff Service for Proposed Construction and Demolition (C&D) Recycling Program 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks & Recreation, October 19, 2000; Library, October 19, 2000; Planning, October 23, 2000; Traffic, Safety and Parking, October 12, 2000 b. Department Reports: Police, September, 2000 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 Discuss Approval I � BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING — NOVEMBER C, 2000 PAGE 3 OF 3 c. Letter from Thomas G. Hand, 2300 Adeline, regarding stop signs on Adeline Drive d. Letter from Mr. And Mrs. Trembly, 2103 Carmelita, regarding condition of sidewalk on a portion of Vancouver Avenue e. Letters from George Preston, Gerald Weisl, Patrick Kane, Bob Gorman, and Joseph Brilando regarding Broadway Beautification plans f. 54 letters supporting the Interfaith Hospitality Network g. Letter from Grand Jury alleging Brown Act violation by Planning Commission 13. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING - November 20, 2000 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA October 16, 2000 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Diana Warden. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. MINUTES Councilman Spinelli noted a correction on page three, third paragraph, that should read "overcrossing project is moot", not "mute"; Mayor O'Mahony noted the following corrections: paragraph 7a, "BAMMand AFSCME have no objection", not "object"; page 3, last paragraph, "the purpose of this study is to improve the safety on CalTrain , not Cal Trans ; remove the word rt from page 5, line 8, to read "For the Broadway interchange, it's a matter of whether or not they will put the flyover in the project scope report. " 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #1643 TO INSTALL TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE DPW Bagdon noted that the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission recommend the installation of two new stop signs at Adeline and Cortez based on pedestrians using the crossing for more direct access to Ray Park. He noted the intersection does not have warrants for either the volume of traffic nor for accidents. Records were researched back to 1988 and there have been no pedestrian related accidents at this intersection. With this installation, there will be three sets of stop signs on Adeline over a very short distance; concerned that drivers may not take signs seriously and by putting a crosswalk at these locations, it may be giving pedestrians a false sense of security. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, stated she and a number of neighbors have been gathering signatures since they feel stop signs are needed at this intersection; understands the concern with having three stop signs in such close proximity; appreciates the help received from the Traffic Engineer and Police Department. The gate access to Ray Park is something of an "attractive nuisance"; feels it's critical to give the children a chance to cross Adeline. Demetri Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, a student at Lincoln School, told the Council "a crosswalk is needed Burlingame City Council j October 16, 2000 Unapproved Minutes. to walk to school; the cars zoom by and keep going like crazy." Sue Pallequin, 1472 Cortez, stated the area is very busy; cars use Adeline to get to Mercy High School and Highway 280. Does not feel it is always feasible to cross at Balboa and Cabrillo; the entrance on Cabrillo is fairly hidden and not as accessible. Michael, a resident from 1472 Cortez, stated he is very uncomfortable crossing at this intersection and noted Cortez is used for parking during softball season; this is an intersection used for more than school; encouraged Council to approve the ordinance for two new stop signs. Council Comments: Vice Mayor Galligan stated he grew up in this neighborhood and spent his childhood at Ray Park; at that time there was no entrance to the park on Cortez. Counted over 100 signatures on the petitions that were from people who did not live near the area and some signatures were from residents of other cities. Feels it would be more dangerous if there was a third stop sign at Cortez and feels it could possibly attract an accident if another stop sign was installed; supported overturning the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission's recommendation to install a stop sign at this intersection. Councilwoman Janney stated she supported the recommendation of staff even though there are some legitimate concerns. At the advise of the TSP Commission with some parental input received last year, she supports the installation of the stop signs. Councilman Spinelli stated he has observed more traffic in that neighborhood as the number of children has grown; sees a lot of people speeding on Adeline; supports the installation of the stop signs. Councilman Coffey doesn't feel a stop sign can be dangerous; this is a residential area with many children going to and from school and the neighbors support the stop signs. Supports the recommendation to install the stop signs at Cortez and Adeline. Mayor O'Mahony feels children will be children and may not understand the purpose of the law to cross at a crosswalk; supports the recommendation to install the stop signs. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve Ordinance # 1643 to install two stop signs on Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-1, with Vice Mayor Galligan opposing. b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND FRONT SETBACK VARAIANCE FOR A HOTEL AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED O-M CP Monroe referred to her staff report stating the Saturn Investment Group is proposing to build a new 50' tall, four-story, 77-room hotel on a 1.19 acre property at 1755 Bayshore Highway, Zoned O-M; need a conditional use permit for hotel use in the O-M district, to exceed 35' in height (proposing 50'), to exceed the design guidelines for the front setback, and for landscaping requirements in the front setback. Need a variance for front setback because the covered walkway extends to within four feet of property line, when a 25' setback is required in the O-M district. The 77-room hotel is oriented in the east/west direction on the site. The 50' tall building would be perpendicular to Bayshore; in order to encourage foot traffic along a 20' long trellis is extended from the porte cochere to within four feet of the front property line. The remainder of this 4' area is consumed by the widening of the sidewalk. All vehicular circulation takes place on the site itself using the two driveways and circulating around the building. There are 77 parking spaces provided as required by code, 15% are compact. The hotel does not include any meeting rooms or restaurant facilities and will be staffed 24 hours per day. On September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to approve the negative declaration and the conditional use permits and variances for the proposed hotel. In their action, they made some amendments to the conditions of approval, which included widening the sidewalk to 8', adding trellises to each of the exterior entrances to the hotel, replacing the concrete in October 16, 2000 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes the porte cochere area with pavers, and changing the type of tree planted to something other than a Sycamore tree, which may not thrive in the conditions of this area. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Nakamura, owner of a food and beverage marketing and manufacturing company, stated he purchased a multi -purpose building from Sky Chef in November 1999. Included in the purchase was a parcel of land, which was sold to Saturn Investment Group for a future hotel. Mr. Nakamura verbally requested they build the hotel without disrupting the view from his offices. In the original plans for the hotel, this request was met. On the northeast side of Mr. Nakamura's building, there is a set of windows that has a view of the bay. He feels if the proposed hotel were built, it would destroy this office view. Mr. Nakamura requested a compromise that would maintain at least a portion of their view. He noted the agreement on the placement of the hotel was verbal, not written into the sales contract.. Mayor O'Mahony stated she visited the Sky Chef building and did not feel the views from the offices were that spectacular. Mr. Patel, Saturn Investment Group, stated originally plans were submitted for the hotel during the review process the hotel was rotated. When the property was purchased, he stated it was never discussed where the hotel would actually be placed during the preview process the hotel was rotated. The proposed hotel drawings were a collaborative effort with the Planning Commission; wanted any new construction to set a design standard that would be more pedestrian -friendly; feel the proposed plans are a very nice product. Council Comments: Vice Mayor Galligan feels the Planning Commission has a vision for Bayshore and noted they worked hard to get this property the way they envisioned; supported their decision. Mayor O'Mahony noted that in the Planning Commission's report that the changes made provide architectural guidance for future new construction and renovations on the bayfront. Councilman Spinelli feels this is a great step to the future and the way the City wants to develop this area. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to support the Planning Commission's findings, seconded by Councilwoman Janney, motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilman Galligan left at 7:40 p.m. C. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON THE USE OF AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA AT 340-348 LORTON AVENUE, SUBAREA Al BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Councilwoman Janney made a motion to continue the appeal hearing for 340-348 Lorton to November 6, 2000; seconded by Councilman Spinelli, motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Vice Mayor Galligan absent). d. a) CONSIDER RESOLUTION GRANTING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE/303-305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE ZONED C-1 APPLICANT: FANNY AND ALEXANDER• PROPERTY OWNERS LORENZ AND LOUISA KAO CP Monroe noted that while Council was reviewing the applicant's request at the Council meeting of September 18, 2000, the applicant requested two additional amendments to the conditional use permit. The first is to add a permanent full -service bar for the preparation and sale of drinks in the portion of the site at 303-305 California Drive. The second request was to use a portion of this same site for Burlingame City Council 3 October 16, 2000 Unapproved Minutes dining, banquets, live entertainment and dancing. The Planning Commission hadn't considered these subsequent requests: live entertainment, and dancing at the level Fanny and Alexander's was requesting at the meeting on the 18`h, also the applicant wished to add a permanent bar and to extend the hours of the use of this additional area from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Council directed the applicant to revise the plans, return them to staff for fire exiting and seating requirements, and to apply for an amusement permit addressing the hours of operation and the activities of 303-305 California Drive. The revised plans show a permanent bar with a refrigerated storage cubicle attached to the patio end of 303-305 California Drive. The bar and the refrigerated storage area occupy approximately 153 square feet of the site. The Fire Marshal indicated he did not feel the placement of this facility would affect fire exiting, egress or maximum customer occupancy but was concerned that the applicant indicated three people would work in the bar area; he felt the maximum number of people working in the permanent bar itself should be one, which is addressed in condition #4. Also, because "bar/food establishment" is defined as having a dishwasher, it felt it might be clearer in this case to not have a dishwasher as a part of this bar. In the future, this might avoid confusion. This was added to the conditions of approval. A clarification to condition #2 made it clear that neither food nor drink could be prepared in the outdoor patio area. Mayor O'Mahony asked City Attorney Anderson if it would be possible to add to one of the conditions that no portion or combination of these properties may be leased or subleased independently. CA Anderson agreed that this would make it clear that the establishment would have to stay as a unit and could not be operated as separate food establishments. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Weinberger, Fanny and Alexander, stated neither he nor his business partners have any intention of subleasing this property; he stated it has been their intention to serve food and drinks on the patio; there are events that are held on the patio for which a portable bar would be necessary. He also indicated that the permanent bar is 14'/z', not 13' as indicated in their plans. It was their intention to have one, and potentially two bartenders as well as a dishwasher behind the bar area. The idea of moving glass wear through the patio or around the building is prohibitive. Mr. Weinberger stated the dishwasher is strictly for glasses; it runs for 113 seconds and operates at 110 degrees and would drain into a floor sink. Mr. Weinberger noted he has had requests for Sunday dinner functions and would like to have his amusement permit amended to include being open on Sunday. CA Anderson stated when they decide what they want to do with their Sunday operation, the request will need to be properly noticed and a public hearing held. Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. Councilman Coffey stated Burlingame Avenue is successful because the citizens support it; wondered how the City can help facilities like Fanny and Alexander's to be a better provider to the citizens and visitors; has no problem changing condition #2 to read "or drink." CA Anderson stated "a single, small portable bar for preparation of drinks only" can be added. Councilman Coffey felt it is appropriate that they have a glass washer at the 303-305 facility. Councilman Coffey made a motion by Resolution to amend the conditional use permit to expand the sitting area for an existing full service food establishment at 1108 Burlingame Avenue with changes to condition #2, which will strike out the "or drink" and the small portable bar; condition #3 will add that the premises will not be leased or sublet; condition #4 to allow a glass washer; Councilwoman Janney seconded the motion, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0, with Vice Mayor Galligan absent. October 16, 2000 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes d. b) CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR FANNY AND ALEXANDER 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF ENTERTAINMENT USE INTO SPACE AT 303-305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CA Anderson stated Fanny and Alexander's had an amusement permit approved in August 1999 and has been in operation since the Spring of 2000. Applicant would like to extend the amusement permit into the new area, 303-305 California Drive with the same terms and conditions as the original amusement permit. It will be operated as a single establishment; the entrance and exiting off of California Drive is addressed in the conditional use permit and that they have a single entrance from Burlingame Avenue. It has also been amended in response to the conditional use permit for Monday through Saturday for entertainment. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to amend the amusement permit for Fanny and Alexander to allow expansion of entertainment use into 303-305 California Drive; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0, with Vice Mayor Galligan absent. e. RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2000 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DPW Bagdon explained that state law requires all water purveyors adopt by Resolution a five-year plan outlining the management of their water supply. The plan is a comprehensive blueprint of the City's water system; it describes the elements of the infrastructure, where the water comes from and how it is used. It also outlines conservation measures that the City is performing, such as distributing conservation kits and literature to residents and offering rebates for those purchasing high efficiency washing machines and low flush toilets. One pressing need is to devise a plan for storage of an emergency supply of water in case there is a complete outage from San Francisco. There is interest in having a joint storage facility located in Millbrae. Also, the Bay Area Water Users Association have developed a draft water shortage allocation plan, which specifies ahead of time how our water would be allocated during a drought where we would have a 25% cutback. That document is in draft form and is being reviewed by SFPUC. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilman Spinelli made a motion to adopt the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0, with Vice Mayor Galligan absent. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Leigh Tanton, 845 Linden Avenue, stated he is concerned about Burlingame's housing crisis. He stated in April that the Council admitted there was a problem with affordable housing, and that there was going to be an amnesty plan for secondary units; feels the. City of Burlingame is not following a law passed in 1982 prohibiting any City from adopting an ordinance that would totally ban secondary units within single family and multiple family areas. Michael Barber, 1316 Palm Drive, thanked Council for approving the Ordinance to add two stop signs on Adeline; stated all four schools that do not have dead-end access are concerned about traffic; he explained that this issue would be resurfacing in the near future. Burlingame City Council 5 October 16, 2000 Unapproved Minutes 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS October 16, 2000 6 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes a. COMMISSION APPOINTMENT — LIBRARY BOARD Vice Mayor Galligan and Mayor O'Mahony met with three of the four candidates who applied for the position on the Library Board, Elaine Fuchs, Carolyn Hipps, and Andrew Gerthett, all excellent candidates. Mary Lou Morton waived her interview opportunity. Mayor O'Mahony made a motion to recommend Andrew Gerthett to the Library Commission; he has wonderful credentials, is currently a librarian at Santa Clara Law School, and has a good understanding of library construction and the uses and needs of people. He is very adept at Internet usage and feels comfortable recommending him. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Janney and approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1, (Vice Mayor Galligan absent). b. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING RETIREMENT CONTRACT TO FOURTH LEVEL OF 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFITS FOR LOCAL POLICE MEMBERS ONLY City Manager Argyres stated that during the last negotiations with the Police Officers Association, an increase was requested in the 1959 Survivors Benefit under the PERS retirement system from level 3 to level 4. This benefit is collected when the employee dies; since the Burlingame employees covered by this retirement system are not covered by social security, this is a way to provide survivors benefits that are somewhat similar to social be meted on. ity. In order The slat quires that prior to doing this, and actuarial Introduction of Ordinance needs evaluation be obtained and disclosed to the public the estimated future annual cost. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to adopt the Resolution of Intent and introduced the ordinance, seconded by Councilman Spinelli, motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 4-1-0 (Vice Mayor Galligan absent). 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. APPROVAL OF ARECLA IFICABILOF A SENIOR BUILDING POSITION TO A DEPUTY CHEUDING OFFIAL POSITION DPW DPW Bagdon recommended approval of reclassification of a senior building inspector position to a Deputy Chief Building Official position. b. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 CALIFORNIA/GROVE AREA DPW Bagdon recommended the City Council approve Resolution accepting the California/Grove Area Storm Drain Improvements, Phase 1, by RGW Construction Company for $639,552.69. C. RESOLUTION AWARDING BROADWAY SIGNAL INTERCONNECT AND U.S. 101/ROLLINS ROAD SIGNAL PROJECTS DPW Bagdon recommended approval of Resolution 109 and Resolution 110 awarding a construction contract to Mike Brown Electric and a Professional Services contract to Vali Cooper and Associates for the Broadway Signal Interconnect Project and US 10 1 /Rollins Road Signals Project. Burlingame City Council 7 October 16, 2000 Unapproved Minutes d. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL, SEPTEMBER, 2000 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 72187-72623 (excluding library check numbers 72287-72334), duly audited, in the amount of $1,607,792.39, Payroll checks 130078- 131304 in the amount of $1,951,722.00, and EFT's in the amount of $403,051.65 for the month of September, 2000. e. CITY OF BURLINGAME EMERGENCY PLAN Fire Chief Reilly recommended the City Council approve by Resolution the City of Burlingame Emergency Plan as revised April 2000. Councilman Coffey made a.motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0, with Vice Mayor Galligan absent. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilwoman Janney attended and came in first place with Councilman Coffey in the 4 h annual Roosevelt School Chili Cook -Off. She attended a legislative breakfast, a dinner given by the San Mateo County Commission on Disabilities, a SamTrans Board meeting and the North County Council of Cities meeting. Councilman Spinelli attended the Airport Roundtable Committee. Councilman Coffey stirred the chili for Councilwoman Janney at the Roosevelt School Chili Cook -Off, attended the North County Council of Cities meeting and the Half Moon Bay Pumpkin Festival. Mayor O'Mahony attended the BID meeting to review the Broadway Streetscape Plan, a C/CAG meeting, County Investment Advisory Board Meeting, and won third place in the Roosevelt School Chili Cook -Off. She stated this is a marvelous event, Roosevelt School is one of the shining joys of Burlingame because it is full of wonderful parents that are so united in support of one thing — the education of their children in a wonderfully wholesome environment. 10. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 11. NEW BUSINESS Mayor O'Mahony noted a complaint was received from the Burlingame High School golf coach regarding speeding cars on Howard Avenue. 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, October 10, 2000; Parks and Recreation Commission, September 21, 2000; Beautification, October 5, 2000 b. Department Reports: Building, September 2000; Finance, September 30, 2000 C. Letter from Darold Fredricks regarding condition of historic cast iron bells on El Camino Real d. Approximately 31 letters from citizens supporting efforts of Interfaith Hospitality Network October 16, 2000 8 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes e. Letter from Michelle Privitera, Steve Nowakowski, and Janet Uliana opposing homeless shelter 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 8:42 in memory of Shirley Warden, who passed away on September 11t'. Burlingame City Council Ann Musso City Clerk 0 October 16, 2000 Unapproved Minutes CITY G R ^ BIJRL,NGAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUI BY DATE: October 31, 2000 API BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson City Attorney SUBJECT: DECLARATION THAT PROPERTY AT 1204 PALM AUE, BURLINGAME, CA CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE — APN 029-016-12 AGENDA ITEM x 5 a MTG. DATE 1 1 /612000 RECOMMENDATION: A. Hold public hearing and determine whether the property at 1204 Palm Drive constitutes a public nuisance pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code sections 1.12.040 and 1.16.010. B. If those conditions are found to exist, adopt proposed resolution authorizing the City to take such steps as are necessary to abate the nuisance and to ensure that the property is not inhabited if determined not to be habitable. DISCUSSION: As reported in the attached memorandum for the Code Enforcement Officer, this property was reported to Code Enforcement late last year as the structure at 1204 Palm Drive appeared to be deteriorating because of an unmet building permit. Early this year, the City contacted PG&E because of concerns about the safety of the water heater was temporarily disconnected. In early 1999, the owner applied for an addition to the building. The owners elected not to use a professional designer or architect; as stated by the City planner working on the project at the time: "[I]t is recommended that the applicant hire a professional designer; discrepancies with designs and building code requirements will cost applicant time and may require resubmittal for design review." Memo of July 13, 1999. After a year of deficient plan submittals, the owner finally hired an architect to prepare a set of plans. However, when the City design reviewer made a number of suggestions in March 2000, the applicant ignored the suggestions for over 2 months until City staff ultimately referred the design to the Planning Commission under the new preliminary design review process. On June 26, 2000, relying on the design reviewer's comments, the Commission suggested some corrections and changes to the plans and unanimously referred the project to design review with direction to abandon requests for variances. Mayor and Council Re: Declaration that Property at 1204 Palm Avenue Constitutes a Public Nuisance October 31, 2000 Page 2 Three months later, the owner submitted entirely new plans for design review, and those are now set for hearing on November 13, 2000. However, the owners have apparently not maintained the existing structure at all. The Chief Building Official has determined that the current conditions will make the building uninhabitable during the winter. On October 30, the owners finally responded to the repeated requests for correction from the Code Enforcement Officer by applying for a demolition permit for the existing home. The current violations identified by the Chief Building Official are: Health & Safety Code § 17920.3(g)(2) and (g)(3): (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof foundations, or floors, including broken windows or doors. (3) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or ^'-------o -_ r ---- - - - -- -- --r c - In addition, addition, the building is an eyesore for the neighborhood, which consists of well -maintained, modest homes. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached resolution that: — Affirms that the property constitutes a public nuisance; — Authorizes the City Manager, Chief Building Official, and the Chief of Police to take such steps as necessary to ensure that public safety is maintained, including disconnection of electrical and gas service to the building. — Authorizes the City Attorney to file such further civil or criminal actions in Superior Court as necessary to correct health and safety concerns on the property; Directs staff to return with a statement of the costs of correction for placement as a lien against the property and collected through next year's property taxes. If the Council approves the resolution, staff will proceed with the steps outlined in the resolution. Without additional City action, the owners may proceed with demolition of the building. However, given the long history of inaction, staff believes that adoption of the resolution will provide a needed impetus to getting the situation corrected. Mayor and Council Re: Declaration that Property at 1204 Palm Avenue Constitutes a Public Nuisance October 31, 2000 Page 3 Attachments Proposed Resolution Timeline Code Enforcement Officer Report dated October 16, 2000, plus attachments Additional 1999 Design Review documentation Notice posted on property on October 28, 2000 Burlingame Municipal Code Nuisance Definitions Distribution Esther and Hagop Plavjian George Plavjian Chief of Police Planning Director Fire Marshal Chief Building Official RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING THE PROPERTY AT 1204 PALM DRIVE TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL, CHIEF OF POLICE, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TAKE SUCH STEPS AS DEEMED NECESSARY TO ABATE THE NUISANCE 1204 PALM DRIVE OWNER: ESTHER & HAGOP PLAVJIAN APN: 029-016-120 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY of BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, this matter came before the City Council on November 6, 2000, for public hearing for consideration pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Chapters 1.12 and 1.16; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this public hearing was given by both certified letter to the apparent property owners and notice posted on the property at 1204 Palm Drive, and notice was given to property owners in the immediate vicinity of the property at 1204 Palm Drive; WHEREAS, at the public hearing on November 6, 2000, the City Council has considered all • + ___±._...._.- —'. -. s-'' --..- �. -.. .. �'....� at-c � ..-.._. ..a 7 �1/�A T /__.. T..:. 1 .7._ a1..., staff report dated October 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, the property at 1204 Palm Drive contains a building that has been allowed to deteriorate to the point that: A. Its weather protection has weathered away so that it is no longer waterproof pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 17920; B. Unpainted, unprotected wood sheeting is exposed to the elements around the building; C. It is an eyesore for the neighborhood that threatens property values and the enjoyment of nearby properties and homes; and WHEREAS, the property owners have been afforded months of notice to correct the situation and have not done so; and WHEREAS, City officials should be authorized to proceed with necessary corrective measures to abate the public nuisance at 1204 Palm Drive through posting of non -habitability and the severance of electrical and gas service to the property, lien proceedings, and necessary court and administrative action; and 1 WHEREAS, this enforcement action is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15321 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, contained in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1. The property at 1204 Palm Drive, Burlingame, California, is declared to be a public nuisance. 2. The City Manager, Chief Building Official, and Chief of Police are authorized and directed to proceed with the posting and enforcement of notices of non -habitability for the structures on the property and severance of electrical and gas service to the property. 3. The City Attorney is authorized and directed to obtain such orders and warrants as necessary to assist the City Manager, Chief Building Official, and Chief of Police in the abatement provided above, and further to file such civil and criminal actions as necessary. to obtain abatement and payment of costs incurred. 4. The County Health Officer is authorized to assist the City officials as necessary to ensure the appropriate abatement. 5. The City Manager is further directed to account for all City costs incurred in the abatement process, including all City staff time involved, and to return to the City Council for hearing and consideration of those costs. Those costs shall be subject to being placed as a lien on the property at 1204 Palm Drive, assessment on the real property tax bill for the property, and collection through such actions as necessary. This decision is a final administrative decision of the City of Burlingame. Anyone wishing to challenge this decision in a court of competent jurisdiction must do so within 90 days pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 unless a shorter time is provided by State or Federal law. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: City Clerk 1204 PALM AVENUE TIMELINE YEAR MONTH ACTIVITY 1998 October 10/22 — Owners obtain building permit to alter roof and repair dry rot on structure — no work done except removal of siding November 11/23 — Owners obtain building permit to apply stucco siding — no work done December None 1999 January None February None March None April 4/2 — Owners file design review application 4/26 — Plans sent to Design Reviewer after Staff review/comment May None June 6/2 — Design Reviewer returns extensive comments 6/4 — Meeting between Design Reviewer and owners 6/16 — New plans submitted July 7/15 — Plans sent to Design Reviewer after Staff review/comment 7/19 — Design Reviewer returns extensive comments recommending that owners obtain iJf V1VJJ1V11CLl Y�Jl�'lfvl Vf Kl\/111VVVL August None September Complaints received on house condition — referred to Building Division October None November None December 12/13 — architect submits plans/new application for owners 12/21 — letter from City noting need for variances 2000 January 1/25 — unsafe gas and electric connections identified by City February 2/2 — PG&E disconnects water heater until repairs made — warning letter sent to owners of condition of property 2/14 — new application with plans submitted March 3/8 — letter from City on deficiencies in plans 3/15 — letter from City reiterating deficiencies in plans April None 1204 Palm Timeline - 1 YEAR MONTH ACTIVITY 2000 May 5118 — letter from City reiterating deficiencies, reminding owners that no response has been received to March letters, and asking if project should just go forward to Commission in inadequate condition 5/26 — revised plans submitted June 6/26 — preliminary design review by Planning Commission — unanimously referred application to design reviewer with direction not to ask for variances July None August 8/30 — letter from City reminding owners that nothing has been received since Commission review in June September 9/12 — inspection by Building/Code Enforcement — letter sent by City to owners giving owners 30 days to correct deteriorated condition 9/19 — new plans submitted with extensive revisions 9/29 — plans sent to design reviewer after staff review/comment October 10/4 — Design reviewer comments returned — set for hearing on first open agenda of Planning Commission on 11/13 10/26 - Notices sent to owners of public nuisance hearing 10/30 — Owners apply for demolition permit 1204 Palm Timeline - 2 To: Larry Anderson, City Attorney From: Fred Palmer, Code Enforcement Officer Subject: 1204 Palm - Declaration of a Public Nuisance Date: October 16, 2000 Recommendation: The City Council should declare the structure at 1204 Palm Avenue a public nuisance. Over the past two years this structure has been allowed, by the owners, to deteriorate to the point that the Chief Building Official has determined that it is no longer in habitable condition. Numerous contacts with the owners have not resolved the situation. Definition: Section 1.16.010 Nuisance defined. A nuisance, within the meaning of this chapter, is defined as anything which is dangerous, injurious VL CL'YYYVYYGlV4 �V livi4a411 V JMav,.., v.� ...••vv •••••:� :•^••��•••—:: _—_—.-:-�.:-._ free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or which unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use in the customary manner of any stream, or any public park, square, street or highway, or which by any provision of this code is specifically declared to be a nuisance; provided, however, nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of law is a nuisance. (1941 Code § 105). Page 2 - 1204 Palm Ave, Public Nuisance Facts: Property Owner: Esther and Hagop Plavjian. George Plavjian is their Son. 10/22/98 Owner obtained a building permit to alter the roof and repair dry rot on the structure. (No work was done) 11/23/98 Owner obtained a building permit to apply stucco siding. (No work was done) 4/2/99 Owner made application to the planning department for an addition to the structure. 9/22/99 I began receiving telephone calls from neighbors regarding the condition of the structure. Photos were taken and the matter was referred to the building department. There were no requirements in our ordinances and in the building code to require an owner to complete a project in a timely manner. See Attachment "A" 1 /25/00 2/2/00 More complaints were received. Photos taken of possible unsafe gas and P.G. & E. contacted. They examined the problems and shut down the water heater until repairs were made. A letter was sent to the property owner regarding the deteriorating condition of the property. (See Attachment "C") Initially the owner represented himself to the Planning Department. He submitted plans that he drafted and began the planning process. Somewhere along the route the owner hired Matthew Bolak, an Architect. Mr. Bolak prepared new drawings and presented the design to planning. 12/21/99 The planning department sent Mr. Bolak a letter advising him that the plans were incomplete and a number of items needed to be completed in order to continue in the design review process. (See Attachment "D") 3/8/00 Letter from Design Review professional stating a number of items in the submittal are not acceptable. (See Attachment "E") 3/15/00 Letter from Planning to the property owner advising them that the submittal received to date failed to comply with the design review guidelines. (See Attachment "F") Page 3 - 1204 Palm Ave, Public Nuisance 5/18/00 Letter from the Planning Department to the property owner about not receiving any response to the last letter of 3/15/00. (See Attachment "G") 6/26/00 The Planning Commission reviewed the projects re submittal and determined that the project needed to go back to design review. (See Attachment "H") 8/30/00 Letter from the Planning Department to the owner regarding not receiving any further information and more complaints are being received. (See Attachment "I") 9/12/00 Fred Cullum, Chief Building Official, Erika Lewitt, Planning Department and myself made another site inspection of 1204 Palm Ave. Due to further deterioration (rotten wood, felt paper in terrible condition and insulation protruding) Mr. Cullum determined that with the winter rains this house would be uninhabitable. A certified letter was mailed to the property owner giving them 30 days to protect the structure against the weather. It was received by the property owner on 9/14/00. (See Attachment "J") L2 TO: Building and Fire Departments FROM: Fred Palmer, Code Enforcement SUBJECT: Unsafe Living Coditions/Safety Violations DATE: September 22, 1999 I received a complaint today from Mr. Harley Brookins, 801 Crossway Road, 343-8782, about unsafe and illegal conditions occurring at his neighbors home located at 1204 Palm Drive. 1204 Palm Drive is owned by Mr and Mrs Hagop Plavjian. 1. I observed a gas line at the rear of the property installed several inches above ground and leading to a hot tub. ?_ T nhcPrvPd a hot water heater installed on an outside deck on the east side of the house. The water heater is unteathered and has unsecured gas and water lines. 3. I observed the main electrical service to the house going into a white piece of PVC pipe that is tied to the chimney with a small rope. 4. I observed a light fixture, functional, that was hanging by two wires and not enclosed in conduit. (Photo on next page) Page 2 - 1204 Palm, Continued These safety violations along are cause for concern. I am requesting the assistance of your departments to help correct the situation. The home owner has two open building permits. 9801715 to alter the roof and 981877 to add stucco siding. T ,xim accict in anv wav nossible. Cc: City Attorney Health Department ;. A , L S r: � y a d yti�l' 1 Y 040 of BurfingamC C Office of the City Attorney Code Enforcement Bureau 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 558-7208, Fax: (650) 342-8386 February 7, 2000 George Plavjian 1204 Palm Ave Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Notice of Possible Declaration of a Public Nuisance Dear Mr. Plavjian: It was nice meeting with you earlier today and hearing about the process you are involved in with the City. You were concerned that the city was not pursuing your project in a timely fashion. I also spoke with your architect Mr. Matthew Bolak. In researching the issue with the planning department I learned that while going through the design review process the latest response to your project was sent to your architect on December 21, 1999 by Planner Janice Jagelski. The response contained six items where your submittal either were insufficient or did not meet city code. As of this date nothing has been submitted to our planning department addresses the concerns expressed in the letter. While tins process is ongoing two uiuigs arc uccu111116, UiC;'AMAIUI WX JW : neighbors are becoming more incensed. I strongly urge you to get together with your architect and respond promptly to the concerns of the city so that your project can move forward. I will suspend any enforcement action until March 7, 2000 to make a determination on any progress (on your part). It may not be a bad idea to communicate with your neighbors so that they have a better understanding of what you are attempting to accomplish. Sincerely, Alfred J. Palmer Code Enforcement Officer cc: City Attorney Building Dept - Tom McGovern Planning Dept - Janice Jagelski Architect Matthew Bolak r. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Matthew Bolak 917 Cypress Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 December 21, 1999 Dear Mr. Bolak, SUBJECT: 4v (itV of 3urltngamje CITY HALL — 50s PR1MPOSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA, 34010-3997 Owl TEL (415) 696-7250 FAX (415) 342-8386 Preliminary Zoning Plan Check of Resubmitted Design Review Application for 1204 Palm Drive Planning staff has conducted a preliminary zoning plan check of the revised house plans at 1204 Palm which you submitted to this office on December 13, 1999. As proposed, the revised plans materials before they can be forwarded to the Design Review Consultant: 1. The site plan dimensions appear to be incorrect. The City's records do not reflect a T-0" wide easement along the right property line of this parcel. Please either remove this reference from all pages where the easement is noted, or forward the appropriate legal documents which identify this easement as part of the property at 1204 Palm; 2. A variance is required for the proposed 11'-8" front setback from the front property line to the covered entry porch. No covered entry areas are permitted to extend into the 15'-0" front setback; 3. A variance is required for the rear setback to the second story balcony; 19'-6" is proposed where 20'-0" is required. 4. Substantial modifications are proposed to -the footprint of the residence, but the lot coverage resulting from the remodeled home still exceeds the maximum lot coverage permitted on this site. In 1986 a variance was approved to permit the over -size one -car garage which exceeded the allowed 401/6 lot coverage (1695 SF) with 45.8% (1942 SF). The preliminary review by the Building Department indicates that the scope of work proposed to the residence constitutes new construction. With this new construction, the project will still exceed the maximum 40% lot coverage and the variance issued for the A a- ol�w 0 ,+saav r garage is non-transferrable to the residence. Therefore, a new variance application for Iot coverage is required. If the garage roof is proposed to be changed, please submit front, side and rear elevations, a new roof plan and a cross section of the remodeled garage. 6. The Chief Building Official indicates in his comments, dated December 20, 1999, that direct egress to grade level is required from the basement and that the plans should be resubmitted to show compliance with this requirement. His comments also state that the project is categorized as a new house and that all construction must meet current building codes. After the requested materials have been submitted and plan -checked, the plans will be forwarded to a Design Review Consultant for an evaluation of the project's conformance with the Design Review Guidelines. If you have questions regarding this letter of incomplete or the processing of this application, please contact me at 650/558-7250. Sincerely, CCp,� O 7anire T�noloL; Planner c: George Pla-,jian, owner A T,Viiiges Architeclure cY Plaw iiig 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311 Burlingame, CA 94010 MEMO: Date: 3-8-2000 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 1204 PALM — PLAVJIAN RESIDENCE — RESUBMITTAL FEB 2000 RECEIVED MAR 1 0 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT I have reviewed the resubmittal and re -visited the site, the street and the surrounding area. I have the following comments regarding the resubmittal. 1 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing neighborhood: • This is a neighborhood of predominantly single story bungalow type homes of varying styles. • There are, however, several 2 story houses including the one next door to the subject property which has a small second story. • The house proposed is of indeterminate style. There is some reference to "Spanish" style in the wording of this application, but this does not seem to be carried through in the plans. 11uJ 11V ilJV Wui vviia.i i�o. .•.•.. .....: ..v.b....:.. "..a '... �... r-. .. 2 Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood: Detached rear garage is not being remodeled. Dutch gable existing roof of this garage is not compatible with the new proposed house design. Garage elevation shown is unclear —are there any changes proposed? 3 Architectural Style Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistency of the Structural Design. • The existing house is currently in a state of disrepair and demolition. • The plan seems like a reasonable layout for functionality and flow. • The front of the house second story has been set back which reduces the bulk somewhat. • The proposed house is still in contrast to the typical small bungalows and other homes in the area and especially on this side of the block. Many of these other older neighboring homes have delicate trimmed windows, ornaments, textured siding and varied colors, low sloped roofs, porches, overhangs, and other details and scale reducing elements. • The massing of tlus structure has a bulky massive appearance due to a number of factors. The first floor is being widened as well as a second floor being added. The west side of the house is not broken up, and is a large straight wall which adds to the bulk. The scale and type of foam trim seems arbitrary and of no purpose, and is not continuous around the house. The windows seem large with no divided lites or other scale reducing elements. • The height and bulk are accentuated by the site being elevated above the street, and the first floor being elevated 3'-0" from finished grade. • The use of concrete tile roof seems out of place in this neighborhood. If the design is supposed to be a Mediterranean style, a round Spanish tile would be more appropriate. • I have concern about the use of foam built-up molding around the window. This is a suburban tract like invention that increases the bulk and mass of the openings and has become a cliche in every new housing development. Look instead into more traditional forms of window trim in the Mediterranean style_ • The #16 note stucco relief in unclear —is this a reveal or is it a plane of raised stucco? The shape seems arbitrary and is not repeated on the other sides of the house. • Window style seems odd, since the doors use divided lites. Should consider more consistency. Double hung windows are used —coordinate with the spanish style. • Don't understand the "figurines." Are these protruding out? Are they flat tiles? • Fascia boards and eaves seem weak in relationship to the other stucco mold treatment. 4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: • There will be some shadow impacts on both adjoining houses. • Other issues or scale ana style impact are no eu aovvc. 5 Landscaping, and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: • No new landscape plan has been included. This is required for a new house such as this, and should be carefully done to minimize the mass. Summary: 1. The new design is a departure from the previous submittals. There are improvements from the previous designs, however, the new proposed design will give a large bulky appearance to the house and will overshadow the neighboring houses and the -block, and will look foreign to Burlingame. 2. The house is neither Spanish Mediterranean or any other style that is found in the neighborhood. The materials chosen including the concrete tile roof are unclear — what type, shape and color? Clarification is needed. 3. The garage looks like it belongs to another house. Is there any treatment planned? 4. Some attempt to break up the long straight wall on the left side should be made to soften the bulk ie, setbacks or different roof lines. 5. Recommend the applicant be issued a copy bf the draft design guidelines booklet and that they come back with clarifications and alternatives. responding to the above comments. Jerry L. Winges, AIA 2 C` 4e Gifu of 3urlrngame CITY HALL - 50' PRIMRp5E ROAD TEL (415) 696-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX (415) 342-8386 George Plavjian 1204 Palm Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 March 15, 2000 Dear Mr. Plavjian, Attached to this letter is the most recent written recommendation from the Design Review Consultant who reviewed your proposal for a second story addition and basement addition to your existing residence at 1204 Palm Drive. T'lie recommendation summarizes that although the most recent proposal is better in the quality of the rendering and design than the previous submittals, the project still fails to comply with the design review guidelines adopted with the Design Review Ordinance. Because this application is nearly one year old (it was submitted April 2, 1999), and the City Attorney anti coae britorcement ur icer nave received numerous complaints regarding the unfinished nature of your residence at 1204 Palm Drive, it is necessary for us to ask you whether you wish to proceed directly to the Planning Commission for their review of the current proposal, or whether you wish to redesign the project again to better conform with the design review guidelines. Please respond to us within one week (by March 23, 2000) with your decision of whether.you wish to proceed to the Planning Commission or whether you would like to redesign your house. If you choose to further redesign your house, you will be required to submit an additional $500 retainer for the time spent by the Design Review Consultant reviewing your plans. If you wish to proceed directly to the Planning Commission for review of the current design proposal and variance, this project will be added to the Planning Commission's agenda on April 18, 2000. Please contact me at 558-7251 if.you have questions regarding the processing of this application. Sincerely 7 ice 7age ki, lanner c: Fred Palmer, Code Enforcement Officer Matthew Bolak, Designer G PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 18, 2000 George Plavjian 1204 Palm Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Plavjian, F, CITY BURLINGAME dpe (gi#u of �urtingzlme CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Tee (415) 696-7250 IA. 1415> 342-8386 Burlingame's Code Enforcement Officer continues to receive complaints regarding the unfinished nature of your residence at 1204 Palm Drive, and to this date, you have not responded to our March 15, 2000 request that you complete y°ur Design Review how a sketlh of a revised design for your ication, originally submitted on April 2, 1999. Your designer, Matthew Bola house, but no revised plans were submitted to this office, and we have had no subsequent contact with You or your designer since March, 2000. Therefore, your application, in its current form, will be forwarded to the planning Uomm SSjU11 1V U►-U 1V Y1�vY v If you have revised plans and would like to submit them for review in lieu of the latest plans submitted on February 15, 2000, please submit the revised plans by May 26, 2000. Otherwise, you will receive a copy of the staff report and agenda for the June 12, 2000 meeting. It is important that you attend this meeting in order to inform the Planning Commission of your intentions to either complete the proposed construction, or to return your house to its original condition. Sincerely, Janice Jagelski Planner c: Fred Palmer, Code Enforcement Officer Matthew Bolak, Designer ;.* m,ecy*dPW City of Bur/ingantc P1n1ttting C011rnissi01 .:Mules June 26. 20 further stated that there re major concerns about t 's design. It does not fit withfrounding houses and has a sell of grandiosity. Othe houses on corner lots ar ieavily landscaped, whereas tl�r's house is not. I�Teed to u�erstar whether basementA,111 be used for bedroom. sement is innovative method of/add space, but concerned i�" at extern exit could be used as private entrance and d >`mstairs could become living quarters. There are window !full bathroo and area �tl� can be converted to be oom. Suggest eliminating rea�/exit, windows and full ba ;half bath oka Ele ------rawn are very sketchy; ant to see consistency in elevabns and house blend with ighborhood. Co ssion continued: this h se has look and feel of the othe ousel in Burlingame that ecame the primary reas� r adopting design review" there is some embellishment o he front, there is some pl in the ceiling height, but t language is of an over -al oxy, 2-story house; it fails in t e design review categories f being bulky, massive, an� o of scale; the living ro window is too large, columns n porch are too massive, es not have a human scale/dout doors are beyond ale; scale problem can be see hen the garage door look small. Basement is large a ough t1 area of a typi esidence could fit within it. Ele Lions show difference in l�el of detail. Sides exhibit t o much bL and mass, front is too heavily adorned. A parish style h/nt Anage scale of tile and have nesse; the ra detail ne s attention. Commission expr sed concern thabath should be reduced '/z bath. Look archit re in immediate neighborhood not at mistakes of rfore design review)."d use these exampl for esign inspiration; need to read d ign guidelines; basemeut need to add con ion that it can't be us f r sleeping room. Further Commission comm t: this project is so far off, Ot rather than sending it to esign reviewer, recommend you start over and bring new design back to prelirn,nary design review/study.a problem is not the/squareota and size of the proje ; it's the bulk and mass of e style. T_ vnne I3'm. 1 40 Carmelita Avenue, stated that she would like to tha Commission for tIyoul out co This design is not in Kee Yng witn me area. the V(;UI-c JUL cN1Jc4,iau Carmeli d Balboa. uestion whe er the uncovered parking sprovides adequate area fo an off-street park space here is a parking proble in the area.. There were n other comments from the flo r and. the public hear w closed. C. Luzuriaga made a m 'on to re/ena roject t :be redesigned following the 'rection provided and then to Planning Commis 'on for anotary esign review study. This m ion was seconded by C. ighr There was no furt r discussion o Chairiian L riaga:called:for a on the motion to:have pro' ct start over.with a:newd gnto•returnanother p design review sotion passed on a voic vote 7-0-0. The Planning mmission's actis ad ' ry and not appealable. Tncluded at 8:30 p. 1204 PALM DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANT LOT COVERAGEWRIANCE, FLOOR,AREARATIO VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL` USE PERMITS F, ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.WITH AN EXISTING DETACFIED GARAGE (GEOR Y ytp3- Rr„=1:rb nT ';► rr t��cTr TT�i2 AlsM APPT IrAN'i'1,`' , R ,- -T"i Y �, v}'il-` Y t �,i '? i ' _-,' '.` + s 3i i .�•' "l J1.�,�yr J,v � .4 ti,t i Planner 7 gelsla tbriefly presented the.staffareport. There were no-que`sttons about'the p pI#ect from tli comnussi ChakmanLuzuriaga opened the public hearing.. George Plavjian, owner, and Mathew BQlak, applicant and desig `represented the project..; Elav�ian wanted to.pubhcly�apol0&. for the state of disrep'aair.. e�house. as .been m `over'tHe'past year. Bven"if it looked like nothing was bemg'done , he was working on the plans'and finally hii -6- City of Burlingannc Planning Conunissiorit --fifes June 26. 206 designer to help with the project. With ill -health of a family member, it has taken longer than expected to get this fa, Would like to still consider this project as an `addition' and keep the existing variances granted for lot coverage an setbacks between buildings. The lot is very small (4200 SF) and they have worked hard to pull the mass of the ne, residence back from the front of the lot. Some lot coverage will be removed resulting in less lot coverage than exist* and theyv<'ill now finally have a small rear yard. Now proposing "Spanish eclectic style, and have carefully researche and studied neighborhood. The project meets the other zoning standards and DHE; the extra lot coverage is only 7 SF and it is needed to create a decent sized house with a first floor bedroom. Needed for family member. Other house along this block have shallow front setbacks. Trying to create a similar architectural effect on the garage with the ne, facade with parapet roof. Commissioners discussed the proposed residence. Commission complimented the designer and noted that his studio have paid off and house is nicely designed. Understand that the existing house has a substandard front setback. Bi lot coverage and FAR variances are almost never granted. Don't like to provide an unfair advantage of addition. square footage over neighbor's houses; applicant noted a lot coverage variance was granted in `86, and this is actual) less lot coverage than previously approved. Commission noted that this is a nice execution of Spanish style. It's also a big house. Excessive to ask for an FA variance with such a big house and a fu11 basement; would also consider this house a new house, not an addition, whit should further. enforce need to meet FAR limits, this is a new house, no justification for all the requested variance Basement has height of 7-6", habitable ceiling height but use is not specified. How can the existing walls be saved wit the extent of excavation required to. construct a basement? New construction is easier. Why does the garage need a 14 0" plate height? How does this harmonize with the house? Will more work be done to the garage? If only 75 SF ov, on lot coverage, why can't you redesign? Can garage plate height be lowered? +�7 al.�f....� - to t.nn 1nnLn r►nnrl tiri+i, nnlZ� n„p cat of r�rnmwnPnt •:riniin�:rq h..} tl,roo �inn�in�� look crowded together. Can this be modified to one rounded top window with two rectangular windows on sides? Wh type of molding around windows? Applicant stated that window molding would be type of material that looks lil wood, but will not rot; they have a serious dry -rot problem. Commission noted that they would prefer a thinner stucc mold around windows. Scale of entry is too big with wide stairs and double doors and no covering; it is not uncommc to see one wide single -door on a Spanish style house; 2-car garage would be appropriate for size of this house,'.ne( to build a new 2-car garage. Chairman Luzuriaga asked if there were any further questions or comments. Owner stated that he appreciated tl Commission's understanding of the need to have a downstairs bedroom. Again, apologized for condition of house ar length oftimeits Taken to complete project. Request approval to keep existing one -car garage; maybe the gara-ge'acac can be redesigned, garage provides room for storage and tools; two car garage is too big for yard and don't want construct house with attached two -car garage. Chairman lx=riaga-asked whether any members of public wished to speak Ellen Hunter, 8 10.Crossway, staied.th she has a hard tune with process. Disappointed that it's abig house and doe not fit in with the neighborhood The .. j '.•4:--S°A7 t .: ' .••c �. i ,. .are very few run mansions m this area, this house die2 t fit. There were no further comments from the floor'and tl . =:public hearing was closed.t ,yy 1. n t,, ,,► n 3 rr �•l -.I ..° �.' _ r.. �3�:' Y_ _ r.,, + J+°1 7tR.'Lf -'�. >1 .: tilt'. � �: .. >. .:..-, , C. Keighran. made. a motion to send this item to a design`reviewer'with the commission s comments" and direction: > T motion was seconded by. C.. Mistica.' -7- ci!), of Bia-lingnnre Fanning Commission k. fes June 26, 200 Discussion on motion: basement will require total excavation, for that reason this cannot be considered an addition o remodel, it is a new house. No variances for T-6" separation between garage and house, no lot coverage or FAR o front setback variances are supportable. Concerned about the consistency of the design of this house wit/ neighborhood, need to reduce scale of entry stairs and door, use fine stucco molding around windows, one -car detaches garage okay, solve plate height issue. The motion passed on a voice vote 7- 0-0. The Planning Commission's .action is advisory and not appealable. This iten concluded at 9:15 p.m. 1420 BERNAL AV SINGLE-FAMII,Y THOMAS ARCV 9 - ZONED R-1 - A ;IDENCE (TODD 'S, ARCHITECT AID 5MON FOR DESIGN I CHRISTINE DOW, 0 LICANT) y FOR A NEW TWO- ORx MARK THOOOL CP Monroe efly presented the staffrepo with staff comments attache . There were no questi s about the projec- from the mnnission. Ch ' an Luzuriaga opened the p6blic /same . Mark Thom , architect 440 Spear St et, San Francisco, represerptec e project. This is a new t o story, house des' ned for the owners wi consideration of the archit tuna.design and detail of the ghborhool as the chitecture in the city a hole. Commissioners as :what treatment do you inte d for the post irch a he rear, what about pt er detail and roof, have yo considerec dressing these up. plicant noted no e ent is intended, it could use a carved post with s and detail the match the woo entils. Rafter extre not shown in all t ;/elevations; applicant note drawing are not completed, a licant noted the rhythhe same on all elev ions but they work on eac element. Could ads another wipdow on the second floor at in the front bedro ; not enough room betwee the flashing of the rota over to wing room ana the plate ne t; couia it ne mattes r, applicant is not interest; The front of the structure has closed feeling: number 091anes without openings pplicant noted can provide omething as an option. Mary Packard, 1445 Be , spoke noting that the ter she submitted referred the second project on this get ir the packet 1441Bem4here were no other cgrAments from the floor and t public comment was close . C. Keighran not used the design guides to advantage, simple blegant touch in design, corned about the entry not bein pedestrian friendly. She then made a motion to place Pe project at 1420 Bernal on t consent calendar at the next eeting with the directiogAbat the front of the house modified as directed by the fanning Commission. _ Thon was seconded by C. sterling..:,;�s Ofi the motion: See this bigger than the garage do those houses recently support the motr N actually;l0 feet. oM. has big win sm. the`fr submi e,�rauied n� as A i eel it'is comF Ject in the opposite, do n9tf(eel it is in scale with the neohborhood, the front windsaw is r, it has a 10 foot plate and alarge entry, there is nothingr,- this in the neighborhood except which have more emllishment, this looks as if it w u1d be appropriate on E 6n, cannot ssed the.garage do r, .scale wrth itself looks good , agree =the;9 EJ plate o e first:.floor �d {and the 12 to #pate on the second floor area `� alceup, , er`on the dow,'my:house ,c - .. 3ri:p -t : .aKY-: }.aaa+i;!% f. f�.yT3SY,w'S„ int and a poi on the side and rtjworks we ; there are�large houses a ss xhe street, -:good o`much :etbellishment, could_be more o -n to'the'street, dr'axwtns ` e clearcan'�"siipot it ble, co use.shrubs to.soften and its ood.thing to remove:the sacra at the iear"'r' - . - :. Win= -a dairman Luzuriaga callgefor a roll call vote on the passed on a 4-3 (.ers. ;'Dreiling; Bcjues'dissenting to appeal. The ite nded at 9:30,p.m .�. .. ..r.., to refer this item to t consent calendar.. The E ion The commission's ion:is advisor and -is no ubject -8- City of Burlingame Item # 9 Preliminary Design Review, Variances and Conditional Use Permits for a New Two -Story Residence Address: 1204 Palm Drive Meeting Date: June 26, 2000 Request: Request for Design Review for a new two-story, 4-bedroom, single family residence with a full basement and an existing 320 SF detached one -car garage, and variances for front setback, floor area ratio and lot coverage; conditional use permits are requested for the height of accessory structure, plate height of accessory structure and location of accessory structure within 4'-0" of another structure. (C.S. 25.28.040; 25.28.072.b; 25.28.065; 25.28.070.b; 25.60.010.g; 25.60.O10h; 25.60.010e) Property Owner: George Plavjian Applicant: Matthew Bolak APN: 029-016-120 Designer: Matthew Bolak Lot Area: 4199 SF (49' x 85') General Plan Designation: medium density residential Date Submitted: original application, April 2, 1999 Summary: The extent of construction required to remodel the existing house, add a second story and a full basement qualifies this project as new construction. Therefore, the previously granted variance (1986) for construction of the detached garage which increased lot coverage to 47.2% is no longer valid. With the addition and remodel, the applicant requests a new variance for the front setback to permit 12'-0" where a minimum setback of 15'-0" is required; a reduced lot coverage of 43.4 % where 40% is permitted; a proposed FAR of 67.6% (2838 SF) where a maximum FAR of 65.8% (2763 SF) is allowed. The footprint of the existing 320 SF (164" x 19'-8") detached one -car garage would remain the same, but the facade would be modified to match the architectural style of the proposed reconstructed house. The new facade would increase the plate height to 14'-0" where a maximum plate height of 9'-0" is permitted, and the peak -r`' --_ _ » L_ •....a �� i n nn ._.w„-,. � ci n)i :� .t�....,. ..z..,...., t,�;.,t,+ .3a,..,,;++ort Staff Comments: Attached Table Comparing Proposed Project with Existing and Required R-1 Standards Proposed Existing Required Front Setback - 1st floor 12'-0" * 11'-6" 15'-0" Front Setback - 2nd floor 20'-0" N/A 20'-0" Right Setback T-6" 3'-0" 4'-0" Left Setback 10'-0" 1214" 4'-0" Rear Setback - 1st floor 17'-6" 10'-4" 15'-0" Rear Setback - 2nd floor 22'-0" N/A 20'-0" Height 30'-0" N/A 30'-0" DHE ok N/A see code Lot Coverage 1822SF = 1942 SF = 1680 SF = 40% 43.4%* 46.5%* * FAR 2838 SF = 1942 SF = 46.2% 2763 SF = 67.6%* 65.8%* # Bedrooms Parking Size of Garage Peak Height of Garage Plate Height of Garage Separation B/N Structures Proposed 4 1 cov + 1 uncov 320 SF 16'-6"* 14'-0" 3'-6"* Existing 3 1 cov + 1 uncov 320 SF 15'-0" 9'-0" 3'-6"* * Required N/A 1 cov + 1 uncov 10' x 20'=200 SF 15'-0" 9'-0" 4'-0" *variances required for: 1) front setback of 12'-0" where 15'-0" required; 2) lot coverage of 43.4% where 40% permitted; 3) FAR of house of 2518 SF where maximum house size of 2443 SF permitted with existing 320 SF detached garage. *conditional use permits required for: 4) accessory structure with peak height of facade of 16'-6" where 15'- 0" permitted; 5) variance for accessory structure with plate height of 14'-0" where 9'-0" permitted; and 6) separation of 3'-6" between buildings where 4'-0" required. * * a special permit and variance for to permit a 3'-6" separation between the detached garage and house and a house with a 47.2% lot coverage was approved on June 9, 1986 Janice Jagelski Planner c: Matthew Bolak, applicant 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT August 30, 2000 George Plavjian 1204 Palm Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Plavjian, BURLINGAME The City ®f Burlingame CITY HALL — 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 TEL: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 696-3790 This is to follow up on our telephone conversation a few weeks ago regarding your design review application for 1204 Palm Drive. The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a preliminary design review study session on June 26, 2000. The commission had several comments regarding the design and the requested variances (see attached minutes), and voted to send this item to a design reviewer. You had indicated that you wished to redesign the project prior to submitting it to the design reviewer. It has come to my attention that there is a balance of $300.00 due for the services of the previous design review ,t aL ..4 T....rAar+r. nrnr-.> d 1 nth tb; nrnift& vnit nAll P1PPrl to 11aV the. r111t'Qt%inrjlT1Q hnIn ne nr $300.00, plus submit an additional $500.00 design review deposit. As you are aware, the city's code enforcement officer has received several complaints regarding the unfinished nature of your residence. Therefore, we would request that you either submit the revised plans and the design review fee (past balance due and deposit) by September 15, 2000 or start work on improvements to repair the existing house. In any event, the outstanding balance of $300.00 must be paid by September 15, 2000. If you have any questions regarding this application, please call me at (650) 558-7253. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, -RW20f-1- oj�� Maureen Brooks Senior Planner c: Matthew Bolak, Designer Fred Palmer, Code Enforcement Officer r�ity of Burlingame' � Office of the City Attorney Code Enforcement Bureau 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 558-7208, Fax: (650) 342-8386 September 12, 2000 George Plavjian 1204 Palm Ave Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Re: Uninhabitable Housing Condition - 1204 Palm Dear Mr. Plavjian: As you are aware, the City of Burlingame has received numerous complaints regarding the condition of your home over the past 18 months. At the time you had started the planning process to remodel the structure so we extended a courtesy to allow you to complete the process. You are still involved in the planning process but have made no progress since attending the Planning Commission meeting of June 26. 2000, where you received further direction. During the past 18 months the condition of your home has deteriorated to the point where the Chief Building Official has determined that it is not protected from the weather and healthy living conditions are questionable. This situation is a violation of the California Health and Safety Code. 0ec110n 1 i aZu.5 or uivision 9 3 (Housing) of Part 1.5 (Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation of Chapter 2 (Regulations) of the Health and Safety Code titled "Substandard building; conditions" defines a substandard building as one having ... 17920.3 (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ... (2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, foundations, or floors, including broken windows or d--ors. ... (3) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved protective covering. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that you have 30 days from the date of this letter, October 12, 2000, to have your home adequately protected from the weather. The work is to be completed with a proper permit and inspected by the City Building Department. In the event you have any questions please feel free to contact Mr. Fred Cullum, Chief Building Official, 558-7270 or myself. Sincerely, Alfred J. Palmer Code Enforcement Officer cc: City Attorney, City Planner, Chief Building Official 9/12/OC MVC-009S.JPG MVC-011 S.JPG MVC-01 OS.JPG MVC-012S.JPG 1/1 ATTY-Palmer, Fred From: PW/BLG-Cullum, Fred Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2000 11.35 AM To: ATTY-Palmer, Fred Subject: 1204 Palm Section 17920.3 of Division 13 (Housing) of Part 1.5 (Regulation of Buildings Used for Human Habitation of Chapter 2 (Regulations) of the Health and Safety Code titled "Substandard building; conditions" defines a substandard building as one having ... 17920.3 (g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ... (2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roof, foundations, or floors, including broken windows or doors. ...(3) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved protective covering. There are other subdivisions of the substandard definition which could also be used including "dampness of habitable rooms", i MEMORANDUM CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: April 26, 1999 TO: Jerry Winges, Design Review Consultant FROM: Janice Jagelski, Planner SUBJECT: 1204 Palm Drive - Design Review for a Second -Story Addition Project also requires Variances for Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio and Height Please review these plans for a 1,170 SF second -story addition to an existing 1642 SF single- . family residence. A full basement is also being added under the house which does not contribute to the floor area ratio calculations as determined by the zoning regulations. In addition to adding a second story the applicant also proposes: 1) to expand the width of the house by pushing out the side walls; 2) replacement of the front facade; and 3) removal of a 200 SF addition at the rear of the house. The Chief Building Inspector categorizes this project as a new house (new construction), however, the Planning Department interpretation is that this is a second story addition (which may be debatable...). 4- This project does NOT conform to the zoning regulations, and the applicant has requested variances for lot coverage (1,943 SF proposed where 1735 SF allowed); floor area ratio (311.3 �ip proposed where 2808 SE allowed); and height (32'-9" proposed where 30'-0" allowed). The applicant has not submitted a completed Variance application form, even after I requested that this information be provided for our review. He has submitted a letter explaining his situation, which does not answer the findings required to approve a variance. The applicant submitted a photo board, but the picture of the house shows that. the structure is covered in a black plastic tarp - this is because they started removing stucco siding prior to approval of a building permit. The applicant has since submitted an old Polaroid of the site. A site visit would show that the exterior stucco has been removed exposing the boards underneath the original stucco. I have not forecasted a hearing date for this item. Scheduling the hearing will depend on the results of your review of this project and whether there is any recommendation to redesign.the project before it is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Please call me at 696-7251 if you have questions about this application. Winges Architecture & Platirtijlg 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 3ll Burlingame, CA 94010 MEMO: Date: 6-1-99 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 1204 PALM — PLAVJIAN RESIDENCE ECEIVE J U N - 21999 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the plans for the second story addition. I have the following comments regarding the design guidelines. 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing neighborhood: • This is a neighborhood of predominantly single story bungalow type homes of varying styles. • There are, however, several 2 story houses including the one next door to the subject property which has a small second story. • The style proposed is not entirely compatible with the style and scale of the existing houses, except for one unattractive stucco bulky house across and down the street. 2. Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood: • Detached rear garage is not being changed. 3. Architectural Style. Mass and Bulk of the Structure, and Internal Consistency, of th Structural Desijzn. • The existing house is currently in a state of disrepair and demolition. • Changes are so major as to constitute a "new" house of totally different scale and appearance. • The style is tract -like with unadorned stucco finish and simple aluminum windows. This is in contrast to the typical small bungalows and other homes in the area, many of which have trimmed windows, ornaments, textured siding and varied colors, low sloped roofs, porches, overhangs, and other details and scale reducing elements. • The massing of the structure has a bulky appearance. The first floor is being widened as well as a second floor being added. • There is a lack of detail and design quality. 4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: • This house will contrast with the neighboring houses in feel, size, bulk, and height. • There will be some shadow impacts on both adjoining houses. 5 Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: • Landscaping is not shown. • The design would be much improved with improved landscape treatment of the front and side yards. Summary: 1. I feel that this design is not appropriate for the neighborhood or the site. 2. Variances are required to build the proposal and must be justified. 3. This house is basically new construction. There are major changes to the foundation, room layout, height, mass, entry location, stair addition, and the existing walls at the first story —virtually everything is new. In my opinion it would be cheaper and better to start with an entirely new structure from scratch. 4. This proposal will result in a stucco "tract house" appearance that is incompatible with the predominant existing feeling of this neighborhood and of Burlingame. J. ovvviai i1uma Vii LiiG 6favriig5a uV Am- u4.iF%,c4 w aaavv and/or are unclear. 6. It is recommended that the owner re -design the proposal and look for ways to fit the design better with the site and the neighborhood, and reduce the scale and bulk. JtrtyZ. Winges, AIA ITY 0 �n4E MEMO TO: Jerry Winges, Design Reviewer FROM: Janice Jagelski, Planner RE: Resubmittal of New Two -Story Residence at 1204 Palm Avenue DATE: July 13, 1999 Please review these revised plans and indicate in writing if they conform with the design review guidelines or if further revisions are required. The applicant has revised these plans in response to our meeting on June 4, 1999. At that meeting we discussed the following issues which needed to be addressed in revised plans: the plans are too schematic and need to include more information and architectural detail, including identification of exterior materials each elevation requires equal attention and level of detail window style and trim elements should be consistent throughout structure (original proposal combined sliders, double -hung and casement) -.f c..u.,c 1 t. t f f t•n reduce bulk and mass of residence; house is particularly large because it sits over a full basement; can the finished floor elevations and plate heights be reduced? it is recommended that the applicant hire a professional designer; discrepancies with designs and building code requirements will cost applicant time and may require resubmittal for design review. project will be considered new construction and requires a landscape plan applicant needs to prove hardship to justify variance; it is doubtful that variance would be approved for excessive floor area ratio. The plan check for this resubmittal determined that there is still a discrepancy between the site coverage and floor area.ratio calculations as documented on the plans. I will work with the applicant on this issue before the project proceeds to the Planning Commission. The basement does not contribute to the floor area ratio calculation because its walls are more than 50% below the level of adjacent exterior grade.. Winges Architecture & Planning 1290 Howard Ave. Suite 311 Burlingame, CA 94010 MEMO: Date: 7-15-99 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 ref: 1204 PALM — PLAVJIAN RESIDENCE RESUBMITTAL I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and have reviewed the resubmitted plans for the second story addition. I have the following new comments marked in bold regarding the resubmittal—original comments that still apply remain. 1 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing neighborhood: • This is a neighborhood of predominantly single story bungalow type homes of varying styles. • There are, however, several 2 story houses including the one next door to the subject property which has a small second story. • The style proposed is not entirely compatible with the style and scale of the existing houses, except for one unattractive stucco bulky house across and down the street. e of place in this part of Burlingame. 2 Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood: • Detached rear garage is not being changed. 3 Architectural Style Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistency of the Structural Design. • The existing house is currently in a state of disrepair and demolition. • Changes are so major as to constitute a "new" house of totally different scale and appearance. New plans should conform to all zoning requirements. • The resubmitted plans reflect many improvements to the design over the first submittal, however the style remains "tract -like" with a "layer cake" stacked appearance. Welcome improvements have been made which include additional detail around the windows and doors, corrections to some of the code and dimension issues, a more interesting porch and rolled roof design, and some improvements in the roof plan. 'he house is still in contrast to the typical small bungalows and other homes in the rea, many of which have trimmed windows, ornaments, textured siding and varied olors, low sloped roofs, porches, overhangs, and other details and scale reducing elements. • The massing of the structure has a bulky appearance. The first floor is being widened as well as a second floor being added. • There is a lack of detail and design quality. • Need additional explantion of the window details, color and or trim details, etc. or better drawings to be better able to see the quality level and final appearance of what is being proposed. • Drawings are not done in a professional manner, still include drafting errors, omissions, and/or poor co-ordination between plan, section and elevation. 4 Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adjacent Structures to Each Side: This house will contrast with the neighboring houses in feel, size, bulk, and height. There will be some shadow impacts on both adjoining houses. 5 Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: • A new landscape plan has been included, but it seems incomplete and sketchy and not professionally done. Summarv: 1. While the re -submittal is certainly an improvement from the original submittal, it is still recommended that the owner hire a competent design professional to work further with the design to reduce the tract appearance, correct drafting errors and complete a full set of accurate submittal drawings, and fit the design= - better with the site and the neighborhood. The design reviewers cannot act as the project designer. 2. I suggest the selected designer look at varying roof and plate heights, improving window size, location and appearance of the street elevation, correct and detail further the porch and entry on plan and in elevation, consider using a third material or other device to reduce apparent height and bulk and add interest, and producing a complete landscape plan. Jerry L. Winges, AIA 6- 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON NOVEMBER 6, 2000, AT 7 P.M. OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS THE MATTER MAY BE HEARD, AT CITY HALL, 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME CA, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will hold a public hearing to determine whether the Real Property located at 1204 PALM DRIVE, BURLINGAME, CA, constitutes a public nuisance and should be abated. In particular, the City Council will consider the following: A. The building has become substandard as defined in Health & Safety Code section 17290.3 in that it has faulty weather protection including deteriorated and defective waterproofing of exterior walls and defective exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint or any other approved protective covering. B. The building is offensive to the senses and interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property in the neighborhood. Persons interested in the matter should review the staff report on the situation, which will be available from the City Clerk after 12 noon on November 2, 2000, at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. The City Council will receive testimony on the matter from all interested persons who appear at the Council meeting. To provide written comments, interested persons should submit them to the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, phone (650) 558-7203. IF THE CITY COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT A PUBLIC NUISANCE EXISTS, THE COUNCIL MAY AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO ABATE THE NUISANCE, INCLUDING DECLARING THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY AS NON - HABITABLE, AUTHORIZING THE SEVERANCE OF ELECTRICAL AND GAS SERVICE, DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SEEK COURT ORDERS, RECORDING NOTICE OF THE NUISANCE AGAINST THE PROPERTY, PROVIDING FOR LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY FOR THE COSTS OF ABATEMENT EFFORTS, AND/OR ORDERING THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE. For further information, contact the City of Burlingame Code Enforcement Officer at 650 - 558-7208. NUISANCE DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE 1,12.040 Violation of code is a public nuisance Any building, property or structure erected, constructed, altered or maintained and/or any use of property contrary to the provisions of this code is unlawful and a public nuisance, and any failure, refusal or neglect to obtain a permit as required by the terms of this code is prima facie evidence of the fact that a nuisance has been committed in connection with the use, erection, construction, alteration or maintenance of any building, property, structure erected, constructed, altered, maintained or used contrary to the provisions of this code. The city attorney shall commence necessary proceedings for the abatement, removal and/or enjoinment thereof in the manner provided by law. 1.16.010 Nuisance defined. A nuisance, within the meaning of this chapter, is defined as anything which is dangerous, injurious or a menace to health or safety, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or is an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or which unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use in the customary manner of any stream, or any public park, square, street or highway, or which by any provision of this code is specifically declared to be a nuisance; provided, however, nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of law is a nuisance. 11/02/2000 16:44 6502595975 LANDUSELAW COM PAGE 02 MICHAEL O. McCRACKEN DAvlo J. BYERS MARK HAESLOOP. P.C. DANIEL A. CRAwFORD BETH C. TENNEY MCCRACKEN, BY13RS & HA.ESLOOP SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER 040 MALCOLM ROAD, SUITE 100 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TELEPHONE: 143501 269-6979 FACSIMILE! i6S01 259-697S E-MAIL' mebyar@aa,rthllnl<.net VIA FACSIMILE (650) 342-8386 AND U.S. MAIL Anne Musso, City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME Sol primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 PARALCCAL9 JILL BRIGGS HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL November 2, 2000 THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE RESCHEDULED FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 4, 2000. ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK RE; Appeal of Planning Commission Determination On The Use Of An Existing Easement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue Dear Ms. Musso: This office represents Don Sabatini, the owner of the premises located at 340-348 Dorton Avenue, and the appellant in the above appeal. This matter is presently set for hearing before the City Counsel at its regular meeting on November 6, 2000. We hereby request a continuance of this hearing until the first meeting in December, which we understand is December 4, 2000. Our reasons for requesting this continuance are the following: I have just been retained as counsel for Mr. Sabatini, and I am still investigating the facts, ordinances and laws surrounding this application. Based on my inspection of the premises, and a rather cursory review of the ordinances, I believe the issue giving rise to this appeal can be resolved with the City without the need for a public hearing. I would like the opportunity to meet with the City Staff (the Planning Director and City Attorney) in an attempt to accomplish such a resolution. I assume this request is routine. I would appreciate your notifying me as to the City's decision on this request. 11/02/2000 16:44 6502595975 Anne Musso, City Clerk November 2, 2000 Page -2- LANDUSELAW COM I thank you in advance for your courtesy and cooperation. MDM:mc cc: Don Sabatini via facsimile (650) 343-5612 Tim Auran via facsimile (650) 347-3460 Meg Monroe, Planning Director via facsimile (650) 342-8386 Larry Anderson, City Attorney via facsimile (650) 342-8386 PAGE 03 STAFF REPORT - BURLINGAME To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2000 FRom: CITY PLANNER AGENDA ITEM # J�6b MTG. DATE 10.16:00 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Determination on the Use of an Existing Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should review the Planning Commission's action which upheld the City Planner's determination that there was no nonconforming office/off site storage use in the basement of this site. Following a public hearing the City Council should take action. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Action alternatives are to uphold the Planning Commission's determination or to reverse it. BACKGROUND: A request for determination occurs when an applicant does not agree with the application of a given section of the zoning code as interpreted by the City Planner. In this case Tim Auren, leasing agent, representing Don Sabatini, the property owner, holds that the basement of the property at 340-348 Lorton Avenue has been and is in office and off -site storage use since the building was built. He is appealing the Planning Commission's upholding of the City Planner's determination that the existing 4000 SF basement area of the commercial building located at 304- 348 Lorton Avenue, is not in office use and off -site storage use; and therefore office and off -site storage uses cannot be placed in this area without providing parking to code for future office or off -site storage tenants. The property is zoned Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue commercial area. The property is also located in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study area Zone 2. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on September 25, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7-0 to uphold the City Planner's determination that officeloff-site storage use in the 4000 SF basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is not nonconforming and would be required to provide parking to code for future office use. The commission did state that the existing basement area could be used for storage by businesses on site without being required to provide additional parking. The reasons stated for the commission's action were: spent time in the basement area with Mr. Auren, the basement is a typical basement, has no HVAC, fire sprinkler -1- a. Consider resolution granting appeal of Planning Commission decision and granting conditional use permit for expansion of food establishment at 1108 Burlingame Avenue/303-305 California Drive, Zoned C-1, Applicant: Fanny & Alexander; Property Owners: Lorenz and Louisa Kao. b. Consider amendment to amusement permit for Fanny & Alexander, 1108 Burlingame Avenue to allow expansion of entertainment use into space at 308-310 California Drive. i• � �-111' PINK Planning Depumxnt CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame. Califomia 94010-3997 October 3, 2000 Tim Auran 1223 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Auran, At the City Council meeting of October 2, 2000, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your application to determine conformity of the existing basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue, zoned C-2, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. A public hearing will be held on October 16, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 340-349L.8cc c: Don and Patricia Sabatini 300 El Portal Hillsborough, CA 94010 City Clerk Tel. (650) SW7200 00 of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 15, 1000 8. 348 LORTON AVENUE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B - DETERMINATION OF USE OF AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA (TIM AURAN, APPLICANT; DONALD F. AND P.A. SABATINI TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented her determination, the history of the site and facts. Commissioners asked: when a legal action such as the settlement noted here occurs is it attached to the deed; CA noted we do not have a title report, typically leases or dissolutions are not recorded. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tim Auren, real estate broker,1323 Bernal, who had requested the determination spoke along with Mr. Sabitini, property owner. He noted that the law suit was settled before there was court action; that the other party had leased the basement area for storage and then changed the use to a manufacturing use, Fire Department stopped the use because a second exit was required, the tenant left because his use was restricted. Building was built in 1951, three stories including a full basement; basement area has an 8'/z foot ceiling, is fully sprinklered, concrete walls and ceiling; was used for storage for a restaurant which was on the first floor, so has always been active retail support space, restaurateur (also building owner) had an office for their business in the basement; was also used as a civil defense shelter to store emergency goods in the 1950's. The owners who built the building sold their restaurant business and the new owner moved it down the street; tried to lease, the grocery store with basement storage was one tenant, has been continually offered for lease but the Planning Department denied all tenants, actually added two stairways for exit because basement area is so big; Mr. Sabitini has an office in this basement area now and allows Mr. Auren to use some of the area for conferences too. Have an office tenant, a union, who would like to use some of the area and would be on site a couple of times a week, did not want to come one at a time with proposal but work out a resolution for the use of the entire space. Would not have installed staircase in 1995 if knew could not use basement, architect drew plans, was done the way it was supposed to be done did not see note regarding parking variance. Tenants do not need the basement area for storage, have an office there, it is well built and clean, protected by a sprinkler system, don't know why the sprinkler is there if the area can't be used. Commissioners asked: there were specific conditions on the building permit, - applicant noted contract related to another party (contractor) never saw the piece of paper until staff report, was it hidden, building department had no record of the building permit, Mr. Sabitini would not have installed the stairway if he had known storage was the only use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: spent some time in the basement with Mr. Auren, to me the basement is a typical basement, has no HVAC, fire sprinkler system hangs low, there are signs of office use, but they are tacked on, not part of the original building; there is no parking on site and parking is what we are discussing here; this.basement area is not a good candidate for office use; have a number of basements on Burlingame Avenue people use for storage for businesses on site; when see no HVAC system know that space is meant for storage; do not feel that this is nonconforming office space. Did not understand that ordinance change prohibiting storage and warehouse use in C-1 and C-2 would prohibit owners from leasing existing space for off -site storage. This is not a nonconforming use, to recognize it as such would be to grant a large parking variance, already building has a real advantage because they have 10,000 SF for which they provide no parking now. C. Keighran noted clear that the basement area can be used for storage by tenants on the site, not want to intensify the use of the existing floors, if it is not nonconforming it will not increase the parking demand so move that there is no nonconforming use in the basement area and that the area can be used as storage only for tenants on the site. The motion was seconded by C. Bojuds. Unapproved Minutes -14- City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September IS, 2000 Comment on the motion: made good point that small office space is needed, could ask for a parking variance to provide it there if wanted to. CA Anderson noted that the current policy is to require an in lieu fee for parking not provided in this area. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to determine that there is no nonconforming use in the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and that the basement area can be used for storage for tenants on the site. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 12.15 p.m. 9. 1108 VANCOUVER OENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICAT N FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT F HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED G GE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC./A"PPLICANT AND DESIG ; GARY ERNST PROP TY OWNER CP Monroe presented a project description. C. Bojues noted at he lived withi/thp ea and would not participate in this on. There were no questions of staf Chairman Lu 'aga opened the public comment. J es Chu, designer, represt. Member of the public ask why a commissioner who lived near could not participate, whoe area better. CA Anderso noted that the voters had directed in th olitical Reform Act that decismight be affected by lid g within a given distance of an actio y the body on which they serve, Design issues discussed were: design f ' y good, disturbed by the reductiog4of the front porch, getting too small for a person to stand on; porch size i of consistent with what is in the n ghborhood, concerned with the turret which also is tending toward a tall, onumental entry, needs to be mad ore subtle; the architectural style is all right, this project is accywimaterials o not like the pattern of the windo s, the 10 foot tall window in the stair well is to big, there are shutont but not on the sides or rear; a ents on either side are all right, cool dd dormer and articulatioas have on the front eleva ' n; mass is broken up all right; reduces a ofwindow in the closet t entry, reduce the plate hei t and size of the closet. There were n furthercomments from the flon Luzuriaga closed the pu 'c comment. C. Keighran noted t the entrance needs to blend with the ouses in the area, be more subtle; the ce articulation with materials a e front should be added to the other evations to improve the rest of the subtle;, e; feel that these are minor ch es which the designer can address so w uld move to put this item on the cons calendar. Motion was second by Chairman Luzuriaga. Motion pass on a 7-0 voice vote and was set for ctober. 11, 2000, if all the information is submitted in time. The Planning ommission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:30 am. Unapproved Minutes -15- ITEM # 8 City of Burlingame Determination on Use of Existing Basement Area Meeting Date: September 25, 2000 Request: The commission should make a determination on whether the existing basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is conforming and cannot be used for office and off - site business storage without being required to provide parking for the change in use. The site is zoned C-2 Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Request for Determination On August 17, 2000, the City Planner wrote a letter to Mr. Tim Auren, which documented research done on the property and concluded that if he or the property owner wish to use any portion of the basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue for any use other than storage associated with businesses on the site, they would have to make application for whatever variances and conditional use permits might be necessary for the particular uses. This is the determination which is being appealed. Tim Auren, Realtor, representing the property owner Don Sabatini, is requesting to use 4000 SF of the basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue for lease for either office or storage for businesses located in the area but not on this site. Mr. Auren represents that some of the area is currently being used as office area and in the past some of the basement area has been used to store goods for uses not on the site. If the requested uses in the 4000 SF basement area are determined to be nonconforming, the property owner would not be required to provide any parking for any future office or storage uses in this area. Mr. Auren is representing Mr. Don Sabatini who purchased the building in 1987. Mr. Auren is interested in immediately leasing 200 SF of the area for office use. He goes on to note in his letter "this is an example of low intensity use that should be allowed. Other uses could be storage for other downtown businesses ... an off site conference room for local businesses, single person offices for service industries or contractors serving our community, an art workshop or studio". (Tim Auren letter July 13, 2000) At issue is whether office/off-site storage use in 4000 SF of basement area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is nonconforming and therefore only restricted by the requirements of the zoning code without any off-street parking required. If the basement area is determined to be nonconforming, it could still be leased for office and other uses allowed in subarea B, so long as parking requirements on site were met or a parking variance granted. Staff Determination The City Planner documents in her letter of August 17, 2000, the reasons for her determination that (a) at this time there is no nonconforming office and off -site storage use in any portion of the Determination on Use of Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue September 18, 1999 basement area of this building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and (b) therefore no portion of the basement area can be used for new uses without first obtaining a parking variance and any required conditional use permits. In addition, any storage or warehouse type use for businesses not located on the site will soon be prohibited in the C-2 zone (effective date of the ordinance amendment October 18, 2000). A nonconforming use is one that existed on the site before the current code came into effect and which has been continuing since that time. A change in use is defined as being when a use ceases in a space for more than 6 months. Once a use has ceased for 6 months or more the space may not be occupied by that (the nonconforming) use again. (CS 25.50.040) In Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area a baseline of nonconforming uses is established as uses existing on the premise on October 1, 1981 and being on the premise continuously thereafter. (CS 25.36.040 (c)). This same code section states that when a nonconforming use goes away new uses must conform to the permitted and conditional uses for the subarea. In Subarea B parking is considered to be a use; so the new use must comply with on site parking requirements as well.(See Applicable Excerpts from the Zoning Ordinance attached) It has been city policy for many years that basement areas of commercial buildings which house mechanical equipment to operate the building have been counted as storage for parking purposes. Since the basement areas have been considered as storage, as a service to building owners, staff has interpreted this to mean that tenant's already on site may use this area for storage. This is based on the idea that such storage would not generate any more trips, parking or employees on site than would be there in the course of the tenants normal business. This policy was clearly articulated in the 1980's in the settlement agreement between the city and property owner at 1420 Burlingame Avenue. It was also implemented in the consideration of Saks Fifth Avenue's later use of the building at 1420 Burlingame Avenue. It does not permit storage for off -site users. Recently (July 24, 2000) the Planning Commission took the storage concept further and recommended to the City Council that warehouse and storage facilities be prohibited in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Based on the Commission's recommendation, on September 18, 2000, the Council approved an amendment to the C-1 and C-2 district regulations which prohibits warehouse and storage uses in these zoning districts. Since this site is located in the C-2 zoning district, leasing of any portion of the basement area for storage uses for an off -site business would be prohibited when this ordinance becomes effective. (October 18, 2000) Facts for the Determination The reasons for the City's Planners determination were based on the facts as follows: 1. Planning Department files do not indicate that there is a nonconforming office use in any portion of the basement area of this building. In 1987 the city did issue a conditional use permit for a first floor tenant to use 500 SF of the basement for storage related to his grocery business. This permit was revoked in 1994. 2. Planning Department files show that in April 1993, 1200 SF of the ground floor and 4000 SF of the basement area was leased to a tenant who then filed suit against the property owner for failure to disclose that the basement area could not be used. This suit was settled by the property 2 Determination on Use of Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue September 18, 1999 owner acknowledging that the area could not be used and by the property owner making a settlement payment to the tenant. 3. At the time the property owner added a second exit to the basement area in 1994 the property owner accepted the following condition placed on the building permit: a) the basement area can only be used for storage; with or without a second exit; and b) any other use (i.e. not storage) will require a parking variance and application to the Planning Commission. The term "storage" here refers to storage related to uses on the site, since that is the city policy which had been applied to other properties in the area prior to issuance of this building permit. (see above) When building permits are executed such conditions represent a contractual agreement which is binding on the property owner. The second exit was added to the basement area and final inspection made. On the basis of these facts the City Planner made the determination that there is no nonconforming use existing in the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and any use extended into any portion of the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue would be required to comply with existing zoning requirements including a parking variance based on the size of the proposed use. Property History According to the Sanborn Map (last updated in the early 1960's) the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is constructed of reinforced concrete, lot line to lot line, about 14,700 GSF per floor. There is no on -site parking. Mr. Auren's information indicates that the building is a wood frame structure with a concrete foundation. He notes that it was built in 1950. The building has, according to Mr. Auren, a 4000 SF basement (referred to by him as a ground floor) with two floors above. The first floor, at grade, is divided into retail shops, some fronting on California Drive and some on Lorton Avenue. The second floor is divided into 17 office tenant spaces (floor plan date stamped June 20, 2000 submitted as a part of an application for a physiotherapist office). In recent years, the Commission has granted two conditional use permits for medical services (physiotherapist and chiropractor) in the second floor office area. (Health services, Suite 203, 2 physiotherapists in 374 SF,July 24, 2000; Suite 212, chiropractic office, 344 SF, two chiropractors, May 27, 1997.) Use permits are required for health services because they have a higher parking requirement based on the way appointments are scheduled. Despite the fact that the site is nonconforming in parking, no parking variances were required for these two applications because in each case the added parking requirement was a fraction less than half of a parking space. The property at 340-348 Lorton Avenue is located in Zone 2 (which includes Donnelly Avenue and Lorton Avenue to California Drive) of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study (February 16, 2000). Data provided in this study for Zone 2 indicates that week day parking occupancy in the zone is 96%. Anything percentage of occupancy over 90% is considered fully used. The weekend parking occupancy in Zone 2 is also 96%. While there are a number of public parking lots in Zone 2 all of them are over 90% occupied on weekdays at peak 3 Determination on Use of Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton Avenue September 18, 1999 hour. At week -end peak hours all public lots except the lot next to the library are used over 90%. In short there is little on -street and public parking available in this area at this time. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the request for determination and direct staff. This item is not required to be noticed for a public hearing, but the commission should take testimony from the floor as a part of your deliberation. Attachments: Applicable Excerpts from the Zoning Code Monroe letter August 17, 2000, to Tim Auren, Re: Use of the basement area at 340-348 Lorton Tim Auren letter July 13, 2000, to Monroe, Re: Request for formal determination of use of property Application for determination, August 29, 2000 Erika Lewit, FAX to Tim Auren, June 16, 2000 Anthony Smith, January 30, 1995 letter to Monroe, Re: 346 Lorton Monroe letter, February 5, 1987, to Parham Noori-Esfandari Re PC action, with attachments Interim Settlement Conference, November 7, 1995, Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, File No. 391155; Bill Wyble, Al Bartoucchi, et. al. vs. Donald Sabatini, et. al. with attachments. Second floor office layout plan, June 20, 2000. n W September 18, 2000 Applicable Excerpts from the Zoning Code The following are sections of the zoning code which provide direction for this determination. Most are from the nonconforming uses section of the code; one is from the C-1 district regulations (which also apply in the portion of the C-2 district which is within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area) having to do with vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. CS 25.50.030 Change of Use "No nonconforming use shall be changed to any other nonconforming use, whether within the same class or otherwise. When changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed back to a nonconforming use." CS 25.50.040 Nonconforming use -automatic change by nonuse states: "When any portion of building or land which has been used other than in conformity with use regulations of the district of which it is a part is not used for such nonconforming use for a continuous period of six months, such nonconforming use is abandoned and shall not be reestablished in that portion. The area shall thereafter be used only in conformity with the use regulation of the district in which it is situated. Remodeling shall not constitute abandonment of a nonconforming use so long as it complies with the applicable city construction codes and is completed within six months of receiving a building permit or as determined on request by the planning commission with a public hearing. Whenever any part of a building, structure or land occupied by a nonconforming use is changed to or replaced by a use conforming to the use regulations of the district, such premises shall not thereafter be used or occupied by a nonconforming use, even though the building may have been originally designed or constructed for the prior nonconforming use." CS 25.50.055 Nonconforming use - Additional provisions "Nonconforming uses are also subject to Sections 25.70.040 (off-street parking) and 25.36.040 (d) (parking in Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area) of this code, except that in the Broadway Commercial Area, additional parking shall not be required if a structure is totally destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster so long as the uses in the new structure are the same size as existed before the loss." CS 25.36.040 (c) Nonconforming uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. "Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of Chapter 25.50 of this code, nonconforming uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area shall terminate only upon the vacation of the premises by the use occupying said premises on October 1, 1981; provided, however, such existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue despite destruction by catastrophe or natural disaster of the existing structures, so long as the use occupying the space at the time of the catastrophe or natural disaster is the use returning into the new structure. New uses in such structures must conform to the permitted and conditional uses for the appropriate subarea. CS 25.36.040 (d) Vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. "Vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area: (1) Uses permitted and existing on October 1, 1981, shall be exempt from the parking requirements of this code. (2) Businesses whose use becomes nonconforming as a result of the creation of this area shall be exempt for parking requirements until the vacation of the premises by the use occupying the premises on October 1, 1981. (3) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on -site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in subarea A shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail or personal service uses...." CITY OF BURLINGAME City Nall - 501 Pr6irose Road Ptmmg peparamt Borfmgame, CaGfmia 94OW3997 August 17, 2000 Mr. Tim Auren Realtor 1323 Bernal Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 Subject: Use of the basement area at 340-438 Lorton Avenue . Dear Mr. Auren, Tel (650) 558-n" I am in receipt of your letter of July 13, 2000, inquiring about the use of the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and 341-349 California Drive. As you know there have been a number of different city actions on this property. My comments are limited to the Planning Department files. I would begin by confirming Erika Lewitt's memo of June 16, 2000, in which she notes that the property is zoned C-2 Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue commercial area. Subject to the restrictions of that zoning designation the basement area may be rented to any office tenant with. storage associated, so long as the space meets all the California Building and Fire Code requirements for the proposed use and an application for a parking variance, based on the proposed use, is submitted to the Planning Commission and approved by them. Our files do not indicate that there is a nonconforming office use in the basement area of this building. In fact our records show that in 1987 the city granted a conditional use permit to a grocery business at 348 Lorton which allowed that business to use, along with 1200 SF on the ground floor, - 500 SF of the basement for storage associated with the grocery business. This permit was revoked in 1994. Next our files show that in April 1993, 1200 SF of the ground floor accessed off Lorton and 4000 SF of the basement area was leased to a tenant who then filed suit against the property owner for failure to disclose that the basement area could not be used. This suit was settled by the property owner acknowledging that the area could not be used and by making a payment settlement to the tenant. In 1994 the property owner applied for a building permit to add a second stairway out of the basement area. In taking out that building permit, and subsequently executing it, the property owner accepted a condition placed on the permit stating: "Review of March 28, 1994 plans, conditions of approval: 1. Basement area can only be used for storage; with or without second exit. 2. Any other use (i.e. not storage) will require a parking variance and application to the Planning Commission." Such conditions represent a contractual agreement. Therefore, the future use of the basement area has nothing to do with any pre -exiting nonconforming use or any present illegal use. The property owner, in accepting the building permit to add a second staircase exit, also accepted the condition placed on that permit, that any use of the basement area other than storage would require application for and receipt of a parking variance. If you wish to use any portion of the basement area for any use other than storage associated with businesses on the site, we will be happy to provide you with the necessary forms to make application for whatever variances and conditional use permits might be necessary. A copy of the C-2 zoning district regulations are attached for your convenience. Our office is open 8 a.m. to 5 p. in. week days and Maureen Brooks or Ruben Hurin will be happy to assist you. Sincerely yours, "�* VFZI Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachment: C-2 District Regulations, City of Burlingame Zoning Code. cc. Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall City Attorney, Larry Anderson 2 • TIM AURAN R EALTO R° RESIDENT COMMERC LEASIr PHONE/VM 650.347-331 1323 BERNAL AVENUE • BURLINGAME - CA 94010 FAX 650.347-341 July 13, 2000 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Request for formal determination of use of property. Burlingame Planning, RECEIVED JUL 14 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The purpose of this letter is to request a formal determination as to what uses are allowed at a specific property without a parking variance. The property is 348 Lorton Ave (AP#029-153-020) and the area of concern is the basement or ground floor. The property is described as a three-story wood framed structure with a concrete foundation. The building was constructed in 1950 and the zoning is C-2, Subarea B. The ground floor is the area in question and is approximately 4000 square feet with concrete floor and walls. It has an 8-foot ceiling height and is sprinklered. Upon completion this space was used as part of the retail space above which was owned and operated by the building owner (John's Place, a bar and restaurant owned by George Garbuio). The owner also used this space as office space and I personally did business with him in this space. Upon completion this space was also designated as a public assembly site for use in an emergency and emergency supplies were stored there by public agencies and were still there in 1987 when purchased by the current owner. The current owner has continued to use this space for his office since 1987 and I have used an area for an alternate office and conference room for 10 years. I currently have a party interested in leasing 200 square feet for office use. The user would be a local Transportation Workers Union. The space would store the records in file cabinets and have a desk, phone and answering machine. It would be occupied only 3 times a week to return calls and update records and that would be late afternoon or early evening. ` I feel this is an example of low intensity use that should be allowed. Other uses could be storage for other downtown businesses such as a restaurant that caters could store tables, chairs and serving equipment. A off site conference room for local businesses. Single person offices for service industries or contractors serving our community or an art workshop or studio. This area is zoned for retail and office and has been used as retail and office and storage since it was built. It has also been designated as a public assembly site since it was built. I believe that the height of the ceiling and the sprinkler system are evidence of the intended use since construction. Please contact me for any further information you require. Yours truly, Tim Auran Don Sabatini so CST 'r CITY OF BURLINGAME euauH�c y APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of Application: Special Permit Variance Other Dc 4cf; k „) a {„ ,� ,- L4 s c Project Address: .3 `f o o (:?, �* &) Iq u c. Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 02-cl — l 53 - 02— co APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name:- �v.J � 1�,.r , Named �o� S< �.�' a ` ,,v . Address: 3 `5( -3 a Address: 3-Oa �' / too a �o I City/State/Zip: evil A." C60n c C- �13�' City/State/Zip:_ [ff //s 4 c 4 Phone (w): 3 413 - SG / 2- Phone (w):' 6 9,5- - S' L 6 G (h): G 9-S' - s'G f 6 (h): fax: 3 V 3- 576 1 2— fax: 3 f 3- sC i Z ARCHITECUDESIGNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. �CAAICA) RECEIVED 30-0 AUG 2 9 2000 fax: CITY OF BURLINGAME / • �/ / `/ ' PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �f N f9i5 u i 7 y �7G 7 w'� -LAI �i C („ rc= Y Zo.vi.v� D�i+/cI T I�i✓NcR S � S �R�e �.✓o �i+'�es�P.sc ?La �iu .v AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. &Midece Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. - Property Owner's Signature Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Filed: lb - 29.0 p Fee: 4 2. S. 0 0 Planning Commission: Study Date: 9. Z 5 - 00 Action Date: CITY OF BURLINGAME Facsimile Transmission Record DATE to/ Ito TIME —e� 4 � NUMBER OF PAGES _2 (including this cover sheet) FROM Erika Lewit RECIPIENT'S FAX NUMBER: $O !) L i q I j`"t (QZ) Please deliver this transmission to: NAME COMPANY vr--f- REGARDING DEPARTMENT Planning (2-12, L .1p I Y1� �i,ar � ► � I'Y1 YYL � �S �Qr • ��-�t-�ear ^� . � P V y r �Oua- n-p y Par-1,L:i V �1PJ✓ e-- be_¢._r � a\,n 1fti`tAr oC� � , s , � V�- C-Cx.Yl bp, u 'IL, ANTHONY V. SMITH ATTORNEY AT LAW 700 TILTON AVENUE, SUITE ONE SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA 94401 (415)548-0100 January 30, 1995 Ms. Margaret Monroe, City Planner City of Burlingame, San Mateo County City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Subject Properly: 346 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, California Assessor's Parcel: No. 029-153-020 My Clients: Nova Compatible Hardware Systems, Bill Wible, Al Bartocchi Subject: Compliance with applicable fire, health, safety and building requirements Current Owners: Donald and Patricia Sabatini Dear Ms. Monroe: I represent the interests ofNova Compatible Hardware Systems and its principals Bill Wyble and Al Bartocchi with respect to a claim for damages against the owner ofthe subject property, Donald and Patricia Sabatini. I am writing this letter as it is my understanding that you have had personal involvement with respect to the owner's compliance with applicable fire, safety, health and building requirements dating back to at least 1987. My clients recently filed a claim for damages in San Mateo County Superior Court as a result of Mr. Sabatini's failure to disclpse the restricted use of the basement portion ofthe subject property. I am writing this letter to request copies of any and all writings relating to compliance with the aforesaid requirements. My preliminary investigation of public records has revealed the existence of correspondence between your office and the Burlingame Fire and/or Building Department, in addition to the Burlingame Planning Commission itself and the preparation of staff reports relating to the above. i would like copies of any and all writings as described above. My request would include any interoffice m communication or any and all documents that reflect communication with Yoush Gourmet Bazaar, David Tate, Tate Properties, Juanita Garbuio, Harry A. Hanson, Jr., Esq., Oscar- Reyn, and/or any other individuals involved in the application of and/or action concerning special permits, and/or any action relating to the subject property. Please include any/all writings from the fire department, city engineer, building inspection department and/or director ofparks. Please include in your response any/or records of public hearings held (including meeting minutes) of the Planning Commission and/or the Burlingame City Council. If you are aware of the existence of any other writings of which you are not in your possession, custody, and/or control, please inform me in order that I may direct my request to the appropriate person. The possibility exists that I may need to take your deposition and/or the deposition of other members in your department at some time in the near future. At the time of the dictation of this letter, I do not know whether your deposition will be necessary. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Ifyou have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (415) 548-0100. Zho (gik of A3=6�3amr SAN MATEO COUNTY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (415) 342-6625 February 5, 1987 Mr. Parham Noori-Esfandiari 2034 Polk Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Dear Mr. Noori-Esfandiari: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, the January 26, 1987 Planning Commission approval of your Special Permit application became effective February 3, 1987. This application was to allow a grocery store/specialty food store at 346 Lorton Avenue. The January 26, 1987 minutes of the Planning Commission.state your permit was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector.'s December 22, 1986 memo, the San Mateo County Health Inspector's December 3.0, 1986 memo and the City Engineer's December 29, 1986 memo shall be met; 2. that the area for retail sales from this site shall be limited to 180 SF, and the storage area limited to 500 SF, the basement area shall be used only to house and provide access to equipment necessary for the operation of the building; 3. that this business shall operate between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and =� 11:00 P.M. seven days a week with one full time and one part 'time employee; 4. that any change in the size of floor area used or type of activity on this premise or the type of goods sold, including a beer and 7 wine or liquor license, shall require amendment to this use permit; 5. that access to the bathrooms according to the Uniform Building Code and Health Codes shall be required; and 6. that this use permit shall be reviewed for conformance with its conditions in six months time (July 1987) and each year thereafter. Mr. Parham Noori-Esfandiari -2- February 5, 1987 All site improvements or construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. Sincerely yours, Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s Att. cc: Harry A. Hanson, Jr., Esq. (w/att.) David Tate, Tate Properties (w/att.) Chief Building Inspector (w/att.) San Mateo County Health Inspector (w/att.) Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Lot 11, Block 1, Burlingame Land Co. Map No. 2; APN 029-153-020) 1 � � DATE: 1211 z/v MEMO TO: C TY ENGINEER IEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL FROM: PLANNING PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: Sx YblPt An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for -75 Z) at their meeting. We would appreciatehaving _ your comments by js/X� 1 _. � _ .T DEC 22 Thank you. 0 8� �Gs/CD a/ 4 c"-D /r 6:4*f.4,14- , J ,af�dtlr�r Helen Williams ,Q�� / �,�;�� D! �� / 1 / �-�► Planner Ale- 'IcIlleld, .. att. ; IS 6C P� % c '.0 / / w 6v �► / i.-r ems. n � � G�/ istlw��� /J c� //f�'i•a y . S ea "j),00 �d �► / �1c� L / `•'� / �/ O��`- �,tC�""� / .+.0 lid X /j '`%// Q ,,c� /7 G �OQ ��� i �+t t(c! Ile /�Ile,ter 1' s . 1 �( FOOD PROGRAM OFFICIAL INSPECTION REPORT ' SAN MATEO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES 363-A305 OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 877•SA63 DBA/NAME `� ./ __. DAT ADDRESS RECHJ_CK DATE OWNERIOPERATOR/ '" COMPUTER NUMBER MAILING ADDRESS TIME IN PROGRAM/ELEMENT / !/ SERVI TIME OUT APPLICABLE LAW PERMIT LICENSE The marked items represent Health Code violations and must be corrected F MAJOR MINOR fOIIOWS: Food Temp. 1 2 Z Prep/Service 3 4 0 Storage/Disp. 5 6 U Frozen Food 7 8 p Pure Food 9 10 / Cr Reused Food 11 12 Transportation 13 14 _ ,• j� .✓�` � Handwashing 15 16 a w Disease Trans. 17 18 19 20 Employee Habits Z Rodents 21 22 ¢ Insects 23 R4, LU >1 Animal / Fowl 25 126 Wash./Sant. 27 28 LZ . Equip. Cond. 29 30 31 2 � w Uten. Cond. Storage 33. 34 Storage Faa. 35 36 Uj G a Refrig. Units 37 38 Q• o u Thermometer / 39 40 41 42 N Hazardous Mat. 43 44 Spoils , Gi Water 45 146 3 Cross Conn. 47 148 _ / UJ Uquid Waste 49 50cn Refuse 51 52 _ 3 Premises 53 54 Q f 2 Lavatories 55 156. LU O0 Toilets 57 58 cc M Dressing Rooms 59 160 tu Ventilation Floors 61 162- 63 64 Walls -Ceiling 65 66 / Janitorial Fac. .. / — 67 • 68 eL Ughting 69 70 • C/ Clothing-Unen 71 ; 72 N_ Uving Quarters 73 74 G7 �- / 2 signs -Permits 175 176 `"� J ,- / ESTA .STATUS: (MARK ONE) 7 78 T9 80 81 _...:.l.y... G� A� F� P� Icpo ONE NUMBER /j / �_ REC�EIVEp, • �`i ` EGAL ACTION: 82 83 84 CITATION CLOSURE OTHER o / i N PAGE OF. --P-WNER'QOPY— s/s. DATE: /21/ 7%d'6 MEMO TO: ►,CITY ENGINEER CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR FIRE MARSHAL _- FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ` � J An application has been received for the above project for review by the Planning Commission. The application will be scheduled for Z) at their %/ice/�/ meeting. We would appreciate having your .comments by //s/,Y� Thank you. -Cl D �.�r.���ti'T.t" = D Helen Williams Planner s/ att. . ve Q/�l�""ril�/lSSIrN . / r 2710-199 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO HONORABLE: ARAM SERVERIAN JUDGE DEPT. NO.: LOR14A SANDBERG DEPUTY CLERK DATE: November 7, 1995 3 ELIZABETH GEE COURT REPORTER FILE NO.: 3 9 1 1 5 5 (TITLE OF ACTION) BILL WYBLE, AL BARTOUCCHI, et al. vs,. DONALD SABATINI, et at NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: (APPEARANCES) Anthony V. Smith for Plaintiff Jane.Corning for Def. Donald Sabaci Bruce Imai, Personal Attorney for Donald Sabatini INTERIM SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Unreported conference held in chambers with the Court and the above counsel. Court convened. Above counsel present. Also present were Plaintiff Bill Wyble and Defendants Donald and Patricia Sabatini. Mr. Smith recited the terms of the settlement for the record as follows: This matter has settled in that the Defendant will pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $45.500.00 to the Plaintiffs jointly in exchange for a dismissal with prejudice. Mr. Wyble indicated that he has the authority to enter into this settlement on behalf of Plaintiff Al Bartoucchi. Ms. Corning indicated that there will also be a dismissal of the cross action. Both Messrs. Wyble and Sabatini stated that they agreed with and understood the settlement as stated. Court in rece. DATE: November 7, 1995 NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: CONFERENCE - SETTLEMENT 391 155 c...on AAAJ_OT_YIP V PIZ t ksee, Adptegt andTrnephone No. titAttomey(e) Tane A. Corning, Esq. :lapp, Moroney, Hellagamba, et al. 1400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 100 Ier_lo Par), CA 94025 :15-327--1300 state Bar No. 104327 Attorney(S) far ..DefendaRtS,.. DONALD........... SABATINI and PATRICIA SABATINI $Pace gelow hu U%U%e Of Courttel Ck 6ntr tC DEC 15 1995 Sy ♦�� iii ..IS...�/G:I I�JI 1.t.1y L SUPERIOR . _ . _ . COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF . SAN . MATEO.............. (SUPERIOR, MUNICIPAL, or JUSTICE) ........................................................... . ........ ................. • (Name 6t 11dh11 ip Of Ju:iCCf COUrt oisMCt or t]r branch court. it & A Plaintiffs} BILL WYBLE, et al. Defendants(sr DONALD SABATINI, et al. fApOflViatt:d Title CASE NUMBER 391155 REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL M Personal Injury, Property Damage and Wrongful Deathe M Motor Vehicle Q Other © Domestic Relations p Eminent Domain ® other: (specify) . Commercial, Lease.......... . TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows: (Check aplolicaoie ooxes.) 1. ® With prejudice Q Without prejudice 2 ® Entire action CD Complaint only C] Petition only 0 Cross -complaint only (M Other: (Weifyr Each party to bear their own costs and attorney' s fees . /1V O F OF V. SMITH 71� Dat::d:. ..... .. .. Sit dism�ssai requested is to spauta0 partie. a soeordd Attorney(s) for P 1 l S as"" of aat10� Only Or of *poem" cros ' is only, s0 state and idenkity the oarun. causes of action Or f ross-ef>, owints tooeaselsssd. Anthon V S ith (Typ"r print attorney(s) name(s)) TO THE CLERK Consent to the above dismissal is hereby given.6 ecettther. '3................ Datetl . A......... /......9 • *$When a dro: for ROMMU "YA94 sag AK, =- attorne .g for Def / X—ComplTIN IS are regal) is On tle, tM atmen" W for the cram -comp pint (responaet+c) epic a19n a" consent when retiudw by cep set t,). taa ar w. Jane A. Corning (Type or print attorney(s) name(s)) (To be Completed by Clerk) G7Dismissalenteretl at, requested on.............................................................. ......................... ,.r.� Dismissal entered on ................. " ............. as to only .......... ...... ........................................... /'Stsans roaueMed for thefollowing �lC>Ut s attorney(s) notified on cr� `c j •,� 7 . Datetl. .............QEQ.15.1995 ............................ Clerk Deputy to 3 FGMAdglptAd tw N.M qu of =13 Sat .etc M. the &I*r of CawxAof to Womia REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL cat. Rues Of court. Name. Anaress *"Tc(epnons No. of mtamgy(s) Tane A. Corning, Esq. ;Lapp, Moroney, Bellagamba, et al. 1400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 100 4enlo Park, CA 94025 115-327-1300 State Bar No. 104327 Attorney(S) for ..Defemi ArXtr,.. J)ONALD.......... SABATINI and PATRICIA SABATINI space Seww for uee of cou F{NW p"501 FILED "N MATEO COUNTY DEC 14*1995 C he Su ' r Court.. By f�__ cEPUTY .........AUJRAP OR..... COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF . r5AN. MATED (SUPERIOR, MUNICIPAL„ or JUSTICE) • 0"MO Of I UNC!"i Of Justice Coun Oi VIM or at bWCh Coun. if iny) . Plaintiffs} BILL WYBLE, et al. I COE NUMBER 391155 0e1'andants(sk DONALD SABATINI, et al. CABW"ated Tine) REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL TYPE OF ACTION Q Personal Injury. Property Damage and Wrongful Death: 0 Motor Vehicle Q Other 0 Domestic Relations p Eminent Domain ® other: (Specify).Cammexcial.Lease,..Fraud and Misrepresentation TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this: action as folkm* (Check applicable boxes.) t. ® With prejudice [] without prejudice 2 ® Entire action CO complaint only O Petition only p Cross -complaint only ® other: (specify) Each party to bear their own costs and attorney $ s fees. � .� Dated: ...... ................... .. ...... =11 disaraaa r eateo is or sowsro d parts WWI of $060fteo muses of &cum aft or of epeotlled Dress-comp-inte ". so state and 1Seflw the psm". causes of actim or cross-camplaigts to at dienr'esea. TC THE CLERK Consent to the above diSfr;seal is hereby given." Dated:. ............... ■s t+an a ct02240aiptaint W nnporlee prartsa94 sealang Atrfma. Attorn for Def / —Compl . , SA&ITHIS We rellet) w on r^. the attotftW for the erose.coniMnt ffemx noent) fwat sqn this consent when raouifeo ay ecP WICO,mores. _ Jane A. Corning (Type or print attorney(g) name(s)) (To be cotttpleted by clerk) GEC 14 1995 op Diwdssal entered as requested on......................................................................................... . tj Diswiesalentered on...............................as to only.............................................................. C3 DislfniNal not entered as requested for the following reason(s1 and attorney(s) notified on GEC 141995 Clerk Oaten....... ...»r.s.::.................................... . Deputy 3 ram1�d0Pte0WFAM'J42of cePset.etr- The.tum" County of caffofnta RF01 ll:RT FnR rdQUICCAI _. n, w+ I-... nn * iann7 _-I;*.;:,- '�n r Z a el Narwa. Address and Telepnone No. of Attorney(:) Tane A. Corning, Esq. Zlapp, Moroney, Bellagamba, et al. 1400 Bohannon Drive, Suite 100 4enlo Park, CA 94025 115-327-1300 State Bar No. 104327 Attorney(s)16r..D:0-.feudante,.. DON&LD........... SABATINI and PATRICIA SABATINI 9p2co eaow for use of court Cionc Only FIT iL.•D NOV 2 8 i99S !3y �' CLt:AK ':gVRARIOR ..... COURT OF CAUFORMA, COUNTY OF . SAN . XiTEO.............. (SUPERIOR, MUNICIPAL, or JUSTICE) ................................................_ ... .......................... (mama of municipal at antice Court Olstnot or of amcn Court. H any) Pl2intiff(0 BILL WYBLE, et al. I CASE NUMBER 391155 Defencants(s): DONALD SABATINI, et al. Uubbremated Tuts) REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL TYPE OF ACTION C:3 Personal injury, Property Damage and Wrongful Death: p Motor vehicle © Other C3 Domestic Relations O Eminent Domain ® Other: (Specify). Commercial;. Lease,.. Fraud and Misrepresentation TO THE CLERK: Please dismiss this action as follows: (Check applicable boxes.) 1. CX] With prejudice M Without prejudice 2 ® Entire action C3 Complaint only M Petition only o Cross -complaint only ® Other: (Specify)" Each party to bear their own costs and attorney I a fees. Oates:..... v . v b .........0 . � ....... Sit oisrnlssat is of ap4CiKOd.t» onpr, or apeeresd ausaa of action orw a of speatlep oro.e•cor-pteints ony. so state and laendy the parties, causes or action or cross-comparfts to be dsreisseo. Attorney(s) for P V. SMITH print attorney(s) name(s)) TO THE CLERK: consent to the above dismissal is hereby given." oated:. nPyembex.. IL..1995............... ==when a rlosa-col bnt Or Itssponaa DAW0140e1 :ee 9 arttrma- Attorney(s) for Def /X—Compl . , SABATINIS Lure react) is on aa, me owne" tar the croae-comptaa►t tfes°ona- 0 MUM V0 MM txnsert9 whet `°°"arid W eCp Jane A. Corning 5e1CIL Ca or to. (Type or print attorney(s) name(s)) (To be Completed by clerk) C3 DiSWUal entered as requested on ...................... . .................... ............................................... O Disinissal entered on ....... .......................as to only.............................................................. ;RMDismissal not entered as requested for the following reason(sl and attorney(s) notified on ' Clerk Dated............ � 28 ............................. . Deputy 3 Fofa ftmted d aiw aex or =p S11 . am: r...►•,�.;.,,.,,,.,..,,.,u.�..w.....:., nrntt�er rAn ntna.re.�.r .....-�1�•.�'+n ..•.nn� �. a+ I'f/`.I1A rxxr7_O1_YIr 0FTL ED SAN MATED =.*J Y 1 ANTHONY V. SM1TH, FSQ., STATE BAR #124940 LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY V. SMITH Aehe 1995 2 700 TILTON AVENUE, SUITE ONESAN MATEO, CAUFORNIA 94401-1920 s r rt3 (415) 548-0100 4ATTORNEY FOR PLAWTHTS $ o�� 5 RAT Es!uN ELDD 6 DATE SUSidl c0CESS;+a ..U? 7 IN AND FOR THE SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALZFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 BILL WYBLE, AL BARTOUCCK individually CASENo. 3911.55 �y and doing business as NOVA COMPATIBLE ` 11 HARDWARE SYSTEMS, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 12 Plaintiffs, FOR FRAUD; NEGLIGENT 13 v. MISREPRESENTATION 14 DONALD SABATINI; PATRICIA SABATIN2, and CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE 15 DOES 1-1003, REFER TO SAN MATED COUN7Y SUPER COU 'P6E 16 Defendants. DATE: / TIME: 17 OEPT: ` 18 GENER�IL ALLEGATIONS 19 1. Ewh Plaintiff is a competent adult except PlaintibWova Compatible Hardware Systems 20 (herekMwrcfimedto as 'Nova Compatible") which is a general partnership conducted by Plaintiffs Bill 21 Wybie and Al Bartouechi. Plaintiff Nova Compatible has complied with all fictictuous names 22 requirements relating to the operation of its business. 23 2. Defendants Don Sabatini and Patricia Sabatini presently are, and at all times mentioned 24 herein were, residents ofthe City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, California. 25 3. Plain if's arc informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times mentioned herein, 26 Defendant Patricia Sabatini, was the agent and employee of Defendant Don Sabatini, and in doing the 27 things herein alleged was acting within the course and scope of such a02 we 28 acting with the permission and consent ofher principal and employer. Ol a2. e0/03--233a7 ...--r.. ,nn� • . nnn n. •n nn . M IXfA'7_OT _1n f` 1 4. Plaintiffs am ignorant ofthe true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 2 1-100, inclusive, and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amand this 3 cwrlairttto allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe 4 and thereon allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manmer for the 5 occurrences herein alleged, and that the damage to plaintiffs, and each of them, was proximately caused 6 by their conduct. 7 5. On or about April, 1993, Defendants were the owners of certain real properly located at 8 346 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, California (hereinafter referred to as the "subject property"). The 9 subject property was available for lease on or about said time and place. The subject property consists 10 of a commercial unit that is approximately 5200 square feet. the storefront section is approximately 11 1200 square feet in size and is located on the upper portion of the property. A basement section ofthe 12 subject property is approximately 4000 square feet in size. 13 6. On or about April,1993, Defendants represented to plaintiffs, and each of them, that the 14 subjectpropcM was available for lease as a commercial storefront and basement without any restridio 15 relating to its use. Defendants and each of them, represented that one-half ofthc basement section o 16 the subject property was available for lease without restriction as to its use or otherwise. 17 7. The representations, and each of them, made by defendants were in fact false. The true 18 facts are that the subject property was subject to use restrictions at the time the representations o 19 defendants were made. 20 S. Plaintiffs, at the time these representations were made by defendants and at the time 21 plaintiffs took the actions herein alleged, were ignorant of the falsity of defendants' representations and 22 believed them to be hue. In reliance on these representations, plaintiffs were induced to and in fact did 23 enter kto abase of*= subject premises. laid plaintiffs !mown the actual facts, they would not have taken 24 such action. Plaintiffs' reliance on the representations of defendants was justified in light of the 25 Imowledge, information and expertise ofdefendants, and each ofthem. 26 9. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintifs 27 suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. 29 / 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT WSREPRESENTATION 2 3 10. Plaintiffs reailege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight of this 4 Complaint into this the First Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. 5 11. Defendmis, and each of them, were under a duty to exercise reasonable care with respect 6 to ceprem t.3t' s relating to the use ofthe subject property in that they undertook to make representations 7 relating to the subject property to plaintiff§. As such, defendants, and each of them, were udder duty to 8 ex=ise reasonable care relating to the truthfulness and accuracy of any representations made relating to 9 the subject property. Defendants, and each of them, were under a duty to disclose all material facts 10 relad%tothe use ofthe subject property to plaintifs at all times during the course ofdxir dealings with I plaintiffs. 12 12. Defendants made the representations with no reasonable ground for believing them to be 13 true, in that defendants, and each of them, had actual and/or constructive knowledge of the restrictive use 14 of the subject property. 15 13. At the time of making the aforesaid representations, defendants, and each of them, 16 concealed from plaintiffs their lack of information and their consequent inability to make. the alleged 17 representations accurately. 18 14. The representations of defendants were made by defendants with the intent to induce 19 plaintiffs to act in the manner herein alleged 20 15. Plaintiffs, at the time these representations were made by defendants, and at the time 21 plaintiffs took&t actions herein alleged, were igtoran t of the falsity ofthe representations of defendants 22 and each plaintiff believed them to be true. In reliance on these representations, plaintiffs were induced 23 to and in fact did enter into a [ease of the subject property. The reliance of plaintiffs on the 24 representations of defendants was justified in light of the knowledge, information and expertise o 25 defendants, and each of them. 26 16. As adirect and proximate result ofthe conduct of defendants, and each ofthem, plaintiffs 27 suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. 28 / T.- . OA r%r A J-OT-Yf f i SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION XM-T > EROIVIISE MADE E=UT INTEDMN TO PEREMM 2 3 17. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and elever 4 ofthis Complaint into this the Second Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. 5 19. On or about April, 1993, defendants promised plaintiffs that the subject property was 6 available for rent without any restrictions relating to its use or otherwise. 7 19. At the time defendants made the promise to plaintiffs, defendants had no indention of 8 performing their obligations relating to said promise. 9 20. 'Ihe promise was made by defendants with the intent to induce plaintiffs to enter into a 10 lease agreement for the subject property. 11 21. Plaintiffs, at the time this promise was made and at the time plaintiffs took the actions 12 herein alleged, were igaoraat of the secret intention of the defendants not to perform. Plaintiffs had no 13 reason to suspect that defendants had no intention to perform as plaintiffs could not, in the exercise of 14 reasonable diligence, have discovered the secret intention of defendants. In reliance on the promise of 15 defendants, plaintiffs disregarded other opportunities to rent comparable commercial property that had 16 no restrictions as to use or otherwise. Ifplaintiffs had known the actual intention of defendants, plaintiffs. til 17 would not have taken such action. 18 22. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, plaintiffs suffered the 19 injuries and damages as set forth below. 20 21 EM CAUSE OF ACTION jNTFN�'IONAL MISREPMAMATION OF FACT 22 23 23. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, eleven 24 through fifteen, and eigideen through twenty one of this Complaint into this the Third Cause of Action 25 as though fully set forth herein 26 24. When deft mdannts made the representations set forth in this complaint, they knew them to 27 be false, atdthe repsattations w+crc made by defendants with the intent to d6 and and deceive plaintiffs 28 and with the intent to induce plaintiff's to act in the manner herein alleged. 11L+. InP11 f I A W%nl% ^I ,O T o' . 00 eArAn 7_o r _-%n r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25. As a direct and proximate result of the fraudulent and deceitful conduct of defendants concerning the facts alleged herein, plaintiffs were forced to expend their time, energy+, labor, and resources to make alterations to the subject property in an attempt to matte it useful for its bargained for purpose. 26. As adireu and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintifh suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE 27. Plaintiffs realIege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, eleven through fifteen, and eighteen through twenty-one of this Complaint into this the Fourth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein 28. Defendants, and each ofthem, failed to exercise reasonable care in the assertions ofthe re resergadons described herein, in that they failed to conduct themselves as reasonably prudent persons under the same or similar circumstances. 29. As adired and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each ofthem, plai suffered the injuries and damages set forth below. 30. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, eleven through fifteen, and eighteen through twenty-one ofthis Complaint into this the Fifth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. 31. The conduct of defendants, and each ofthem, was intended to and/or, was subitantially certain to result in the injuries and harm to plaintiffs, and each ofthem as set forth herein 32. As adincd and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each ofthem, Plaintiffs Bill Wi ble and Al Bartoucchi suffered emotional pain and suffering, including, but not limited to stress, awdety, worry, nervousness, insomnia, fright, fear, nervousness, bunt and physical pain and suffering. 33. As adirect and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs suffered the injuries and damages as set forth below. 1 SMH_CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT 2 3 34. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight, eleven. 4 through fifteen, and eighteen through twenty-one of this Complaint into this the Sixth Cause of Actions! 5 as though fully set forth herein. 6 35. Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement with defendants for the lease of the subject 7 property on or about April,1993. The material terms ofthe lease agreement between the parties provided 9 dvidefiendants lease the subject property to plaintiffs on a month -to -month term at the rate of $1.000.00 9 per month 10 36. Pmv=ttothe terms ofthe initial lease agreement, plaintiffs leased the storefront section 11 ofthe subject property in addition to one-half of the basement section of the subject property. 12 37. A&xplaintiffs took possession of the subject property, defendants demanded an increase 13 in the rate of the monthly rental payment to the sum of S1,500.00 per month. Defendants represented 14 that the basis for their demand for the new rate ofthe monthly rental payment was because plaintiffs were 15 using more than one-half of the basement section of the subject property. 16 3ft. Plaintiffs commenced the payment ofthe new monthly rental payment in response to the 17 demand of defendants. 18 39. A portion of the complete terms of the lease agreement between the parties were 19 memorialimdinawtivenagreement signed by PlaintiffBill Wyble, Plaintiff Al Bartoucchi and Defendant 20 DoaaldSabatini. Amu and correct copy of said written lease agreement is attached as Exhibit A to this 21 Complaint 22 40. By reason of the complete terms of said lease agreement, both written and oral, the 23 agreement between the patties included, but was not limited to the following: Defendant geed to 24 upgrade the subjed property by installing a second exit; to install or reimburse plaintiffs for the installation 25 ofaba hmamwhidtwouldbeaccessible to all persons including those with disabilities; and to otherwise 26 upgrade ft subjectppmty so as to bring the subject property into compliance will all applicable health, 27 safety, fire, and building codes. 29 J TV . , ,x. WIn-N 1 6 01 snnl% -v 9-1 71—. On faAla?_O'r--" el 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION BAD FAITH IRREACH OF CONTRACT 41. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and eleven through fifteen of this Complaint into this the Seventh Cause ofAction as though fully set forth herein. 42. By reason of the special mlatiombip ofthe parties created as are sult ofthe conh2ctual agumed between the parties, and each ofthem, defendants were in a fiduciary relationship that imposed a duty to act in good faith and with loyalty respecting the performance ofthe obligations arising under the contract 43. The conduct of defendants, and each of them, was intentional, malicious, oppressive, willful and done with the conscious disregard ofthe rights ofplaintiffs, and each of them. 44. As adirea and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and -each of them, plaintiffs were injured and damaged as described below. • F R 45. Plaintiffs reallegc and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and eleven of this Complaint into this the Eighth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein 46. On or about June 28, 1994, Plaintiffs were given notice by the Burlingame Fire Department to remove all items stored in the basement area of the subject property as the items were stored there illegally. 47. Asadirect and proximate result ofthe failure of defendants to maintain subject propctty in compliar= wbb all applicable building, health and fire ordinances, the subject property was rendered untenable and unfit for the purposes intended 48. As adirea and proximate result ofthe conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs have been injured and damaged as hereinafter set forth. M ?T •.I 1nnM' ,) 1I►.Inn,) -a.IC 7C•AA GWWP-QT--inr Kathleeh Parkin- Stuff - Page 1 i From: "ATTY-Palmer, Fred" <FPalmerQburlingame.org> To: "Kathleen Parkin (E-mail)"<CCO-Kparkin@mail.co.sanmateo.ca.us> Date: 7/17/00 7:33 AM Subject: Stuff Hi: Once again I need your assistance. I am trying to find out if there were any court records of a lawsuit involving the parties at 340-348 Lorton Ave in Burlingame. The individuals involved would have been Don Sabatini. a Mr. Wyble , a Mr Bartocchi. and the Nova Computer Systems Company. It would have involved the use of the basement in the building and filed around 1995. Any into you could get would be appreciated. Hope all is well with you. Fred C t V 60D,-3q YhM&S `�ov�cel�ol. 5 CT 110'W"WVIN 'b.le 7e,-C)n f]�r?7_Ot_1l'1r 0 JUL718-2000 08:53 1 SMC COUNTY COUNSEL P. OV-03 c E F S is 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26' 27 28 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for damages against defendants, as follows: 1. For general damages in an amount according to proof; 2. For special damages in an amount according to proof, 3. For prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code 3291; 4. For punitive damages according to proog 5. For costs of suit incurred herein; 6. For the award ofreasonable attorncys fees pursuant to the lease agreement; and 7. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATE: IA /i19e6— .JUL-18-2000 08:53 ec r ' � V f 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SMC COUNTY COUNSEL SEVEN CAUSE OF ACTION BAD FAITH 12EACx OF CONTRACT P.02/03 41. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and eleve through fifteen of this Complaint into this the Seventh Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein 42. By reason of the special relationship of the parties created as a result of the contractua Bgremat bet%= the parties, and each of them, defendants were in afiduciary relationship that imposes a duty toad in good faith aad with loyalty respecting the performance ofthe obligations arising under the contract. 43. The eoaduct of defendants, and each of them, was intentional, malicious, oppressive, willful and done with the conscious disregard ofthe rights ofplaintiffs, and each of them. 44. As adirecx and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs were injured and damaged as described below. E GHT CAUSE OF ACTION CONST1tUCTIVE EVICTION 45. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs one through eight and eleven of this Complaint into this the Eighth Cause of Action as though fully set forth herein. ` 46. On or about June 28, 1994, Plaintiffs were given notice by the Burlingarne Fire Department to remove all items stored in the baswmt area of the subject property as the items were stored there illegally_ 47. As a direct and proximate result oft'he failure of defendants to maintain subject property in complia =with all applicable building, health and fire ordinances, the subject property was rendered untenable and unfit for the purposes intended 48. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs have been injured and damaged as hereinafter set forth. JUL-18-2000 08:53 SMC COUNTY COUNSEL P.03,03 Kathleen Parkin - Stuff From: "ATTY-Palmer, Fred" <FPalmer@burlingame.org> To: "Kathleen Parkin (E-mail)"<CCO'Kparkin@mail_co.sanmateo.ca.us> Date: 7/17/00 7:33 AM Subject: Stuff Hi: Once again I need your assistance. 1 am trying to find out if there were any court records of a lawsuit involving the parties at 340-348 Lorton Ave in Burlingame. The individuals involved would have been Don Sabatini, a Mr. Wyble , a Mr Bartocchi, and the Nova Computer Systems Company. It would have involved the use of the basement in the building and filed around 1995. Any info you could get would be appreciated. Hope all is well with you. Fred &U C t V ao t) 31? If 5 p R TOTAL P.03 i!t wL MvgL%E1p,(-AE G'Awo P l 6.1►9k ICE. IF P. `iss.c;xies 34-Ac 9.4.41ea 1 Pcrts..J 4r.s c / q R... I r" dr[ P-As'j Env�� s 11 R�s-•h 11 vcc.,.4 N OeYs00 PREPARED IN nlZ OFFICE OF: dFREDRIC V. ALLEN, INC. 17n Bord Place. Suite 314 Son Mateo, CoQtomia 94402 Phone (415)345-'7566 Fox (415)345-8607 CVA Engineering • Land Planning • Surveying CORD Cu.,.s7R.c�'•�' -f le �2�.s GA•.P /Les F R�+r .z p�•v/G SECOND FLOOR SCALE: 1/$ —1 zs V 1=oAfr�.c%•.. sA��f:.f.::. (�. (I.*..' i`/k (• J'., 0nt Pee r. n/ Gw►R04QAC-1� 3 ?Eppu— SABATINI BUILDING DRIVE BURLINGAME CA 94010 JUN 2 0 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME . PLANNING DEPT, \F1tFS\5063\EIIA\2NDFL0 WG Agenda Item # 5c Meeting Date: 11-6-00 N T E R MEMO O F F I C E To: DENNIS ARGYRES, CITY MANAGER From: GARY MISSEL, CHIEF of POLICE Subject: REQUEST for PUBLIC HEARING Date: October 27, 2000 I recently received notice that Burlingame has been awarded a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) for 2000 from the federal government. The amount of this grant is $20,177. In order to receive these funds, Burlingame must agree to provide $2,242 in matching funds, and a public hearing must be held to approve my plan for spending the grant and the matching funds. I have already submitted my plan to an advisory board who approved my proposal (see attached page). I request that a public hearing be incl ed on the agenda for the next council meeting to consider this matter. Thank you. _ �1 Submitted by: Approved r Submittal of forms due July 28 to Michelle Mojas at mmojas@co.sanmateo.ca.us 2000 LLEBG ADVISORY BOARD HEARING Thursday, August 3, 2000 @ 10:30 am 400 County Center, Hall of Justice Board of Supervisors Chambers, Redwood City This memo serves as confirmation of our law enforcement agency's participation in County of San Mateo's 2000 LLEBG Advisory Board Hearing on Thursday, August 3, 2000. AGENCY: Burlingame Police Department REPRESENTATIVE: Chief Gary Missel AWARD AMOUNT: $20,177. MATCH AMOUNT: $2,242. PURPOSE AREA(s): Purpose Area One - Equipment BRIEFLY DESCRIBE USE OF FUNDS: Equipment: Computer, van and emergencyequipment. Advisory Board Members: Larry Schumaker, Captain, San Mateo County Sheriff's Office Rodina Catalano, Deputy Court Executive Officer, San Mateo County Superior Courts Lisa Novak, Deputy District Attorney, San Mateo County District Attorneys Office Pat Brown, Executive Director, Peninsula Community Conflict Resolution Center Jose Perez, Counselor, Healthy Start, a Non -Profit organization involved in crime prevention Alex Hunt, Acting Director Garfield School Vote: ___A_Aye 0 Nay ITY STAFF REPORT TO: .•n• .• - MaVor andCaunnil AGENDA 5 d ITEM # DATE 11-6-00 DATE SUBMITTED G. P BY DATE: October '11, 2000 APPROVED FROM: �" �Chief of Pnlra BY SUBJECT: Use of State COPS Grant to Fund Two Additional Police Officer Positions RECOMMENDATION: That city council should hold a public hearing and adopt the attached resolution authorizing a budget amendment to use a state COPS grant to hire two additional police officers. BACKGROUND The COPS (Citizens Option for Public Safety) grant program has awarded $100,000 to Burlingame for the fiscal year 2000-01. This money must be used for personnel costs, and it cannot be used to supplant the cost of items already included in the current budget. According to officials in Governor Davis' office, this amount will be provided to local police departments each year for at least the next three years. It is the obligation of each chief of police to recommend a use for these funds. I propose that Burlingame use these funds to hire two additional police officers. Two new positions would allow me to create a new position in our investigations division. With the increase in computer -related crimes and the increase in juvenile -related investigations, our current complement of inspectors has struggled in recent years to keep pace with case loads. Although case preparation for trials is more time-consuming than ever before, we have not increased the size of the investigations division in over fifteen years. The other new position would be assigned to the patrol division. The $100,000 received for this fiscal year will pay for two additional officers this budget cycle, but the cost of two officers over twelve months exceeds $100,000 by approximately $30,000. However, as long as the state pays approximately 75 percent of the cost of two additional officers, I believe they are a bargain we should purchase. If (when) the state no longer awards COPS grants at the $100,000 level, these two additional positions could be eliminated through attrition. Given the projected number of retirements from the police department during the next ten years, it will be an easy task to eliminate positions through attrition in the future if the council so wishes. BUDGET IMPACT The $100,000 grant will fund all salary and benefit costs for the remainder of 2000-01. For 2001-02, an estimated $30,000 in general fund match will be required. Attachment CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT DATE. 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION FROM: 734 100,000 State Grants Fund TO: 101 65100 010 100,000 Police Department --Salaries Justification (Attach Memo if Necessary) See Attached Report DEP T HEA BY: -r DATE: 1O - 2. COUNCIL ACTION ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED REQUIRED Remarks: FINANCE DIRECTOR BY: ✓/ DATE 3. []APPROVE AS REQUESTED QAPPROVE AS REVISED ❑DISAPPROVE Remarks: CITY MANAGER BY: DATE: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation, Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYOR I, ANN T.MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK & Temolates\Transfer Request.doc CITY OF BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 50 MEETING DATE: 1 1-6-00 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: October 18, 2000 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of Ordinance Amending PERS Retirement Contract to Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits for Local Police Members Only RECOMMENDATION 1. The city council hold a public hearing and adopt proposed ordinance to amend our PERS retirement contract for fourth level of 1959 Survivor Benefits for local police employees. This benefit provides a higher level of 1959 Survivor Benefits to survivors of a member who dies rior to retirement. 2. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: In our last memorandum of understanding with the Burlingame Police Officers Association (POA), the city agreed to increase the 1959 Survivor Benefits under PERS from level three to level four. This increases the monthly allowance payable to eligible survivors from $350 to $840 monthly to $950 to $2280 monthly depending on number of eligible children: The 1959 survivor benefits are designed to replace some normal social security benefits which are not available to Burlingame employees covered by PERS. BUDGET IMPACT: Based upon the actuarial valuation by PERS, the following is the estimated future annual cost and public disclosure required by state law: 1. Total normal cost (first year only) $2,938. 2. Unfunded liability payment (annually for 5 years) $<2,938>. By amending our contract at this time, we also cause a one-time increase in actuarial value of assets from 90% of market value to 95%. This results in the following: 1. Change in present value of benefits $273,396 2. Change in unfunded accrued liability $ < 1,618,538> 3. Change in the employee rate < 1.269> % In order to implement our agreement with the POA, the city should adopt this amendment to our PERS contract. 000 Dennis Argyres City Manager V [C:\WPWIN60\MANAGERS\POA-1959survivr-bnfts.wpol Attachment: Resolution of Intention/Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. An amendment to the contract between the City of Burlingame and the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto as Exhibit A, and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full. Section 2. The Mayor of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of the City. Section 3. This ordinance shall be published in accordance with law and shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. Mayor I, Ann Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Burlingame on the 16' day of October, 2000, and the Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk C:\WPWIN60\MANAGERS\POA-1959surviw-bnfts.wpd CAPERS California Public Employees' Retirement System 9111111i"i q 111 1 1111111' rQUI Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council City of Burlingame EXHIBIT The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1, 1942, and witnessed July 6, 1942, and as amended effective February 1, 1954, July 1, 1956, April 1, 1963, March 1, 1964, April 1, 1965, March 1.6, 1967, November 1, 1968, September 1, 1970, April 1, 1973, May 1, 1974, November 1, 1974, February 20, 1975, March 16, 1975, July 1, 1976, August 16, 1976, May 1, 1979, December 1, 1985, December 1, 1987, December 6, 1989, November 15, 1990 and May 26, 1997 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective May 26, 1997, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 12 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members and age 50 for local safety members. PLEASE UU SIG 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after July 1, 1942 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. PLAYGROUND LEADERS WHO ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY BASIS, POLICE CADETS AND LIBRARY PAGES HIRED ON OR AFTER MARCH 16, 1967; AND b. FIRE CADETS AND CROSSING GUARDS HIRED ON OR AFTER MAY 1, 1974. 5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 50 Full). 7. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous and local fire members only. b. Section 20425 ("Local Police Officer" shall include employees of a police department who were employed to perform identification or communication duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local safety members). PLEASE D0 NOT SIUM C. Section 21222.1 (Special 5% Increase-1970). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. d. Section 21222.2 (Special 5% Increase-1971). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. e. Sections 21624, 21626 and 21628 (Post -Retirement Survivor Allowance). Section 21319 (Special 15% increase for Local Miscellaneous Members Who Retired or Died Prior to July 1, 1971). g. Section 20614, Statutes of 1978, (Reduction of Normal Member Contribution Rate). From May 1, 1979 and until December 1, 1985, the normal local miscellaneous member contribution rate shall be 3.5% and local safety member conribution rate shall be 4.5%. Legislation repealed said Section effective September 29, 1980. h. Section 20690, Statutes of 1980, (To Prospectively Revoke Section 20614, Statutes of 1978). i. Section 20042 (One -Year Final Compensation) for local safety members only. j. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local police members only. 8. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on August 16, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 9. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 10. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members and local safety members. b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local police members: C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 11. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. as B. This amendment shall boWfective on the BOARD OF ADMINISTRN PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'MRIREMENT SYSTEM BY KENNETH W. MMION, CHIEF ACTUARIAL-4VAPLOYER SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC E YEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AMENDMENT PERS-CON-702A (Rev. 8\96) day of CITY COUNCIL CITY OF BURLINGA� BY S�G� PRESIDI ®Cb ICER Witness Date Attest: Clerk STAFF REPORT MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 16, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: BROADWAY STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS City Project No. 9511 SUBMITTED BY _ A BY AGENDA ITEM # 7a MTG. 11 /6/_00 RECOMMENDATION: Council should review the preliminary design for the Broadway Streetscape Improvements and provide comments as appropriate after a brief presentation by the project consultant. In particular, Council should provide direction on whether to proceed with the following: 1. a design that incorporates the improvements cited in the 1996 Streetscape Master Plan report as well as widens the travel lanes, or an alternate design; and 2. a construction scope of work for next year that includes streetscape improvements on the north side of Broadway generally between Laguna Avenue and El Camino Real. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: Over the last five months staff has met with Broadway Improvement District (BID) members on three occasions to discuss the past and future streetscape improvements. In addition, the Master Plan circulation and loading zones were discussed at two separate Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) meetings. DISCUSSION: Following is a description of the 1996 Streetscape Master Plan -based design that also incorporates a widening of traffic lanes. Alternates are presented that reduce parking impacts by eliminating alley planters, travel lane widening, or corner bulb -outs. Also discussed are the scope and cost estimate for next year's construction as well as the status of the last streetscape project. MASTER PLAN -BASED DESIGN WITH TRAVEL LANE WIDENING The preliminary design of the Broadway Streetscape Improvements extends from 1190 Broadway (Shigemasu Restaurant) to 1454 Broadway (Victoria Closet) on both sides of the street. This area includes three intersections on Broadway at Laguna, Paloma and Capuchin Avenues. The following describes a Master Plan -based design with a widening of travel lanes for improved traffic circulation on Broadway. It represents the same scope of work as the previous project between Chula Vista and Laguna Avenues. (Refer to the attached Master Plan.) Master Plan -Based Design: In accordance with the 1996 Master Plan, the preliminary design includes colored concrete sidewalks, new trees in planters at the ends of parking stalls, irrigation, curb and gutter replacement, and bicycle racks. New pedestrian safety zones with corner bulb -outs at street intersections provide places for seating, news racks, special paving and landscaping. Planters with seating are included at existing mid -block alleys on the south side of Broadway to provide areas for pedestrian activities and opportunities for outdoor cafes and displays. The colored concrete sidewalks, and curb and gutter match the sidewalk installed from Chula Vista to Laguna Avenues and have a simplified score pattern. In order to address the flooding potential, the design includes a new 21" diameter storm drain line on the south side of Broadway, and catch basins at each triangular planter and corner bulb -outs on both sides of the street. Existing ornamental light standards on Broadway are saved and new tree light connections are added. All seventeen existing Magnolia trees are removed in order to widen the sidewalk width from six to nine feet at these locations. About fifty 36-inch box trees are included to replace the Magnolias. Loading zones along Broadway are revised to accommodate the new corner bulb -outs. Two loading zones, one in front of 1201 Broadway (Village Host) and the other at 1405 Broadway (Absolute Cellular Services) are removed on Broadway. All side street loading zones remain and a new loading zone is added on the northeast corner of Laguna Avenue. The TSPC at their September 14 and October 12, 2000 meetings reviewed and approved the revised loading zone locations. (Refer to the attached TSPC minutes.) Travel Lane Widening: The travel lane in each direction on Broadway is increased in width from ten feet to eleven feet. The standard travel lane in the city is eleven feet. In order to widen the travel lanes, the on -street parking stall angle is reduced from 28 degrees to 22 degrees. (Refer to the two attached Broadway parking diagrams.) The City has received numerous complaints regarding the unsafe traffic maneuvers on Broadway. In the last five years there have been about eighty five accidents reported on Broadway between El Camino Real and California Drive. Of these accidents approximately 85 % involved vehicles that were sideswiped, broadsided, or rear ended. An increased street width improves traffic safety and circulation on Broadway. Wider travel lanes discourage vehicles from swerving into the opposite lane in order to maneuver around parked cars. Also, the reduced parking angle and larger stall better accommodates sport utility vehicles and extended pick up trucks which range in length from 18 feet to 20 feet and in width from 6 feet to 6-'h feet. PARKING IMPACTS AND ALTERNATE DESIGNS Parking Impacts: There are a total of 114 on -street parking stalls in the business district including 81 on Broadway and 33 on side streets. (Refer to attached parking table.) The Master Plan -based design with widened travel lanes reduces the number of parking stalls by 37. Seventeen stalls are removed for the comer bulb -outs, six stalls for the alley planters, up to ten stalls for increased travel lane widths, and four stalls for the TSPC approved loading zone on the north side of Laguna. Offsetting this loss is the addition of thirteen parking stalls at the new Laguna Avenue parking lot. Taking this into account, there is a net loss of 24 parking stalls in the business district. A survey conducted in fall, 1998 at 12:30 p.m. (peak lunch time) revealed that 35 parking stalls were available in the Broadway area. In particular, parking lots behind Broadway appeared underutilized including Lot Q between Paloma Avenue and Capuchino Avenue (ten available stalls) and Lot Y along Chula Vista Avenue (eight available stalls). Alternate Designs: On October 10, 2000, staff and the consultant team met with the BID to review the Master Plan -based design for Broadway. The merchant group requested that the City delete the three alley planters and maintain the current travel lane width and parking angle in order to increase the amount of available parking on Broadway. (Refer to attached October 17, 2000 Ross Bruce BID letter.) The following describes the two alternates requested by the BID and presents a third option of removing the comer bulb -outs. ■ Remove alley planters: The removal of the three alley planters restores six parking spaces (two stalls per alley) and has the least impact on the Master Plan -based design. This option reduces the Pa amount of seating mid block, but does not change the corner bulb -outs or placement of streetscape amenities. ■ Maintain current travel lane widths: Maintaining the current substandard ten foot wide travel lanes for Broadway, restores eight to ten stalls. This option does not provide for improved traffic and pedestrian safety, but does retain all master plan amenities. The travel lanes along Broadway would vary in width as the existing travel lanes between Chula Vista and Laguna Avenues have been increased to eleven feet as part of the last streetscape project. ■ Remove the corner bulb -outs: Eliminating the comer bulb -outs restores seventeen stalls. This option is, in effect, a sidewalk replacement project. There is no pedestrian seating, areas for news racks and bicycle storage, or landscaping. The existing Magnolia trees could be retained or replaced at their current locations with new trees. Previous construction between California Drive and Laguna Avenue will not match this design. CONSTRUCTION SCOPE AND ESTIMATE: At the request of the BID, the north side of Broadway between 1190 to 1454 is proposed as the next phase of construction to occur in summer, 2001. BID members agreed that construction of one side of the street at a time would least impact parking and pedestrian access to businesses. The north side was selected first as construction is easier and quicker than on the south side. This is because the scope of work for the north side does not require the replacement of a water line or installation of a new storm drain pipe. Construction of the north side of Broadway is estimated to cost $600,000. Funding of $500,000 is available in the 2000-01 budget and an additional $100,000 will be necessary in the 2001-02 budget. The south side of Broadway is estimated to cost $1,000,000 including $200,000 for a new storm drain system. If Council wishes to proceed with south side improvements in 2002, construction must begin in spring due to the more complicated scope of work. In order to fully fund the project, $600,000 would need to be advanced from the 2002-03 budget to supplement the remaining $400,000 in the 2001-02 budget. Alternatively, work could be phased over a longer time frame. PREVIOUS PROJECT STATUS: In summer, 1999 the first block of the Broadway Streetscape project was installed from Chula Vista to Laguna Avenues. The contractor for the project had poor communication skills, produced a low quality product, and had subcontractors who submitted falsified soil reports. As a result of this and complaints received by merchants, the City hired an outside consultant to review the construction. (Refer to the four attached merchant letters.) A report from the consultant delineating construction errors is under review by the contractor. The project has not been accepted by the City and a retention continues to be held. Staff has requested a letter from the contractor stating that his company will no longer bid on projects in the City and that a different contractor make repairs on the defective work. If unsuccessful in obtaining this letter, staff will recommend that Council approve a resolution determining that the contractor is non -responsible and cannot work in the City again. The plans and specifications for the next phase of construction will include provisions to alleviate some of the problems encountered with the previous project. These provisions were developed in several meetings with BID merchants. Monetary incentives will be provided for completion of construction performed ahead of schedule. Higher daily liquidated damages will be included for delays in the schedule. Weekend work will be allowed as has been requested by the merchants. The contractor will have a designated parking area to encourage off-street parking and be required to provide more signage and markings for alternate parking lots and pedestrian access. Construction meetings will be held with merchants, the City, and contractor representatives at a location on Broadway. Also, a Broadway Streetscape folder will continue to be available on the City web page describing the project and providing an e-mail address for questions. SUMMARY: Staff has presented a preliminary design for the remainder of the Broadway Streetscape Improvements which is identical to the construction recently completed from Chula Vista 'Avenue to Laguna Avenue. It includes the features addressed in the Council -approved 1996 Master Plan as well as wider travel lanes for safer vehicular movements. The design results in a net parking reduction in the Broadway business district of 20% (24 stalls). This compares to a parking reduction of 19% (27 stalls) for the installation of landscaped planters along Burlingame Avenue. In response to concerns from some merchants, staff has presented several alternatives for Council consideration which reduce the parking loss along Broadway. Staff has also described the benefits of proceeding with streetscape improvements on the north side of Broadway next year. Based on this information, staff is requesting that Council provide direction on the preliminary design as well as the scope of work for the next phase of construction. A decision is needed at this time in order for construction to occur in 2001. EXHIBITS: 1996 Master Plan for Broadway Streetscape Improvements from 1190 to 1454 Broadway Alternate without alley planters Loading Zone TSPC Minutes Parking stall angle with ten foot travel lane for existing conditions on Broadway Proposed Parking stall angle with eleven foot travel lane for Broadway B.I.D. October 17, 2000 letter to mayor and council Gerald Weisl September 14, 2000 letter and additional letter signed by merchants George and Irene Preston September 14, 2000 letter and additional letter signed by merchants c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Planner, Parks and Recreation Director Bill Harris - Smith Group JJR and Dan Leary - Bellecci Associates Broadway Improvement District merchant group - Ross Bruce (AVR Realty) Chamber of Commerce - Georgette Naylor SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\9511\StaffReports\Brdwy1190 to 1454.SR.wpd I — ' 33'OProp. za'a al°tNro _ •I ' I Ira ir-m Iva T^'a'o" L. Tmalgn i � loegnp — I y .........,.< _ ° Stttit Group JJR 1210 1234 /220 1221 121E CALIFORNIA 1204 LAGUNA .0 Sra°eeas,al4116"bM IM BROADWAY 1232 GOLDEN PERINSUTA 1222 HOUSE OF SAVINGS VAI(INKU • a°1L6f ISD91 CLEANERS. PIZZA ETC. CHINA VIDEO_, ... .. SUPERCUTB . fCTA0LE$ LOAN �19E FLORIST 120A �. r-� �L ._.. ♦ OE - E/ISA9ZS091 I OLL FLORIST GRACE GARDEN a ; , I I � I 9MIOELTASU- w.wamh6pa.pmm - V BikeFlack(typ.) � 1 � Parking Meter (typ.) P19nter, N,ww.* VYP ) 1 _. 22' 1 .. - _ Q 2001 Construction Limit " ^ i ... 111118QI RlL isFiiii� fir Tis , ti ,iriri ,ii siii3iu i<isiiiiiiiuNiui ,iiii7iiir'iii , „liiiii il, •'�i \�-PfeCaSt iiOtlCf9te __ .. \ _ _ B ROliDWAY I -- C7 CJ -i. I 'W { 1243 IN 7r Trash Can (typ.) r_ — I WALTER •NUTS 1235 1233 1219 1215 1211 r RENNER FOR MERR UNIVERSAL ILPICCOLO NETVORH NEW 1205 1201 �" 11SB BROADWAY .. R�1plT0 a CANDY RUGS PHOTO CAFE _ VIDEO REPLECTIONS DOLLARWISE VILLAGE HOST '%u GALLERIA,DE FARSH STREETSCAPE 1` 4 ,air -F I - u L �� A BURLIN(3AME, TILE 6 STO E iy. 1Sa t 6'•0' CALIFORNIA S'p y Parahp PaMrq •:4 Lana '— m DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN Q � o s r. 20F xorr. will ----Eda2glNoCnaAcal 2Ja)1,00 L3 I F.:•a,� 1235 ROADWAY ❖.o.• �: • �� ��1, o0�•a•,.••A�iso•�+�p•�.!•�'�Aq�'V d`i`y�'�oY,�% •� '.��,�.;i�i,•`r0•:.i�•��:4•���f Ali — AI sc� �'�••���� a �.' ■_ ►�,iR� ,� / 9�i`��• ;toss=....��,� ttt .. O`•;iyol•_•M�`•.Oi . �� �1� b'► •;;• •� . O .`. O• %� ......o..... .... %t�;'e'y.. .. ♦.��.� �.�� p ••��i•.`'0''i g.� ���P�OP ����Q�i •-i�`•165. •• �:❖� • s•�d:•i • •i • oi•O .. . P • ; :� � •.O•i.•i •�••,•�ti�; • • 00'. moll iiv� Parking Meter :.y Bike Rack (typ.) mgm tic: .,��'3 1355 �•iit F,.pp��p� •06♦• •1 I .�•�.� j� II �I •..•.': •♦. 0•i..a. 1Il r +• I I CTOF 434 VICTORIA9 UNION 75 _ CLOSET j Existing Street I Light (tyP•) —+ TREE COUNTS Eeberp Megnoh- m W ftm 17 Pepe con Woad 55 Peer�•65 NN 0.1. %. 1410 OOLwa WINDOWS 140E YOUNG'S I{� ODORS UOVOR BLOCKBUSTER R Parking Meter (typ.) Planter Pot Op.) ' �=� �"'r �2001 ConstrOction Limit `- riffs ......... riitril>iiiiii... r..0 B R0A019PAY _ MewwmngeaarMaJ Precast Concrete Bike Rack (typ.) Seatwall (tyP.) 14" 1 /1*1 14" 1400 TIE LITTLE aROAOWAv 14'L7 ROBENALT ABSOLUTE ,BOOKWORM DELI POOC/ENrS 1_ ENGRAVING CELLULAR 'If 12 t 2C4' I I ro I 17•y s'bi Mfhng r wv LYrls Nwn ►d trw.) 1 SmithGroup 11R �. ..rrrrr r. + - 11 4reero.p xase�5e�.1 ne..elu else. 11 a�ermd.m,uurr. s{ou • (V� o{152HM I �E{1tA9e.e01' D .•i • .,, 9 o n �.-i •vim : «�� 3►:1:�(yi��4w!%eVnw�>��.�•A`��.!��d > • • •.� �: �p Oyi'•4�i••.'w�� e. • �9•y�°Q►.•' 4e•� , o• •oo W. �-•rc.� rY� � •i�►yA~ir� •9�•�❖iii•�i ��i All 4 �•�.1• ❖••6•••�1{1••�•••♦ !�L+•i�'�'%•�`!.yi!iw:�'.:.�•�•�...�►�'>i'Pi!i!i!e'+eq►�•�•:a•!.!�!e�!•�1 i �S'yyt •7•••♦ MOO ��• ♦•..••1 �■ BROADWAY STREETSCAPE o 4CALIFORNIA DESIGN DEVELOPMENT LlPLAN fOP f 2M In £KIe1Mp . V — SmithGroup nR h Lea'�•„m�,• us ewtseew 1320 1322' 43UA 1352 BROADWAY POR YOIIR THON1 isle CAFE 131e 1310 ELLA ism 1300 ERORALW/CY ! - I} F Qjj .I^' I�1 1235 BROADWAY Sr Tnslay. eG 4r136 113900. FOTO FOTO HARDWARE.. 'EYS ONLY KITCHEN 71WO (VACANT) LUNA BUBWAY Y f «ww�xhgeepeI 1324 kOWS M ` •t _ TAIL.. I � • I - I %1' 2001 Construction Limit r�ii>u�s _"Ari>iiii— IIII stNAI PlotrnNiO•Soahr (1yp.1 --` ' ' � — o, Parking Meier (typ.) Bike Rack (typ.) Trash Can (typ.) — 13S5 1365 -- 1361 1 :1369 JUN OEM RAINBOW KEYMCHU JAPANESE 13V 1323 BEHAN'S RWER 1321 1305 YOUR CELLULAR 130t JEWELRY (I� 1251 CHIC LOBOS BEAUTY BROAMM STREETSCAPE SIGNS ,NAILS_. HAIR SALON RESTAURANT IRISH PUB :NAILS CLEANERS ONE EXCHANGE _ 16 -pT1 TAOUERIA SALON _ BURLINGAME, vM CALIFORNIA Lo.614.. - veAX19 �'4 0 Plan,- �% 'o �TM - ..Alternate , � DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Without Alley Bulbout - 1 a I PLAN �`--' 8iat § qe1 z3a7zL0 L2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Thursday, September 14, 2000 4.2.2 Request for a loading zone on 1100 block of Broadway. Includes discussions of a loading zone on Chula Vista Avenue or Laguna Avenue Mr. Erbacher advised that the two loading zones on Broadway at Stanaway Market were recently removed as a part of streetscape improvements. This created a need for a loading zone on the 1100 block of Broadway. Since the streetscape improvement project plans to remove two additional loading zones on Broadway between Laguna and El Camino Real, there is a need for further discussions on the placing of new loading zones on Broadway to meet truck loading needs. There are several possibilities for placing a loading zone near the 1100 block of Broadway, including: (1) removing curb parking and adding a loading zone on Laguna north of Broadway, (2) widening Laguna north of Broadway to provide curb parking and a loading zone, (3) adding a loading zone and making Laguna one way northbound north of Broadway, or (4) removing curb parking and providing a loading zone on Chula Vista. From the floor, tenants of 1174 Broadway stated that four businesses in the 1100 block of Broadway (north side) need a loading zone for their truck deliveries. To make Laguna one way and add a loading zone would help these businesses a great deal. Mr. Ho advised that some trucks currently park in the red zone on Laguna blocking two- way traffic flow. Removing on -street parking on the west side of Laguna and providing an 8-foot wide loading zone on the east side of Laguna would create a tight corner and a substandard street width of 18 feet for two-way traffic flow. Chairwoman Harber suggested the option of narrowing the sidewalk. Comm. Evans motioned to agendize this item as Pending until further design information is available. Comm. Auran stated that waiting is not desirable, a loading zone should be placed on Laguna, and the resulting loss of curb spaces on Laguna will be offset by the spaces in the new City lot on Laguna. Commander Vanetten stated that since the two loading zones have been removed from the 1100 block of Broadway, trucks tend to park diagonally on Broadway which make two-way traffic flow minimally passable. Comm. Auran stated he would like more input about Chula Vista from the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) before further discussion. It was moved and seconded (Comets. Auran/Mayer), as a temporary measure, to remove the existing red zone and install a yellow loading zone on the east side of Laguna, and to remove the curb' parking spaces on the west side. Unanimously approved by the Commission. Mr. Erbacher advised that -in the near future, Broadway BID Group will be asked to meet +) with TSPC to further discuss loading zone issues. This will be a Discussion Item at the next TSPC meeting. Minutes for 9-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, October 12, 2000 4.2.4 Loading Zone on Broadway and its cross streets Ross Bruce stated he represents the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) and related that they would like to see Laguna Avenue become a one-way street to save parking spaces on the west side of the street while providing a loading zone on the east. Mr. Erbacher advised that making this provision would require further studies since it would affect other streets, businesses and residents on and off of Laguna. Ms. Gomery gave a presentation on the next phase of the Broadway Streetscape Project from 1190 to 1454 Broadway. A consultant was hired to complete the design of Broadway with a tentative schedule to construct the north side in summer 2001 and the south side in 2002. The proposed design for the next two and a half blocks relocates/removes some loading zones on Broadway. The loading zones are revised with the proposed plan in order to accommodate new intersection bulb -outs which act as a pedestrian safety zone and include landscaping, seating, and special paving. It was noted that many businesses have loading available at the rear of their stores, and some businesses have their own parking lots for deliveries off Broadway. In addition Mr. Ho provided usage data from his loading zone survey showing that the loading zones in front of Absolute Cellular Services (1405 Broadway) and Village Host (1201 Broadway) were underutilized. Included in the proposed plan is a reduced parking stall angle on Broadway to increase the width of the driving aisles and improve traffic flow. This change and the intersection improvements will reduce the overall number of parking stalls on Broadway. To mitigate the loss of parking stalls the new Laguna parking lot is being built. A survey conducted to review the use of the parking lots in the Broadway area found that many existing lots behind the retail businesses are underutilized and will provide additional stalls during the peak noon hour. Ms. Gomery advised that Council will be reviewing this project at theirNovember 6`h meeting and asked for the Commission's concurrence of the plan with the removal and relocation of the loading zones. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Evans/McIver) to concur and: defer this plan to Council with the Commission's approval. Unanimously approved by = the Commission. 4.2.5 Millbrae BART Station - Potential Impacts on City streets Mr. Ho advised that there is nothing new to report and that he is waiting to receive notes from • Comm. Mayer on his contacts. Comm. Auran stated that the Chamber of Commerce was provided a great presentation last month on BART, and City staff s involvement with studies which help to identify or alleviate potential problems was recognized. Minutes for 10-12-00 Meeting.wpd Page 4 rA�� of caf-'r'.) ofl. �ROAhWAY In LP— ( L'--- �UI�bIN 6 �X I TIN e Fl ID GoNbITION 13PUAbWAY RARKIN6 FAGS 9N1�lti'd �k�Mgbo�i� NQIAclNO7 QQ3.040-V4 NIW, BROADWAY STREETSCAPE PARKING TABLE California Drive to El Camino Real - 1100 to 1480 Broadway PARKING REDUCTION BY LOCATION Section Existing Proposed Net Change On Broadway El Camino Real to Capuchino 15 10 -5 Capuchino to Paloma 23 14 -9 Paloma to Laguna 22 11 -11 Laguna to Chula Vista 16 13 -3 California to Chula Vista 5 5 0 Subtotal 81 53 -28 On Side Streets (to first driveway) Capuchino — north 6 5 -1 Capuchino — south 3 2 -1 Paloma — north 3 2 -1 Paloma — south 5 4 -1 Laguna — north 4 0 -4 Laguna — south 6 5 -1 Chula Vista — south 6 6 0 Subtotal 33 24 -9 Total Reduction 114 77 -37 PARKING REDUCTION BY FACTOR • Intersection bulb -outs — Broadway 12 • Intersection bulb -outs — side streets 5 • Alley planters 6 • Increased travel lane widths 8 to 10 • New loading zone on Laguna — north 4 Total Reduction 37 BroadwayParkingCount.doc 10/31/0 October 16, 2000 Honorable Mayor & City Council, The B.I.D. proposes that the City approve the proposed Broadway Burlingame sidewalk redevelopment project with two modifications. We recommend that, for parking considerations that all three -alley bulb out elements and the 22 degree parking angle be eliminated. ; Sincerely, RcKs C. Bruce President B.I.D. Weimax Wines--& Spirits wvvw.weimax.com BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL 501 Primrose Road` s Burlingame CA 94010 _ SEP 1 4. 2,00- September 12, 2000 Dear Fellow Burlingame Residents, i a It's fabulous that after years of neglect, Broadway is receiving a bit of attention and being brought into the 1990s! There was a two -month project on our block of Broadway featuring new sidewalks, trees, storm drains and sewage pipes. For a variety of reasons, this project took much longer than anticipated, causing a fair bit of economic stress to our area's businesses. Now that the dust has settled (and there was plenty of that, I can assure you!), we are able to see the fruits of all this labor. Some of this fruit is not of very good quality. Having had the "pilot project," or test run, in front of Broadway's Wells Fargo Bank, I can tell you the sidewalk on our block is not at all the same! Wells Fargo's sidewalk is a couple of years old and looks younger, fresher and far better than the cracked, stained, sloppy job on the 1100 block of Broadway! A representative of Vanguard, the company who performed the construction, was in the neighborhood the other day and claimed the cracking of the sidewalk concrete will continue due to a flaw in the design. He, however, had no response to inquiries about the sloppy workmanship so much in evidence on this block. Especially poor is the corner by Le Croissant and Ciao Bello. I was dismayed to learn from a City Public Works Department person that this company had NO experience in the field of sewage pipes! Might I politely point out that simply because a medical school graduate has "Dr." in front of their name, I wouldn't hire a psychiatrist to do heart surgery! Sincerely, V-) Gerald Weisl 1 178 Broadway • Burlingame, CA 94010 • Tel: (650) 34M182 0 Fax: (650) 340-8463 0 Weimax BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Q Wines & Spirits www.weimax.com 501 Primrose Road' Burlingame CA 94010 _ SEP 1 4?, 2000 September 12, 2000 L_ Dear Fellow Burlingame Residents, It's fabulous that after years of neglect, Broadway is receiving a bit of attention and being brought into the 1990s! There was a two -month project on our block of Broadway featuring new sidewalks, trees, storm drains and sewage pipes. For a variety of reasons, this project took much longer than anticipated, causing a fair bit of economic stress to our area's businesses. Now that the dust has settled (and there was plenty of that, I can assure you!), we are able to see the fruits of all this labor. Some of this fruit is not of very good quality. Having had the "pilot project," or test run, in front of Broadway's Wells Fargo Bank, I can tell you the sidewalk on our block is not at all the same! Wells Fargo's sidewalk is a couple of years old and looks younger, fresher and far better than the cracked, stained, sloppy job on the 1100 block of Broadway! A representative of Vanguard, the company who performed the construction, was in the neighborhood the other day and claimed the cracking of the sidewalk concrete will continue due to a flaw in the design. He, however, had no response to inquiries about the sloppy workmanship so much in evidence on this block. Especially poor is the corner by Le Croissant and Ciao Bello. I was dismayed to learn from a City Public Works Department person that this company had NO experience in the field of sewage pipes! Might I politely point out that simply because a medical school graduate has "Dr." in front of their name, I wouldn't hire a psychiatrist to do heart surgery! Sincerely, C i) U)a G;cc oC d �l Gerald Weisl 9 G'tvru 1 178 Broadway • Burlingame, CA 94010 + Tel: (650j 343-0182 0 Fax: (650) 340- Preston's Cana & Ice Cream 0 1170 Broadway, Burlingame CA 94010-3422 650 344 3254 Fax 650 344 3265 September 11, 2000 Burlingame City Council City of Burlingamer;=A'"r� 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 5EP Re: Broadway Streetscape Improvements Project } Honorable Mayor and Council Members: ` We want to express our concern about the condition of the recently laid sidewalk on the north side of the 1100 block of Broadway, and ask your prompt action to achieve the high quality we were expecting. 1. The sidewalk has already developed cracks across large sections of the concrete. These cracks initiate from natural stress points at the corners of the troweled stress relief grooves, so there will be more cracks developing in the near future. If the cracked sections are redone without changing the location of the troweled stress grooves, the redone sections will likely crack also. 2. The concrete curb edges are already flaking where tires of parking cars are impacting them. This suggests poor materials selection and/or improper curing. 3. The workmanship as to appearance of the finished surface is shoddy: the final broom finish is inconsistent from section to section; there are discolored broom marks along the edges of most of the sections due to stroking the sections at different times; there are numerous other discolorations all along the new concrete; and the troweled relief grooves are inconsistent in width and not straight. Overall, the decades -old sidewalk that was there until March - in spite of age and a few cracks - was a lot better looking than what we have now. This aspect of the streetscape improve- ment is extremely disappointing to us; this sidewalk degrades the appearance and image of our 54-year-old store. We ask that this be remedied expeditiously. Sincerely, George T. Preston Irene S. Preston Owners n Preston's Can'y & Ice Cream 1170 Broadway, Burlingame CA 94010-3422 September 11, 2000 Burlingame City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Broadway Streetscape Improvements Project Honorable Mayor and Council Members: 650 344 3254 Fax 650 344 3265 RECIFFIV : SEP 1 4 2000 DEPT. OF PU"LIC WORKS CITY OF BURUNGAME We want to express our concern about the condition of the recently laid sidewalk on the north side of the 1100 block of Broadway, and ask your prompt action to achieve the high quality we were expecting. The sidewalk has already developed cracks across large sections of the concrete. These cracks initiate from natural stress points at the corners of the troweled stress relief grooves, so there will be more cracks developing in the near future. If the cracked sections are redone without changing the location of the troweled stress grooves, the redone sections will likely crack also. 2. The concrete curb edges are already flaking where tires of parking cars are impacting them. This suggests poor materials selection and/or improper curing. 3. The workmanship as to appearance of the finished surface is shoddy: the final broom finish is inconsistent from section to section; there are discolored broom marks along the edges of most of the sections due to stroking the sections at different times; there are numerous other discoloration all along the new concrete; and the troweled relief grooves are inconsistent in width and not straight. Overall, the decades -old sidewalk that was there until March - in spite of age and a few cracks - was a lot better looking than what we have now. This aspect of the streetscape improve- ment is extremely disappointing to us; this.sidewalk degrades the appearance and image of our 54-year-old store. We ask that this be remedied expeditious) M �Ycho�vli�,r 1h ae Kte m atf w 1411 Sincerely, George T. Preston Irene S. Preston Owners 6C Spile 1 AGENDA ITEM # 7 b MEETING DATE: 11_6-00 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: November 1, 2000 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Commissioner Items As of the October 30 extended filing deadline, the below -listed residents have applied to serve on a city commission: Traffic Safety Parking Commission (2 positions: terms to 11-6-03) Amy Chang Howard Page Richard Cottrell Erik Winkler Civil Service (1 position: term to 12-1-03) Bill Garcia (late application) Also, the attached table was created earlier this year to quickly reference those commissioner candidates interviewed within the past 24-month period. Council may choose the following: 1. Select council interview teams as necessary and schedule candidate interview date(s). 2. Appoint candidates from attached list. 3. Extend the application filing deadline for Civil Service Commission to Monday, November 27, 2000. 4. Given the lack of volunteers for some of our commissions, council might also want to consider reductions in commission size to five members like the Library Board. 000000 Dennis Argyres City Manager v Attachments (council only) ;Sent By: ; 650 685 6930; Oct-30-00 3:31PM; Page 1I2 $ii�E fl�itg of �ixrlingttme COMMISSIONER AppLicATION ✓ Phase Q'Pe or pritrt clearly. ✓ Alt gWAca�s Hater be registsnd voters of the city of BeerAbeganrs at $ie lane of application. ✓ Return completer! faun to City Managers Office, 501 Primrose Road, BWriingame. W010, flx (00) I► Tines. (650) � 72�• -9a r) FOR r,.M USE ONLY ....................... "'_,... ` Of Bi1RtINGpMt: vt',NfiGER'S OFFICE lherlingame registered voter Copies to. CC, CM, W ` INCUMMM D NEw APPUCkW Name Home ---- Add rml R34'0 604 Length of residence in BtirlingaMe: Occupation, ~ Work phone: r 6 Education ,J . Rf'r�t from &st below) Pkave reole thetneet�'rig dateldnre of eac>i commirsiors• On which city commission do you wish to scree• First choice: �Yd: let- C'"-%"�., 47d.. T r.. hP3 Second choice: ►• Beautification ........... ,first 7bursday. 3:30pm, City Hall Conference Roont.4 -► Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4.00 pm, Cily Nall C.onferrnce Room A ;- Ljhr&ry Board ...........third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Librezry, 490 Primrose Road -*� park & ration ........ third Thursday, 7.•00 pm, 3' Halt Cor fersence Roane A planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7; W pm. City Ralf Co u Cii Chambers }- Senior ................ third 17mm&ay, It.90 am, Clry Roll Cb*rence Room A -,- Traffic Safety & Parldng .... second 7hutsday, 7.00 pm, Gily Hatt Conference Room A Please list any special education, training+ work or other esperieme you may have had which you feet affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference- -r1, ,, ,, .c t chi �C Special uuerests and hobbies. �fGSP xu :& r'*CA'a z( .— please comment on you reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. 7"/,eems. "'r -hAo 4t1-Tche X Do you have any comments on Ciry problems or current procedures? r Sent B Y: ; 650 685 6930; Oct-30-00 3:31PM; Page 2/2 Addendum to Application of Amy Chang, Traffic Safety & Parking Commission October 31, 2000 Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel afJ`ects your capability to serve the commission ofyour preference. There are three aspects of my background which I believe will enhance my effectiveness on the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission: (1) my educational training in public policy from Brown' University (emphasizing economic development) and fellowship in public policy from the Northern California Coro Foundation; (2) legal training from the University of California Hastings College of the Law and professional career as a corporate attorney; and (3) long-standing community leadership in public affairs, such as service on the San Francisco Superintendent's Lowell Admissions Advisory Committee and other non -partisan voter education work. I believe my background provides me with a strong analytical framework for evaluating and advising on issues which come before the Commission, as well as practical skills in negotiation and mediation among competing interests and constituencies. Special interests and hobbies. I enjoy public affairs (especially learning about new challenges and opportunities with internet voting), spending time with my White German Shepard puppy, snorkeling, and learning to play traditional Scottish music on my fiddle, Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. I am grateful to live in a democracy which encourages and requires participation of its citizens. In my previous home of San Francisco, I have been involved in public school reform and voter education, and have witnessed first-hand people corning together to build a better community. Since moving to Burlingame, I have been exploring ways to become more involved in my new home. After attending a Traffic Safety & Commission meeting recently in Burlingame, I became interested in serving on the Commission because of the myriad of issues and broad cross-section of community interests involved. Do you have any comments on City problems or current problems? I have lived in the San Francisco Bay Area almost all of my life (San Carlos, Palo AIto, San Francisco and Burlingame). Tragic congestion has increased due to a myriad of problems, including the growing population, the mismatch in jobs and housing, limited regional planning and a somewhat disjointed regional transportation system. I believe that the expansion of the San Francisco International Airport, combined with the expansion of Bart to Millbrae and to the Airport will ease regional transportation congestion, but also present local traffic safety and parking challenges to Burlingame. 1 would like an opportunity to propose solutions to these challenges on the Commission. 4.e C'Tt#-q of Purlingarat COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print cleaLly. ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010, far (650) 342-8386. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Name UNC Cldb�� a— Address Length of residence in Burlingame: Education S % -� L` FOR CITY USE ONLY ;lBurlingame registered voter Copies to: CC, CM, 0 V" ..'v INCUMBENT 0 NEW APPLICANTX, Home phone: A y b 6 ', l DO Occupation: Z;r77/Z5�b Work phone: On which city commission do you wiis",e htoserve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting dateltime of each commission. First choice:— G� Second choice: Beautification ...st Thursday, 5.30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -� Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4.00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -►- Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -�- Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.'00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -.. planning . . . . .......:... second and fourth M6n&04 7.'00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers -►- Senior ................ third Thursday, 10.00 am, City Hall Conference Room A -� Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7.'00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training,'work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. Special interests and hobbies. Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and:any ideas o ve whi serve for the betterment of the City.�� `���� Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? ,,t, .. PsvW November 12.1999 I&CO►1MISSIOMCOMMAPPLNEM Signature: C` hr QTi g of Purlt-ugamle B. RLINGAME COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be registered voters of the City of Burlingame at the time of application. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010,• fax (650) 342-8386. Inquiries: (650) 6 7204. S 4I jr Name `�lt��is �{1 Address 111 Length of residence in Burlingame: 1— 5- V t- a -L Education 171_ S FOR CITY USE ONLY k C(T' Of 8 REINGAME BKIN GEFI'S Off ICE urlingame registered voter Copies to: CC, CM, INCUMBENT ❑ NEW APPLICANT Home phone: Occupation: E'- h 9 : " Work phone: 6 5-,�) _ 775-- �/ 3 7;7l On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission. First choice: Second choice: -> Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A ► Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -> Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -� planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers Senior _. .,yam..' . third Thursday, 1.-30 am, City Hall Conference Room A (Jfr-af c Safety & Parking,.) second Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. Special interests and hobbies. V)C � Owe rc ; r k r r Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? Revised May 28. 1999[D:\WPWIN60\Commission\COMMAPPL.98I / ` q�� Y Signature: C`�he (aitij of �urfiugamr COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clean . ✓ All applicants must be registered voters of the City of Burlingame at the time of application. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010,• fax (650) 342-8386. Inquiries: (650) &W7204. M Name /1/1 6ZZAl�I Address '? V I LT-n (.4- R - Length of residence in Burlingame: /9 yehles Education 2 Y/Ls AT 2G2.U9t1r0 SYWEE uNi(/- AIt t l-al'a FOR CITY USE ONLY wl4 OCT urlingame registered voter Copies to: CC, CM, Or INCUMBENT ❑ NEW APPLICANT fAx Home phone. 3 —2&1 3V 2 6//o 9R 77-S6b'8 Occupation: )2EA LIMA If Work phone: C p/'� �3Y60 On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission. First choice:—;�+����lG ShF�T'/g-PA49AI6 Second choice: -> Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A — Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -> Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -> Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -. planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers -> Senior ................ third Thursday, ` -:30 am, City Hall Conference Room A -> Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. AS S: ail. ��BoQ�ru,« sou�rj Special interests and hobbies. Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. tjMy Ti�9fiC/C /omnr—s S1aUl r9's ;W-Ai�SY/ c c 7o.✓Orc•�isQG�.cG�*ic AV�cGo .4/uU l,�/®r,�G� �rst� '� fl�l�d�rr'd�/�h✓�'����.��1/ss��s.o�i.✓G av �At�ar� �76�u�.ar�—'rH'�'�c.�;,N Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? Revised May 28, d999ID:\WMN60\Commission\COMMAPPL.981 Signature: The C1Sttg of ,P2urliugame COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print cl_ early. ✓ All applicants must be registered voters of the City of Burlingame at the time of application. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94M&, fax (650) 6. Inquiries: (650)IW7204. 55�•-`1at1 �` Name �c i.i �-- �r�-t, ✓� Address I( A a 0 A VJ� i2 I "CD e? r V2-D I Length of residence in Burlingame: A -a yV!�a , -t Education FOR CITY USE ONLY R 0 d L NO [ C!T`l flE BURLINGAME 2 �' �At�fER'S GFFlCE Burlingame registereg voter Copies to: CC, CM, 3.................................................................. INCUMBENT NEW APPLICANT Home phone: � ._ ' `"t` _-L- 0� 3 Occupation: 92�i Work phone: On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission. First choice:l� i1i—:!f�j G j-=: Second choice: :E --t— � � 0 VZ-., -> Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -> Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A — Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -> Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -> planning . . . ............ second and fourth Monday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers -> Senior ................ third Thursday, 9:30 am, City Hall Conference Room A Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. Special interests and hobbies. ti s&?g20 M 0 V—"' jei iAJ <::-:= l��-� 1 r Y Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. SDP ✓�- l��C.\ �! 7 i F�irC�'12-5 Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? N, 7 Revised September 10, 1998[D:\WPW1N60\Commissions\COMMAPPL.99I Signature: Carney, Jeanne 727 Winchester Drive Beautification 1 1-30-99 12-20-99 Coffey / Spinelli Nov 2001 Windsor, Carina 3155 Frontera Way #318 Beautification 11-30-99 12-20-99 Coffey / Spinelli Nov 2001 Dorothy Katz 1 110 Donnelly Ave #1 Beautification 9-26-00 n/a incumb reappt'd Sep 2002 Rick Malaspina 1537 Howard Ave Beautification 9-26-00 n/a incumb reappt'd Sep 2002 Ernst, Jay 1434 Capuchino Park & Rec 11-30-99 12-20-99 Janney /O'Mahony Nov 2001 Popin, Richard 760 Walnut Avenue Park & Rec 11-30-99 12-20-99 Janney / O'Mahony Nov 2001 Amstrup, Irving 2708 Trousdale Drive TSPC 1 1-30-99 12-28-99 Coffey /Galligan Nov 2001 Cottrell, Richard 1685 Hunt Drive TSPC 1 1-30-99 12-28-99 Coffey / Galligan Nov 2001 Root, John 1407 Montero Avenue TSPC 11-30-99 12-28-99 Coffey / Galligan Nov 2001 Grandcolas, Mark 1432 Alvarado Planning 12-27-99 1-19-00 Janney / Spinelli Dec 2001 Hinckle, David 1616 Sanchez Planning 12-27-99 1-19-00 Janney / Spinelli Dec 2001 Fuchs, Elaine 1 1 17 Hamilton Lane Library 6-13-00 10-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan Oct 2002 Hipps, Carolyn 1649 Balboa Way Library 6-13-00 10-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan Oct 2002 Appt'd to Commission Wentworth, Gerard 516 Burlingame Avenue Civil Service 1-4-00 Galligan / Spinelli 2-7-00, waived Gurthet, Andrew 1452 Floribunda Ave #203 Library 6-13-00 12-12-00 O'Mahony / Galligan appt'd 10-16-00 Revised 10/13/00 [C:\WPWIN60\Commission\commissioner-mailing-list.wpd] il AGENDA ITEM # &a MEETING DATE: 1 1 -6 00 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: October 13, 2000 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Budget Amendment --Police Air Condifici ing and Ergonomic Furniture RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the attached Resolution transferring $84,000 from the adopted 2000-2001 Capital Projects Budget to the Police Department for replacement of HVAC equipment ($34,000) and the second half of ergonomic furniture upgrades ($50,000). BACKGROUND Recently the air conditioning equipment at the Police Station failed. A replacement of the air-cooled condensing unit is necessary at a cost of $33,746. These funds have not been budgeted and the work needs to be done this year. Additionally, due to a budget oversight the second half ($50,000) of the ergonomic furniture replacements which began in 1999-2000 was not included in the 2000- 2001 budget. In order to cover both of these items this budget year it is recommended that $84,000 from the San Francisco Right -of -Way Acquisition capital project be transferred. Dennis Argyres City Manager Attachment CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT Capital Projects DATE: 10-13-00 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION 320 79020 010 $84,000 SF PUC Right of Way Acquisition 320 78330 010 $34,000 Police Bldg./Comm- Ctr. Improvements TO: 320 79580 1 010 $50,000 Police Station Ergonomics Justification (Attach Memo if Necessary) See attached staff report DEPARTMENT HEAD BY: DATE: 2.❑ COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Remarks: ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED FINANCE DIRECTOR BYDATE 3. QAPPROVE AS REQUESTED Remarks: nAPPROVE AS REVISED []DISAPPROVE CITY MANAGER BY: DATE: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation, Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYOR I, ANN T.MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK Service Unlimited Inc. Heating & Air Conditioning 650-654-2630 fax 650-654-2631 License # 456636 Burlingame Police Department Attention: Commander Tom Mariscolo I I I I Trousdale Drive Burlingame Ca. 94010 1300 Industrial rd. Unit #9 San Carlos CA. 94070 Regarding Replacement of air-cooled condensing unit. Commander Mariscolo, September 21, 2000 As we have discussed in the past your HVAC equipment is starting to age especially the main component of your system which is the condensing unit. This unit is the major source of cooling for the entire building. We some months ago located a leak in the evaporator coil of the system, which cannot be repaired without a complete shut down of building. Also the outdoor condenser coil for the condensing unit is corroded due to age and usage. Also as you know we have always had problems with the compressors in the condensing unit. Taking all these factors into consideration we recommend that the condensing'unit be replaced and the refrigerant leak on the evaporator coil be repaired. We are under the understanding that due to the constant need for cooling in your facility all of this work will need to be done on the weekend. What we propose to do is recover refrigerant starting Friday evening at dusk, lift equipment on Saturday, pipe new unit, cut open cabinet to get to evaporator, repair leak on evaporator, pipe new unit, start- up equipment, and have operating by Sunday night/Monday morning. If all goes according to plan this will be completed as expected, but in the event of problems beyond our control we will do our best to get equipment running as quickly as possible. We can do all of the above -described work for a cost of $33,746.02. This includes all materials, taxes, labor (including overtime), and 1 year warranty needed to complete project. When I checked with distributor the unit would be available towards the end of October, as soon as order is placed we can receive a more definite ship date. What we would also like to do is instead of trying to schedule a shut down date in advance we would like to get unit on site to make sure it is ready and no damage has occurred to it. And at that time we will schedule shut down. If you have any questions or would like us to order equipment please call. Thank you, Dennis Imfeld To: Dennis Argyres, City Manager From: Commander Tom Marriscolo, Police Department Date: October 13, 2000 Re: Transfer of Funds for Ergonomic Furniture Purchase During the 1999-2000 Budget cycle you agreed to allocate $100,000 for the ergonomic updating of the furniture at the Police Department. The sum of $50,000 was to be allocated in the 1999-2000 budget and $50,000 in the 2000-2001 budget. Upon reviewing the accepted budget for 2000-2001 I noticed that we had not requested the $50,000 for the second part of this capital outlay project. I request that we by resolution from the council the additional funds needed ($50,000) to complete this project. At the present time we have completed about 25% of this project which included the updating of the furniture in the Investigative Division and are now entering phase two, which included the updating of the furniture in the Patrol Sergeant's Office. The project is designed to be completed in four phases over the two year period. A "N WL% BURLINGAMI- STAFF REPORT .i TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 27, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBMITTED BY �L BY AGENDA ITEM # 8b MTG. 1 /6/00 DATE SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS - TYREE ORGANIZATION LTD. - LOWER DECK, LANDFILL CLOSURE, PHASE III, CP 9117(2) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting Lower Deck, Landfill Closure, Phase III Improvements in the amount of $876,320.65. BACKGROUND: On May 17, 1999, Council authorized a contract in the amount of $665,700 for the Lower Deck Landfill Closure, Phase III work. On August 16, 1999, Council authorized a contingency increase from 15 % to 25 % for a total contract price of $832,100. Increases have included erosion control facilities for winter 1999, additional drainage facilities, and additional debris and excess clay removal. Work on the project was completed in late 1999. However, the contractor took many months in supplying the survey and backup data required to compute final quantities. Based on this information, staff negotiated a final total of $876,320.65 which is $210,620 above the original contract. While final quantities have been agreed upon, the contractor has reserved the right to pursue staff's denial of a claim of $73,000 for overhead costs for project delays. This claim was denied by staff as it was filed after the work was completed and not within contract time limits. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Final Quantity Spreadsheet BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds allocated for this work in Account No. 320-71170 to cover final uavment. c: City Clerk Tyree Organization, Ltd. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9117-2 Acceptancempd RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENT - LOWER DECK, LANDFILL CLOSURE, PHASE III CITY PROJECT NO. 9117(2) RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by TYREE ORGANIZATION, LTD., under the terms of its contract with the City dated MAY 17, 1999, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 9117(2). 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\PROJECTS\RESOLUTN.ACC.wpd CONTRACTOR: Tyree Organization ADDRESS: 15939 Piuma Ave Cerritos, CA 90703 TELEPHONE ( 510) 259-7121 CITY OF BURLINGAME PROGRESS PMT. #_7_Final Quantities CONTRACT: Burlingame Phase 111 Landfill Closure CITY PROJECT NO. 9117-2 Date: Aug. 29, 200 For : Final Quantities P.O. #_11781_ UNIT PRICE UNIT SIZE BID QUANTIT BID QUANTITY TO DATE %AGE AMOUNT TO DATE PREVIOUS PAID AMOUNT THIS PERIOD 1 Mobilization/Demobil $60,288.00 LS 1 $60,288.00 1 100%- $60,288.00 $60,288.00 $0.00 2 Site Clearing $26,590.00 LS 1 $26,590.00 1 100k $26,590.00 $26,590.00 $0.00 3 Test Fill $7,277.00 LS 1 $7,277.00 1 100% $7,277.00 $7,277.00 $0.00 4 Subgrade Preperation/ Regrading a. Excavate (cut) $3.86 C.Y. 7130 $27,521.80 9444 100% $36,453.84 $27,537.24 $8,916.60 b. Dispose of refus $31.55 C.Y. 1000 $31,550.00 1049 100% $33,095.95 $34,484.15 ($1,388.20) c. Reuse on -site (f $5.95 C.Y. 1500 $8,925.00 2966 1009. $17,647.70 $7,723.10 $9,924.60 d. Dispose of Misce $15.15 C.Y. 4630 $70,144.50 5790 100$ $87,718.50 $62,948.25 $24,770.25 e. Remove and dispol $40.00 C.Y. 35 $1,400.00 0 100%- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5 Installation of Clay Layer a. Dry On -site Clay $14,719.00 LS 1 $14,719.00 1.13 100k $16,632.47 $14,719.00 $1,913.47 b. Place dried On-s $4.98 C.Y. 4530 $22,559.40 5133 100k $25,562.34 $20,418.00 $5,144.34 6 Install Geosynthetic $0.67 S.F. 38000 $25,460.00 38000 100%- $25,460.00 $25,460.00 $0.00 7 Install Geotextile Fabric a. Infield fabric $0.18 S.F. 48000 $8,640.00 48000 100% $8,640.00 $8,640.00 $0.00 b. Stabilization Fab $0.08 S.F. 89700 $7,176.00 89700 100% $7,176.00 $7,176.00 $0.00 8 Place Drainage Grave $43.36 C.Y. 1950 $84,552.00 1918 100%- $83,164.48 $860633.28 ($3,468.80) 9 Place Drainage Sand $26.41 C.Y. 2100 $55,461.00 2077 100% $54,853.57 $57,151.24 ($2,297.67) 10 Place Selcet Fill $26.98 C.Y. 500 $13,490.00 1221 100% $32,942.58 $26,980.00 $5,962.58 11 Place infield Mix $94.85 C.Y. 600 $56,910.00 496 100% $47,045.60 $52,167.50 ($5,121.90) 12 Place Aggregrate Bas $32.79 C.Y. 1250 $40,987.50 1785 100t $58,530.15 $61,907.52 ($3,377.37) 13 Place Decomposed Gra $48.57 C.Y. 150 $7,285.50 0 100%- $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 14 compact soil Under F $2.00 L.F. 320 $640.00 0 100k $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 15 Drainage system, etal a. Subdrain pipe, 4 $8.96 L.F. 3500 $31,360.00 3500 100% $31,360.00 $31,360.00 $0.00 b. Subdrain pipe, 8" $17.00 L.F. 350 $5,950.00 550 100%- $9,350.00 $9,350.00 $0.00 c. Subdrain pipe, 1 $19.00 L.F. 40 $760.00 40 100k $760.00 $760.00 $0.00 16 Furnish & Install St $1,713.00 EA 1 $1,713.00 2 100% $3,426.00 $3,426.00 $0.00 17 Furnish & Install Stormdrain Cleanouts a. Type 1 $329.00 EA 6 $1,974.00 6 10016 $1,974.00 $1,974.00 $0.00 b. Type 2 $167.00 EA 6 $1,002.00 6 100%- $1,002.00 $1,002.00 $0.00 c. Type 3 $343.00 EA 6 $2,058.00 6 100% $2,058.00 $2,058.00 $0.00 18 Reset (e) MHs & CBs $100.00 EA 13 $1,300.00 13 100% $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $0.00 19 Reset LFG Valves in $346.00 EA 5 $1,730.00 5 100% $1,730.00 $1,730.00 $0.00 9117_2 Tryee Org_pmt7.xis Page 1 20 Site Fencing a. Remove.& dispos b. Furnish & Instal 21 Test fill for one bo 22 Dry & place borrow c 23 Reuse Disposal/Vasco $311.00 $3,732.00 $6,972.00 $32.52 $37.98 LS LS LS C.Y. Ton 1 $311.00 1 $3,732.00 1 $6,972.00 500 $16,260.00 500 $18,990.00 SUBTOTAL ########### CHANGE ORDERS C.C.O.# 1- HDPE pipe ($8,316.00) LS 1 ($8,316.00) C.C.O.#2 -Install re $5,991.00 LS 1 $5,991.00 C.C.O.#10-Dispose of $13,544.00 LS 1 $13,544.00 C.C.O.#11 -Screen Mi $2.90 CY 5130 $14,877.00 C.C.O.#12 -LFG boxes $1,271.00 LS 1 $1,271.00 C.C.O.#13 -Expose 16 $2,445.00 LS 1 $2,445.00 C.C.O.# -14-Addition $4,984.00 LS 1 $4,984.00 C.C.O.# -29-HC Trenc $3,862.00 LS 1 $3,862.00 CCO# 29 paid twice, see below, deduct taken on Pmt. #7 C.C.O.#-17-Substitu ($169.00) LS 1 ($169.00) C.C.O.# -20-Sampling $12,984.00 LS 1 $12,984.00 C.C.O.# -21-Dispose $49.98 Ton 150 $7,497.00 C.C.O.# -23-Extend L $5,637.00 LS 1 $5,637.00 C.C.O.# -24a-Dispose $307.23 Ton 47 $14,439.81 1 1 0 0 100 1 0.3118 1 6031 1 1 1 0 1 1 45 1 47 look look look look look look look look loot look loot 100% look loot look 100%; 100%; look $311.00 $311.00 $3,732.00 $3,732.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $686,081.18 $645,103.28 ($8,316.00) ($8,316.00 $1,867.99 $4,193.70 $13,544.00 $13,544.00 $17,489.90 $15,497.60 $1,271.00 $1,271.00 $2,445.00 $2,445.00 $4,984.00 $4,984.00 $0.00 $3,862.00 ($169.00) ($169.00 $12,984.00 $12,984.00 $2,249.10 $2,249.10 $5,637.00 $5,637.00 $14,439.81 $14,439.81 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $40,977.90 $0.00 ($2,325.71) $0.00 $1,992.30 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ($3,862.00) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 M 9117_2 Tryee 0rg_pmt7.x1s Page 2 a 0 J T L n y 7 J A L ADD C.C.O.# -24b-Dispose $246.56 Lds 380 $93,692.80 380 ADD C.C.O.#-26-Winteriz $27,803.00 LS 1 $27,803.00 1 ADD C.C.O.# -29-Thrust B $3,862.00 LS 1 $3,862.00 1 ADD C.C.O•.# -30-Revise i $4,083.74 LS 1 $4,083.74 1 ADD C.C.O.# -32-Lower va $657.00 LS 1 $657.00 1 ADD C.C.O.#-31-Overexec $6,082.00 LS 1 $6,082.00 1 ADD C.C.O.#33-Relaign LF $2,903.00 LS 1 $2,903.00 1 ADD C.C.O.#38-Add 4" SB, $1,000.00 LS 1 $1,000.00 1 ADD C.C.O.# $0.00 0 ########### 100% $93,692.80 $93,692.80 $0.00 100% $27,803.00 $25,022.70 $2,780.30 100% $3,862.00 $3,862.00 $0.00 100k $4,083.74 $4,083.74 $0.00 look $657.00 $591.30 $65.70 100. $6,082.00 $6,082.00 $0.00 100%- $2,903.00 $2,903.00 $0.00 100%- $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 $208,510.34 1$209,859.75 1 ($1,349.41) SUBTOTAL *** ########### ********** **** $894,591.52 PREPARED BY: LESS FIVE PERCENT RETENTION *REDUCED PM ($44,729.58) LESS DEDUCTS FOR STOP NOT ********** **** ($55,500.00) LESS: For late cert. payr *************** $0.00 CHECKED BY: +++*+ +++***+ +++++++*+++ +*++++++++ *+++ SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIO ********** **** $794,361.94 APPROVED BY DEDUCTIONS FROM CONTRACTO ********** **** ($18,270.87) CITY ENGINEER: +*+*+ *+*+++* ++++++*++** + +++*++ ++++ APPROVED BY TOTAL PAYMENT THIS PERIOD ** ******** 776 091.07. CONSULTANT: Contractor accepts final quantities and reserves all rights to file any claims it may have. Notes- Pmt. 0 2, 10k deduct/certified payroll problem $56,466.88 (removed Pmt. 4) Pmt.#3, Deductions from contractor for phone use. $650.41 Pmt.#4, Added $10.000 deduction certified payrolls. (Removed pmt 5) Pmt.#4. Deduct for telephone and lab backcharges. $2,266.46 Pmt.04. Deduct for STOP NOTICES filed against this project. Pmt #S Deduct for Goodland'a Rework of the outfield (Est. only $10,000.00) amount revised to $10, $00 on pnt. #7 tle, $854,963.03 $39,628.49 ($42,748.15) ($1,981.43) ($55,500.00) $0.00 $756,714.88 $37,647.06 ($12,916.87) ($5,354.00) Date Tyree jdpgar44tion Pmt #5 Deduct for Stop Notice to Rogers Trucking Company $55,S00.00 Pmt 06 Deduction to correct error in outfield limits, $10,806.00. Pmt 07 Deduct for G.C.L. adjustment a Ballfield $4,548.00. Pmt 07 Reversing entry on CCO #29 that was paid in two locations, see above S:\\\\public\Apublicworks\9117_2tyree. ZZI-X14L la�v�T�Ti�L e OQA CO/ 9117_2 Tryee Org_pmt7,xis �j / W 4ri 2 70, 8 Page 3 AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# 8C MTG. 1 1 /6/00 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED Z6��' -- ,- - - -1-1 DATE: October 26, 2000 BY FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A WOODEN FENCE AT THE REAR EASEMENT OF 1359 COLUMBUS AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Special Encroachment Permit for a wooden fence in accordance with the attached drawing and picture with the following conditions: • The applicant will assume all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the fence. • The installation shall upon request of the City be immediately removed by the permittee at his expense whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work is required in the public right-of-way. BACKGROUND: The applicant is applying for a permit to build a fence around an existing tree. Staff has reviewed this application and visited the site. The fence is five feet in height and encroaches eighteen inches into a City sewer easement. Staff has visited the site and has found no utility conflicts. Therefore, staff recommends approval if the above conditions are met. EXHIBITS: Application, Special Encroachment Permit, Drawing, Pictures Donald C. Chang, P. Senior Civil Engineer S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\1359 columbos avcnue.wpd SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION A.P. No. 02-7- /.T,F — Ot o Address of Proposed Encroachment 1359 Cc hlyn{TUS Lot No. Block No. O Subdivision 9JTo,.( J9jow,(r o-Y # Applicant,/. Pe l t k- im i s -el n Phone � 0 Address 1- �2� &K, Best Time to Call Property Owner j SLY f 1 E- Phone Address Best Time to Call Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicable) Ice // - qq y 9 2 f1- g9t, li J % /\ ip'c Vt LG 1 b � N C BLS 1 .-� C yrSQ .n _e v - 1 Give Reasons for Request o� ►i S2•-opc r 4-\ L�, N E v Date ID- �5 _00 Signed P ��� Property Owner(s) ATTACH plans or drawings to show the dimensions, locations and heights of the encroachment. PLEASE CALL (650) 558-7230 FOR INSPECTION. Below This Line is for City Use Only Security Bond $300 (Refundable) Fee: ($25 will be refunded if the application is denied) Additional Bond $50 Non Permanent, No Council Action _ (The bond or cash deposit will be $75 Permanent, Council Action _ returned after construction is finished) Fee & Bond Paid: In addition, a $100 penalty fee will be added if work is completed without a permit. Inspected By: Initials Date Department By Date Department By Date ❑ Parks ❑ Planning ❑- Water ❑ Sewer ❑ Engineering ❑ Others Date Council Approved Record No. Authorization Date sent to City Clerk Date Record Copy to Owner REF: EFFECTIVE 9/5/00, CHAPTER 12.10 CITY CODE SAAPubkWorksDirectory\FORMSWeneralOfficeForms\ENCRSPCL.APP WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 10-8-00 (Date) TO OWNER: J. Peter & Janice Scattini 1359 Columbus Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 In compliance with your request of 10-8-00 and subject to all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted for a wooden fence at the rear easement of 1359 Columbus Avenue. The fence is five feet in height and encroaches eighteen inches into a City sewer easement. The applicant will assume all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the fence. The installation shall upon request of the City be immediately removed by the permittee at his expense whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work is required in the public right-of-way. AT 1359 Columbus Avenue Lot 11. Block No. 60, Subdivision Easton Addition #7 Assessor's Parcel No. 027-153-060 . General Provisions 1. Definition: Revocability. The term "encroachment" is used in this permit to mean any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, under, or over, any portion of the right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice. 1 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2. Acceptance of provisions. It is understood and agreed by the permittee that the doing of any work under this permit shall constitute an acceptance of the provisions. 3. No precedent established. This permit is granted with the understanding that this action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent on the question of the expediency of permitting any certain kind of encroachment to be erected within rights -of -way of the City of Burlingame. 4. Notice prior to starting work. Before starting work on which an inspection is required, or whenever stated on the face of this permit, the permittee shall notify the Director of Public Works or other designated employee of the City. Such notice shall be given at least three (3) days in advance of the date work is to begin. 5. Permit on premises. This permit shall be kept at the site of the work and must be shown to any representative of the City, or any law enforcement officer on demand. 6. Protection of traffic. Adequate provision shall be made for the protection of the public. All work shall be planned and carried out so that there will be the least possible inconvenience to the public. 7. Storage of material. No material shall be stored on the City right-of-way. 8. Clean up. Upon completion of the work, all brush, timber, scrap and material shall be entirely removed and the right-of-way left in as presentable a condition as before work started. 9. Standards of construction. All work shall conform to recognized standards of construction. 10. Supervision of city. All the work shall be done subject to the supervision of, and to the satisfaction of the City. 11. Future moving of installation. It is understood by the permittee that whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work on the right-of-way may require, the installation provided for herein shall, upon request of the City, be immediately removed by and at the sole 2 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT expense of the permittee. 12. Liability for damages. The permittee is responsible for all liability for personal injury or property damage which may arise out of work herein permitted, or which may arise out of failure on the permittee's part to perform his obligations under this permit in respect to maintenance. In the event any claim of such liability is made against the City, or any department, officer, or employee thereof, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold them, and each of them, harmless from such claim. 13. Care of drainage. If the work herein contemplated shall interfere with the established drainage, ample provision shall be made by the permittee to provide for it as may be directed by City. 14. Location plan. Upon completion of the work under this permit, the permittee shall furnish a plan to the City showing location in detail. 15. Maintenance. The permittee agrees, by the acceptance of this permit, to exercise reasonable care to maintain properly an encroachment placed by it in the City right-of-way, and to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and immediately repairing and making good any injury to any portion of the right-of-way which occurs as a result of the maintenance of the encroachment in the right-of-way, or as a result of work done under this permit, including any and all injury to the right-of-way which would not have occurred had such work not been done or such encroachment not placed therein. Maintenance shall include any damage that may be caused by roots of City trees. 16. Commencement of work. This permit shall be void unless the work herein contemplated shall have been completed before 1/31/2001. 17. Recording. This permit shall be recorded by the City Clerk with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo. 3 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 18. This permit shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 19. Sketch. See attached. CITY OF BURLINGAME OWNERS U111A Syed Murtuza, P.E., City Engineer ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney OBTAIN NOTARIZATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) On before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature NOTARY PUBLIC 4 R VE FoC+- r-C V\C-E orJC twjt- LsAT-itE � SEr-,cw i 13 S-� 1---Ssq AV L- -21G4 n I eS t�l�-n r -ems •�YOq ;kfOS- Wvo/ 0 4 b� JO' -so' t -70' L9.N. /07. S-4 0 T ; 337 r �. 101 rro VJw� 0 1 � 61 z' 3 3 H t.,., Arm. i/j 10 Z �i 0-Aa. C /oo LH /00' zYo� 21vo ly zv00 la 14 13 y a 0 t• r h r i. �♦ �C S',W,w t �11 Z y0 ro, so' to' ffoI fo' DRIVE ?31--.- z 30 y 2 jUS H 1 2 3 4 Ab* �. 2301 ah S'D' JO' t+' '[ 34 F .9L. 6 s o 13YO/36 o 29 T C o is • n C� y 133Z "_136s' _ o ZT 9 N 1328 `/ _ _ 1 3 b / 24 10 FL 93,39i LH 96.99 I LH 97 17 o to 1 i l3sy • 24 r©' i! 1 316 1 35'7 .r. I �D' 1 SO' 1 2.26X M.N. W.de— l 36y 40 o it S6 a• 1 3S-,-- 13 13► 13 1 3s3 1 308 it 13Y9 Z M. H:/O 4. 9,9 M r/ /o4.77 L. l7IL /pp• s L re 40' 3 ys- D 20 4 -19-� C `21\ 16 .. 1323 C y z 3 1 2w 4ISAm .• M vAU2A o � F. t 9T. Os• L.+ �a o 130l IT 1 3 Ste_ 34 13Y6 � 3Yo -- 34 3313 � ss �3 3 Y r 3zs it 1376 150 132z 2! r3L6— — - J3tJRUNGAME STAFF REPORT To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 26, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY AGENDA ITEM # 8d MTG. 1 1 /A /()n SUBJECT: SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A BRICK RETAINING WALL AT THE BACK OF SIDEWALK AT 1329 CABRILLO AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Special Encroachment Permit for a brick retaining wall in accordance with the attached drawing and pictures with the following conditions: • The applicant will assume all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the wall. • The installation shall upon request of the City be immediately removed by the permittee at his expense whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work is required in the public right-of-way. BACKGROUND: The applicant is applying for a permit to build a brick retaining wall at the back of the sidewalk. This wall is a replacement of an existing wooden retaining wall and will range in height from 1/2 inch to two feet, encroaching three feet into the City's right-of-way. Staff has visited the site and has found no utility conflicts. Therefore, staff recommends approval if the above conditions are met. EXHIBITS: Application, Special Encroachment Permit, Drawing, Pictures Donald C. Chang, P. E. Senior Civil Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\.Staff Reports\1329CABRILL0.wpd SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION A.P. No. Address of Proposed Encroachment 13 2-9 C11ADK I I I te e- t 60 r � e ✓1g a 111l t t Lot No. � Block No, tt� ;' Subdivision �' S$on Applicant ��lYl (��� ��(YIQ-►� U}-Zj f'�l> Phone C) `i Co Addresst� �" I (I (- �` ��� 11 u`e Best Time to Call�l C t f i Lf- -Property Owner .i lei �� ✓C� ! C �� C�! i 76L Ci ('(-Phone ') Address S� l n� `� Best Time to Call Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicable) , f b r' J Give Reasons for Request I-, f dCi�'� Date iL Signed 112 L / t c" Property Owner(s) ATTACH plans or drawings to show the dimensions, locations and heights of the encroachment. PLEASE CALL (650) 558-7230 FOR INSPECTION. Below This Line is for City Use Only Security Bond $300 (Refundable) Fee: ($25 will be refunded if the application is denied) Additional Bond $50 Non Permanent, No Council Action (The bond or cash deposit will be $75 Permanent, Council Action returned after construction is finished) Fee &Bond Paid: In addition, a $100 penalty fee will be added if work is completed without a permit. Inspected By: Initials Date Department By Date Department By Date ❑ Parks " ❑ Planning DWater ❑ Sewer Engineering ❑ Others Authorization Date Council Approved Date sent to City Clerk Record No. Date Record Copy to Owner REF: EFFECTIVE 9/5/00, CHAPTER 12.10 CITY CODE SAAPublicWorksDirectory\FORMS\General Office Forms\ENCRSPCL.APP WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 10-18-00 (Date) TO OWNER: Sandra & Peter Comaroto 1329 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 In compliance with your request of 10-18-00 and subject to all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted for a brick retaining wall at the back of the sidewalk at 1329 Cabrillo Avenue The wall will range in height from I/2 inch to two feet encroachini4 three feet into the Ci 's right-of-way. The applicant will assume all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the fence. The installation shall upon request of the City be immediately removed by the nermittee at his expense whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work is required in the public right-of-way. AT 1329 Cabrillo Avenue Lot 10 Block No. 42 Subdivision Easton Addition #3 Assessor's Parcel No. 026-062-020 . General Provisions 1. Definition: Revocability. The term "encroachment" is used in this permit to mean any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, under, or over, any portion of the right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice. 1 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2. Acceptance of provisions. It is understood and agreed by the permittee that the doing of any work under this permit shall constitute an acceptance of the provisions. 3. No precedent established. This permit is granted with the understanding that this action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent on the question of the expediency of permitting any certain kind of encroachment to be erected within rights -of -way of the City of Burlingame. 4. Notice prior to starting work. Before starting work on which an inspection is required, or whenever stated on the face of this permit, the permittee shall notify the Director of Public Works or other designated employee of the City. Such notice shall be given at least three (3) days in advance of the date work is to begin. 5. Permit on premises. This permit shall be kept at the site of the work and must be shown to any representative of the City, or any law enforcement officer on demand. 6. Protection of traffic. Adequate provision shall be made for the protection of the public. All work shall be planned and carried out so that there will be the least possible inconvenience to the public. 7. Storage of material. No material shall be stored on the City right-of-way. 8. Clean up. Upon completion of the work, all brush, timber, scrap and material shall be entirely removed and the right-of-way left in as presentable a condition as before work started. 9. Standards of construction. All work shall conform to recognized standards of construction. 10. Supervision of city. All the work shall be done subject to the supervision of, and to the satisfaction of the City. 11. Future moving of installation. It is understood by the permittee that whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work on the right-of-way may require, the installation provided for herein shall, upon request of the City, be immediately removed by and at the sole N ENCROACHMENT PERMIT expense of the permittee. 12. Liability for damages. The permittee is responsible for all liability for personal injury or property damage which may arise out of work herein permitted, or which may arise out of failure on the permittee's part to perform his obligations under this permit in respect to maintenance. In the event any claim of such liability is made against the City, or any department, officer, or employee thereof, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold them, and each of them, harmless from such claim. 13. Care of drainage. If the work herein contemplated shall interfere with the established drainage, ample provision shall be made by the permittee to provide for it as may be directed by City. 14. Location plan. Upon completion of the work under this permit, the permittee shall furnish a plan to the City showing location in detail. 15. Maintenance. The permittee agrees, by the acceptance of this permit, to exercise reasonable care to maintain properly an encroachment placed by it in the City right-of-way, and to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and immediately repairing and making good any injury to any portion of the right-of-way which occurs as a result of the maintenance of the encroachment in the right-of-way, or as a result of work done under this permit, including any and all injury to the right-of-way which would not have occurred had such work not been done or such encroachment not placed therein. Maintenance shall include any damage that may be caused by roots of City trees. 16. Commencement of work. This permit shall be void unless the work herein contemplated shall have been completed before 1/31/2001. 17. Recording. This permit shall be recorded by the City Clerk with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo. 3 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 18. This permit shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 19. Sketch. See attached. CITY OF BURLINGAME I0 Syed Murtuza, P.E., City Engineer ATTEST: City Clerk OBTAIN NOTARIZATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) OWNERS Approved as to form: City Attorney On before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature NOTARY PUBLIC 4 n Q� . ..i...*:\\\\ NN Xx N.W v \NN \ \\� ` ` `\ f? 5Al I , __ _Zle AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT .,1 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 31, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBMITTED BY ED ITEM # 8e MTG. 1 1 /6/00 DATE r� SUBJECT: SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A WOOD FENCE WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 113 LOMA VISTA RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve this Special Encroachment Permit application with the following conditions: • The fence height shall be limited to a maximum of six feet. • The material of the fence shall be wood to be consistent with the neighborhood. • The applicant shall assume all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the fence. • The installation shall upon request of the City be immediately removed by the permittee at his expense whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work is required in the public right-of-way. • No permanent structures shall be built in the City right-of-way. BACKGROUND: The applicant is applying for a permit to build a- six-foot high fence fronting Skyline Boulevard encroaching fifteen feet into the City right-of-way. There are currently two Special Encroachment Permits existing on this block with encroachments of fifteen feet into the City's right-of-way. Staff has visited the site and has found no utility conflicts. EXHIBITS: Application, Special Encroachment Permit, Drawing, Pictures, Applicants Letter 2;9 Syed Murtuza, P. E. City Engineer s/apwdirectory/staffreports/ 1131omavista IROACIE14ENT PERMIT APPLICATION JUN 1 2000 C�r�.; ;,w.,.. 1,�nit3 A.P. No. o21-oSt-©40 �.. 4 Address of Proposed`' ric' `o�a`�hment�-:Y7 / � tp,�ING� 5 Lot No. �_ Block No. WA Subdivision G1lC�� ,� Ah mor Applicant fAd20 L 4r-l(c'C-'r tt, ESl Mn Phone 6��3�ig"S 3S Address A -au } U/ �51Pr- f oz Best Time to Call 2 L15#� Owner jj)orrw 1:41 Phone 6 SO 3` o —/ 6 8,1 Address Best Time to Call Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicable) S S Ic4t-I- I &l E Ii(11?14 I CGcl Gy d O D OR 5 % O AV F, F-E d/ G� /1'11�j( �y hF / 6 y Give Reasons for Request WE- A7PF, AAW te-espoijS/ B4-£ r—a2 71-f-6 N - T7+U5j we, (cT6N,,L.p /_1 E K �0 6A) J ate S- 3 /— d D Signed S /�/a-C, A W �L L- � f � NOTE: This application for a Special Permit is to determine conditions of additional City Encroachment Permit fee and bond is required for any cons of activity requiring additional inspection services. Y .0 /Alf_ 8l-V D, Yo only. An n or other .v: r.?.v,.}`.:�(i. ::::...-.-:.:.. ..:.v...:.v,:?::.:,.4}: r.: v,,.r,..., :. ♦ .,}. .�Y.. •.:v: :?•. ::.. �.. ..; F.. :: :yy: ?ri:f.j'�' �}:?-iY.!: 'r.:?:!: ":qy v ?Y%{•+{\. }'. t.Yi:: :-: .vrr- }h..r4:4=:: ,. .. ;:; ..}n;:x .- ... : •: ..: ::::.. .:. .:.v }ryr :..:.. .f.},;:-::.??i:^ � •i}};:i:::LC:??r::??..•::: .::.v. n::::: -ox;4... 7 ,. •..!:}:5. ,:.}k;i(?.:}:.. ...{..:.?o; r}: � . 'i:}:: ...�l�:Y. � .:.}R.. � r�` :rht r;k;'.;. ..: s.. . •.� �}}. ... .,...::r:.;•3:?d •:.... i... .ice .m... .j�. ;••x... ;r �• :4 :• :'•'x.. ..Y •: ....... Y.: ^::. n: \•.vvf.•: r.v: x: .. n,•: •: Y...... �..L.. M.��4. ��... ^. � . '..•l.O. � 'r ��: S4 1 :xY rr. n.A,.... r.. r... r. ? y� j., .•. •.. ...«.vwm,.•:r: r.•rx..o:r :... •:: •:??r ..,.,.-•:: ,-}:.�}.,•.�.?.:.v,• •:: :: x?•}i'i::.-x,.. r.. r..... ... r r....: ...... �44�%:• >:. .. .ca?:^:???.:dff}}•w��'i::::::::::::::::::%:�:::5:::::r:�}...w.rvwxxA.xnv.V+p.1.n'vvQx.:S.:Gxr.nw.,JYrrx}r�:v.S::.vvbv.. aa 4; v:.vr rr i�-}r.. v: :: �:r �y?'r'rf .../.• ..$r: i•:t,`•.\`:: ... .r.•.V.v�•$:: Mv: M}::'}:?J.•h'ii v..:.... i}'i}:: ii:4 ••:wrri �m•::..4Ywthff xM1N?Y: •:.): y: •...v...... .:: rw:.: �::: Rl/R2 Residential Fee: Commercial, Multi -Family, Other, Fee: $10 Paid $25 Non Permanent, No Council Action Initials Date $50 Permanent, Council Action Fee Paid: Reviewed By: Department; By Date ❑ Parks I ❑ Water ❑ Sewer ❑ Fire I Date Memo to Mgr. Date Council. Accepted Date Permit sent to owner Date owner signed Initials Date Department By ; Date ❑ Plannina ❑ Building ' i ❑ Engineeringi Date sent to City Date of Recording Record No. Date Record Copy Clerk to Owner REF: ORDINANCE 1053 EFFECTIVE 1/1/76, CHAPTER 12.10 CITY CODE FILE: 1":IWP51\FILESIFORMSIENCRSPCL.APP WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 10-31-00 (Date) TO OWNER: Carol & Akira A. Eejima 113 Loma Vista Burlingame, CA 94010 In compliance with your request of 5-31-00 and subject to all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted for a wood fence within the City's right- of-way at 113 Loma Vista The fence height shall be limited to a maximum of six feet. The material of the fence shall be wood to be consistent with the neighborhood. The applicant shall assume all maintenance responsibilities and liability for the fence. The installation shall upon request of the City be immediately removed by the permittee at his expense whenever construction reconstruction or maintenance work is required in the public right-of-way. No permanent structures shall be built in the City right-of-way. AT 113 Loma Vista Lot 39 Subdivision Skyline Manor Assessor's Parcel No. 027-051-040 . General Provisions 1. Definition; Revocability. The term "encroachment" is used in this permit to mean any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, under, or over, any portion of the right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice. s 1 i ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2. Acceptance of provisions. It is understood and agreed by the permittee that the doing of any work under this permit shall constitute an acceptance of the provisions. 3. No precedent established. This permit is granted with the understanding that this action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent on the question of the expediency of permitting any certain kind of encroachment to be erected within rights -of -way of the City of Burlingame. 4. Notice prior to starting work. Before starting work on which an inspection is required, or whenever stated on the face of this permit, the permittee shall notify the Director of Public Works or other designated employee of the City. Such notice shall be given at least three (3) days in advance of the date work is to begin. 5. Permit on premises. This permit shall be kept at the site of the work and must be shown to any representative of the City, or any law enforcement officer on demand. 6. Protection of traffic. Adequate provision shall be made for the protection of the public. All work shall be planned and carried out so that there will be the least possible inconvenience to the public. 7. Storage of material. No material shall be stored on the City right-of-way. 8. Clean up. Upon completion of the work, all brush, timber, scrap and material shall be entirely removed and the right-of-way left in as presentable a condition as before work started. 9. Standards of construction. All work shall conform to recognized standards of construction. 10. Supervision of city. All the work shall be done subject to the supervision of, and to the satisfaction of the City. 11. Future moving of installation. It is understood by the permittee that whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work on the right-of-way may require, the installation provided for herein shall, upon request of the City, be immediately removed by and at the sole ENCROACHMENT PERMIT expense of the permittee. 12. Liability for damages. The permittee is responsible for all liability for personal injury or property damage which may arise out of work herein permitted, or which may arise out of failure on the permittee's part to perform his obligations under this permit in respect to maintenance. In the event any claim of such liability is made against the City, or any department, officer, or employee thereof, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold them, and each of them, harmless from such claim. 13. Care of drainage If the work herein contemplated shall interfere with the established drainage, ample provision shall be made by the permittee to provide for it as may be directed by City. 14. Location plan. Upon completion of the work under this permit, the permittee shall furnish a plan to the City showing location in detail. 15. Maintenance. The permittee agrees, by the acceptance of this permit, to exercise reasonable care to maintain properly an encroachment placed by it in the City right-of-way, and to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and immediately repairing and making good any injury to any portion of the right-of-way which occurs as a result of the maintenance of the encroachment in the right-of-way, or as a result of work done under this permit, including any and all injury to the right-of-way which would not have occurred had such work not been done or such encroachment not placed therein. Maintenance shall include any damage that may be caused by roots of City trees. 16. Commencement of work. This permit shall be void unless the work herein contemplated shall have been completed before 1/31/2001. 17. Recording. This permit shall be recorded by the City Clerk with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo. K 7 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 18. This permit shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 19. Sketch. See attached. CITY OF BURLINGAME OWNERS I0 Syed Murtuza, P.E., City Engineer ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney OBTAIN NOTARIZATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) On before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature. NOTARY PUBLIC 4 NN b �l I quo, -rf/ .. " WOobfiN r-Et10E OHL Tie- omNot'TV'CGD L L4 •.1 r i ` ( '"I,.l," fir, " +#'!y" f•ax'r. ' t,I't ° n�'. a 4 L4•,'�,.�1`�'r?,y•A.,a'�a3tc...r�°'d.�',`�,.i�_."' =�y,.Ff� - r•, a� tip 1 � I �•� I , I . . r.. ' < � � aF �utn. 9 #fpl � xd z i yts�� � ` � : � i i t It .i•ro Y1�'s tl _ice �` ` ^^j'� 4..,3,"..c. i�.•.ir���� i_ �`'e�lx' - Y ,s,.,rt.a,y;Ni»tu�vn.crowb�5:t-c•�T+l•sSae�iF',eRn��ea_2��+ •t -`� „ - . �slr�': ar hs •r.r1�'�u: ' t T'�L,�� '�• � �"a t # '. A �i. ii 6�.Y.. k5 La's} � .t � ��£` t ! J � '. *'.` , 'v Y't :. x r9 �•, sty.�s�s,,y!^fir �, `� �.�+�' �i ��+.di `". �, f _ t t r � �, T / I I %1. a u �r ji YJi i 5 i3 4 . -`'.iL r.3,y i. t4; .. =.. '�• •'tom..... / Al fAll � •a'� { 1 �•�' ��,�� i.r�' �';j �. 6�`S� 4 � � • '. _ _ _ - '�_,= c,1` "Y0'�_. '.p1►�'•'^egv � Yla k>``•• �.a � of •�� � Z � •y�, „ ,�ti r� _ t .,�r r,. Y f, � �r Y � Ur� :yn Yr-�1��,}�/ 1 � 1a'�� c r ` p,�•y. y, '; fr 1, / • v t I •.' :lt 1: �`. 'VS'w..,tif s r X� +J$LV- ''�!�' .r .s,�r, �4r .;r �t �S Sa y;LY ..•l - Q � �� ..-"7 .. ♦ ♦tiS �... .,f r+�.atana J./�"'?tt.�� r I � at ♦�i I ,i �. ItaO.. -:•., Y ♦+ e�� � `fir "`' r'`, c't.! `�;u �Y�,k,�,Yr•!91�'♦ "y�.`• �''!. mod' � a "' T , i ♦ r �.. t t Y a 7. j .t` 'r _ ft` �� x��r,`• �_ �.. a J.���C}i lf4i�4�Y ) il ' �; ?• lYa ...Y fi/T.rr,.t� • .,.t•.r+'yv;'. f •,, � . S a�,tt. "re F �i}.s���c•;,,�^�Y Sys .:��5�a� �: �,fr . ��� ' �, .. a R� „yam )yZ.,a vb... R � ��y;': i4.'�i •� ,h, . • _ a .,� 1 t .Y' ..r ., ♦ �x�t•,r'!S �.�d 1. - 3 '4��,.y�Yta�♦�J.r•��P• ` � S s ; �'°' `i-Yh �•4` .:ra. 4t ■ ,�' �'. p�t�`y •ter>�„�1i"'�%� � A ��Y; x � y+,d..�i� r •. a. ',; "!: .x� _ _ 1 t',.., � Y a � "a '+ � � S ..T t'a.I'zt A•"`74Ltfv'!f •�' �/s'.}•`q6i�M- -�*5' J y •r r+ :A1 4 40", -A N 16 Qr, e'. "t W . . . . . . ...... i V141 fig 4 b ten,.:�f, - �• �,�y � r 1,...,.. , � ~ � � i� j • r ,;a'(,� l tom' . ' w �. .t�' ! ;o. r 1Z,gsr i �• ! s / iI�` .a.^i ^`} 5 * 4'T "jW%9 ��_ ~ �'J •' y f r �, ` d �,�5�'T 7! •...ri�.le` r F � 'y d✓ . .— � y 1�M`yt^i t�ti f ��#.���,•1��'I� ' P?-���77..; ���5/'`��tl ((' - `�Lr r�1�\�•♦• f ! .. �, 't»` 'y r•�.i•. ,rY' T•.�+.7',' 1k4� ,•, :j� ';I rS.i�J.,. � Ir i-� •\• i,4 1u �. ��i ir�d,ars yPk {f�,�T` �/��jr i t 7 '� �:�r.y' „• f qt� � • \ ry Wr`vM!%P�J..rf'�..Y-r ,�� ♦IT'tfy`�. f�{,��. !I'\ (.•f .��/f • 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 •11• 1 , • ` r c?. G'z ;�' ki �J. K�i ' ICI ti , � ��' 7 hl �i )C✓`6� 11 a 7 I r ... �sj ., .'fit !'i>t.n p•S'�.r' 1 t 1 ! jnsc' '•e r !f Y '• �� r riik±i•� ( ''y-,�`'� :�iht H�+.r.� r"'!Ay i y� �,'f� 5� !_ .. �T ��'"ir ti. 1r.rs c�J't tt�,l�w •v �a:'':�H%~,• 5 . ..,✓/ q.`•1 Y •� 1.4r ,, �. �'s "i•^ =Yw r 1D \ a,,r"+,� S',�Prfti� �r d � 51\ �,, v .. }��►,. � \'ft���, s <'�� ...t�+9� �'' ;+1 �.. 7�!}�'; >�.�".1� � %• ai rt 1 r e t t! ...... r_ y F �Ny�- "f art vvS1 , 9 LY t 'Ssr''as''7'�`.fi ` n •'h •j4�I !!\ �. •��..ri / / . t r>,� � � � ` r - �v� 1 r ' 1 1• 11 /1 . I Up 9611 1 11 1 1 1 r` t� r, IM • ;�i ry''•.J { ~�hl"•r �♦ w. e � � Z'' � , � �`,f 16 fe ,,• '`� •�• --«. r?= Carol & Akira EEJIMA 113 Loma Vista Drive Burlingame, Ca 94010 650/348-5356 COMMENTS: • Original application submitted May 31, 2000 (we apologize for the delay) • On our architect's advice, we are proposing to build a concrete and stucco wall per drawings attached. • We are requesting the i fence for the purpose of reduction of Skyline Blvd. noise and of security in addition to the reasons given on our application. Please note with the following pictures that we would not be restricting any neighbor's views or impact on the general neighborhood ambience, as there are no "front yards" facing the street in our section of Skyline Blvd. • We plan to plant trees and plants to "soften" the angles and starkness of the fence as well as a flowering vine to cover the fence. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerely, � Carol and Aki Eejima P d . Q p F 1 fp", vvaod -e � �ir► co. A-" Co "trfje: r In9 1N b t o-c k p l 1p��p�eo AGENDA BURL FF REPORT ITEM # 8f STA MTG. 11/6/00 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: October 30, 2000 A OVE FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT FOR TOP DECK (GOLF) TEACHING STATION, BURLINGAME LANDFILL - CP 9117(5A) AND RESOLUTION TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROM EL CAMINO REAL TREE MANAGEMENT, CP 9850, TO GOLF RANGE TEACHING FACILITY, CP 8017 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Council: • approve the attached resolution authorizing an agreement with Bay Construction Compaq in the amount of $106,708; and ferring available funds from the El Camino Real Tree • approve the attached resolution trans Management project. BACKGROUND: This project is to construct a metal golf teaching station and complete the shelter module at the far end of the driving range tees. The new station will allow for all-weather teaching and provide a secure area for the operator's video and teaching equipment. The project was advertized in October and bids were opened October 24, 2000. Three bids were received ranging from $106,708 to $160,083. The original engineer's estimate was $87,912. The City's consultant, in discussions with the bidders, discovered that the engineer's estimate did not adequately cover the cost of supervision, bonds, insurance, and concrete installation. As a result, the engineer's estimate has been adjusted to $102,760 which places the low bid within 4% of this amount. Based on a review of the contractor's references, staff recommends award of the project to Bay Construction Company. Construction is scheduled to start in November and conclude in April, weather permitting. EXHIBITS: Two Resolutions; Bid Summary; Agreement BUDGET IMPACT: Staff recommends transferring $20,000 from the El Camino Real Tree Management Project (320-78500) to fully fund the work. Inspection and construction management services will be funded from the Landfill Development Project (320-71170). Following is a summary of the construction: COSTS: Construction $106,708 REVENUES: Golf Range Teaching Facility $100,000 10 % Contingency 1 7 Total: $117,408 ECR Tree Management Transfer $ 20.000 (320-78500) Total: $120,000 Frank C. Erbacher c: City Clerk, Finance Director S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9117-SA Golf Sta6onwpd Bay Construction Company FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT FROM: 320 78500 80170 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 320 TO: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation. Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYOR I, ANN T.MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing and was resolution thereaftersintroduceby t e d at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK Request.doc RESOLUTION NO. - TOP DECK TEACHING STATION BURLINGAME LANDFILL CITY PROJECT NO. 9117(5A) WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the - CITY PROJECT 9117(5A) - TOP DECK TEACHING STATION, BURUNGAME LANDFILL; and WHEREAS, on OCTOBER 24, 2000, all bids were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, BAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $106,708. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of BAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY for said project in the amount of $106,708, and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor and materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, and was adopted thereafter by The following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA BID SUMMARY Top Deck Teaching Station Burlingame Landfill CITY PROJECT 9117(5) A Bid Opening Date: October 24, 2000 ENGINEER'S ENGINEER'S Bay Construction Co VS Construction GH Group, Inc. ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (REVISED) Oakland Oakland Pleasenton, CA BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM Ref. Bid Unit material Total material Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM K Q & labor Price & labor Price Price Price Price Price Price Price 1 Project Start-up a. Temporary fencing 01000 1 L.S. $500 $500 $500 $500 $1,000 $1,000 $8,000 $8,000 $500 $500 b. Bonding & Mobilization 01500 1 L.S. $3,690 $3,680 $15,000 $15,000 $16,318 $16,318 $15,000 $15,000 $24,000 $24,000 2 Demolition 02220 1 L.S. $1,892 $1,892 $2,000 $2,000 $1,035 $1,035 $7,000 $7,000 $22,017 $22,017 3 Site Concrete a. Concrete pavement - type 1 03305 76 S.F. $7 $532 $52 $39952 $43 $3,262 $53 $3,998 $60 $4,560 4 Arclutectual -Teaching Station I L.S. $75,308 $75,308 $75,308 $75,308 $79,831 $79,831 $69,000 $69,000 $81,400 $81,400 5 Architectual - Tee Shelter 1 L.S. $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $5,261 $5,261 $15,000 $15,000 $27,606 $27,606 TOTAL BID ITEMS 1-5 $87,912.00 $102.760.00 $106,708.00 $117,997.60 $160,083.00 S:\\\APUBLIC WORKS\jim's landfill\phase (5) teaching station\9117 (5)A.SUM calc. Unit cost/concrete calc. Unit cost/concrete AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT TOP DECK TEACHING STATION BURLINGAME LANDFILL CITY PROJECT NO. 9k 5A) THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on NOVEMBER 6, 2000, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and BAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on NOVEMBER 6, 2000, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled: TOP DECK TEACHING STATION, BURLINGAME LANDFILL, CITY JOB NO. 9117(5A). AGREEMENT- 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement, Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, the prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law, the accepted Bid Proposal, the complete plans, profiles, detailed drawings and Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds, and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of ONE HUNDRED SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHT AND 00/100 dollars ($106,708.00). This price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notice . All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. AGREEMENT-2 Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: CITY ENGINEER CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: BAY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 460 BOULEVARD WAY OAKLAND, CA 94710 TEL. 510-658-7725; FAX 658-4890 6. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a Municipal Corporation Approved as to form: ATTEST: City Attorney "CONTRACTOR" City Clerk AGREEMENT-3 �� M �E STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: October 18, 2000 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJEcr: AGENDA ITEM # 8$ MTG. DATE 1 1 /6/2000 SUBMITTED BY APP OVED BY APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM ADVISORY BOARD FOR FORMATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Stan Moore, Ron Agron, Colman Conneely, Phil Brezinski, and Gary Lind as the Interim Advisory Board for formation of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. This interim board would be replaced by the district advisory board when the district ordinance becomes effective. DISCUSSION: Various cities in San Mateo County, the County, various hotels, and the San Mateo Convention and Visitors Bureau have been working to develop a tourism business improvement district that would provide a steady base for promoting tourism in this area. Under Streets & Highways Code section 36533, an advisory board can be appointed by the Council before the district is formed to provide advice on the district formation process and the assessments to be levied. The following individuals have been instrumental in the work of the Convention and Visitors Bureau and have taken the lead in working on the proposed district: Stan Moore (Marriott, Burlingame) Ron Agron (Hyatt Regency, Burlingame) Colman Conneely (Sheraton Gateway, Burlingame) Phil Brezinski (Marriott, San Mateo) Gary Lind (Westin, Millbrae) Staff recommends that these five individuals be appointed to the interim advisory board, which would function until the permanent advisory board created under the district ordinance is appointed, which would be expected in early 2001. Distribution: Anne LeClair, SMCVB; Stan Moore; Ron Agron; Colman Conneely, Phil Brezinski, Gary Lind AGENDA ITEM # 8h MEETING DATE: 1 1-6-00 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: October 23, 2000 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Holiday Open House, December 8, 2000, 5:30--8:00 p.m. Recommendation: That the city council approve the closure of Burlingame Avenue and a portion of Lorton on the above date for the Chamber of Commerce and Merchant's Association event. The police overtime for the event is estimated at $1,000. BACKGROUND Attached is a request for this year's event. Last year's event was, once again, successful with only minor problems. The proposed street closure plan is the same as last year's, extending from California Drive to El Camino Real. Activities will again include two or three horse -driven sleigh rides, two Candy Lane train rides, and entertainment. The Chamber of Commerce will supply insurance as required by the city attorney. Dennis Argyres City Manager V [C:\WPWIN60\MANAGERS\Holiday-openhouse-stf-rpt.wpd] Attachments c: Michele Gutierrez Chamber of Commerce Sgt Bob Ransom, Burlingame PD F Burlingame CommunityTheatre Michele Gutierrez Artistic Director ..r• 13816th Avenue a San Mateo, CA 94402 Q� 578-8292 OCT 2 Mr. Dennis Argyres City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 OF WFUNGAME Re: Burlingame Holiday Open House, December 8, 2000 5:30 - 8:00 p.m. Dear Mr. Argyres: Once again, the Burlingame Community Theatre with the support of the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce and the Burlingame Avenue Association is in the process of coordinating the Burlingame Holiday Open House on December 8, 2000 from 5:30 - 8:00 p.m. immediately following the Tree Lighting Ceremony. We will again sponsor two and possibly three horse drawn sleigh rides and two Candy Lane trains for the community as well as an entire evening of entertainment. The safety of the event, over the years, is due primarily to the closure of Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to El Camino Real and the vigilance of the Burlingame Police Department. I cannot express my gratitude enough for providing this service and I hope that this arrangement can continue this year. The routes for the sleighs and the trains will be the same as last year. Once again, for safety reasons, we would like to close. Lorton between Donnelly and Burlingame Avenue to through traffic. We will also need some parking spaces on both sides of the street at Park Road and Burlingame Avenue for the loading of the other sleigh and the Fire Departments fire engine and Toy for Tots drum. I have included a map of the proposed routes. To accommodate the trailers in which the horses and sleighs are transported, we will need to use the parking lot at Ralston and El Camino again. We will also need the assistance of the Burlingame Police Department to escort the sleighs from the staging area and for traffic control. I will need to know the officer I will be working with in the Police Department to help coordinate the event. The success of the last years has only been achieved through the cooperation of the City, the Burlingame Merchants and the community volunteers. I hope this year that we can continue to make this event a wonderful community celebration. We are all looking forward to another joyous evening of festivities. Thank you for your assistance and do not hesitate to call me with questions. Sincerely, Michele Gutierrez Holiday Open House Coordinator enclosure <7 c1Tr BURIJNGAME' C1' fir Tifv of Burling= CITY HALL —501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7204 +0 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 556-9291 SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLICATION FOR ANY TEMPORARY CLOSING OF ANY CITY STREET OR USE OF CITY SIDEWALK OR PROPERTY. (Please type or print -clear .) APPLICANT INFORMATION , Company/Agency Name: t;v �h. �1tik �"'me Phone: S 7S Contact Person: �� ' cti, Z �n1 �'i-�' `►�►r-i '� FAX""#: � 7 --j G Address: (3 (' ` 8- I-- r-�i � — y �t s` ���'r�t "U�I cfLf G �V-- Representing: Insurance Carrier: EVENT INFORMATION Limits: Date(s): (Z f S -'-u Staging Time: Starting Time: - Ending Time: Event Purpose: rC:�1l Any Hazardous Activity? (!f so, describe.) 9 . Cu De -staging Time: -We�-- Number of Participants: Type (act Prew, pa►tiatpanfa): Number of Equipment: Type: Parking Permit(s) Requested: 54-0- k14'"/Location Police Service(s) Required (w5 perofroerperhawr ATTACHMENTS Please attach the following information with this application: -- Letter of intent (detailed description of event); - Map of street(suarea to be closed; Petition of property owner(s) affected by eyent/closure; -- Barricade plan (if appropriate); and Certificate of insurance. 1 agree to hold hemdess the City W &singame, Its Mears and employees, whether defied or appointed, from any and all liability arising from the event ptamed and described above. Further, I understand that prior to the ismence of any permit as described above, I shall file- a certificate of insuance with Be City Manager nerving the City, lts officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, as additional insured, and that I must pay all City costs prior to the issuance of this permit. Date: t Oj f 1 /fv Applicants Signature: Holiday l House Frig, December 3,1999 Staging Area Parking El Camino Real Gas Station j -4 Primrose Road *# Park Road Sleigh 2 Lorton Avenue Fire Truck �v E V6 ON E m Tent California Drive �#- S leigh 1 m 2. 0 0 c CL � CITY C • � � , _ 1 • <<F�f � :gel 1 Ilin e QPORATEO TO: City Manager FROM: Philip Ho, Traffic Engineer` DATE: October 23, 2000 SUBJECT: Burlingame Holiday Open House - December 8, 2000 Comments on Special Event Permit Application I have completed the review of the permit application. My comments are as follows: 1. Burlingame Avenue shall be closed off to public vehicular access near El Camino Real, California Drive, and Park Road for the duration of the event, including staging. Vehicular access to the gasoline station and City parking lot K-1 at the Burlingame Avenue/El Camino Real intersection shall remain unobstructed at all times. 2. Barricades shall be used to block vehicular access from entering or crossing the designated area described in Item #1. Vehicles crossing Burlingame Avenue at Primrose Road and at Lorton Avenue shall be allowed to do so only when it is safe to proceed and upon the direction of a police officer. 3. "No Parking" signs shall be posted at on -street parking spaces on Burlingame Avenue and on Park Road at least 24 hours prior to the beginning time of the event. Parking violators shall be cited and towed. c City Engineer Police Department Burlingame Holiday Open House 2000.wpd CITY o� STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 8i euRurnN+E FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE:II-6-00 October 31, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTI FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ APPROVE] Administrative Svcs. Director SUBJECT: Conceptual Approval of Contract Staff Service for Proposed Construction & Demolition (C&D) Recycling Program RECOMMENDATION: Approve in concept a contract for staff services through the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) to assist with the proposed C&D program. BACKGROUND: Building, Planning, and Public Works have been meeting with SBWMA staff to develop a construction and demolition material recycling ordinance. This ordinance will be introduced to Council on the December 4. The C&D program will be key to achieving the state -mandated 50% recycling goal. Burlingame achieved a 46% figure for 1999, and the extensive remodeling and tenant improvement work in the city renders C&D materials a significant percentage of the remaining material going to the landfill. The SBWMA has retained a consultant to assist with administration of C&D ordinances, and the staff has asked for a commitment from the city to share this staff time. The cost will be paid by SBWMA, and charged to the Burlingame rate base as part of the annual review of garbage and recycling rates. Since this is a commitment of cost affecting ratepayers, council approval is required, even though the costs will largely show up in the 2002 rates. The cost is estimated to be about $45,000 for one year, and will have a negligible impact on the rates. If Council approves this concept, staff will advise the SBWMA to commit the hours for the Burlingame program. The Building Department will provide a desk for the consultant's use while working in Burlingame. Staff hopes to use the position immediately to assist with demolitions currently in the processing stage, thus providing a model for the proposed ordinance coming to Council in December 46. To: Rahn Becker, City of Burlingame Finance Director & Assistant City Manager From: Kathleen Gallagher SBWMA Recycling Manager and Joan Edwards (Consultant for SBWMA Construction and Demolition Recycling Program) Date: 9/26/00 Subject: Contract Staff Services for Technical Assistance Services for Burlingame's Construction & Demolition (C&D) Recycling Program Job Description and Annual Costs for Construction & Demolition (C&D) Recycling Contract Staff Services: 1. Identify and keep up-to-date information on C&D diversion and disposal service providers (hauling services and facilities) available to local contractors and building owners and managers, including, but not limited to, a clear understanding of types of services, material specifications, diversion rates, reporting mechanisms. 2. Provide technical assistance and education to C&D contractors and City employees related to the diversion of C&I? debris and strategies for documenting diversion and disposal of C&D. 3. Help promote C&D debris diversion activities to Contractors working within the City and recommend ways that the City can assist in this promotion as part of ongoing City employee responsibilities. 4. Provide technical assistance, education and recommendations related to the use of recycled content products used in construction and roadbuilding projects. 5. Assist in the development of technical assistance documents and City procedures that will further the goals of C&D diversion and help integrate diversion practices into day to day activities of City employees at the end of the agreement for consultant services. 6. Assist in the development of recordkeeping systems to monitor C&D activities within the City and to track the results of technical assistance efforts and any City requirements (ordinances, conditions of approval, facility or hauler contracts, etc) for C&D diversion. Ensure contractors accurately complete all documentation required by the City related to recycling and disposal of C&D and review and verify documentation and backup to determine diversion rate and disposal and diversion tonnages where such reporting is required. 7. Monitor C&D disposal and diversion activities by contractors, identify potential problems with diversion activities, and recommend solutions. 8. Identify markets for recyclable materials and assist in strategies that provide the best and highest use markets for C&D materials, including cost-effective deconstruction and salvage activities. 9. Provide recommendations and technical assistance for diversion of C&D materials, including green waste, from City facilities and activities conducted under City contracts. Provide recommendations for contract language that may be utilized to encourage or require green building components in plan specifications, and for use in contractor and subcontractor bid and contract documents. 10. Provide recommendations for contract language that may be utilized by commercial and multi -family building owners and managers when arranging for tenant improvements and by developers and contractors when arranging for hauling and subcontractor services. 11. Provide regular reports on C&D activities to appropriate City managerial staff. 12. Provide other appropriate technical assistance and education related to diversion as directed by City staff and agreed to by both parties. Time Allocation Requirements & Cost of Services Estimated through C&D Recycling Staff Services Consultant Agreement After an analysis of the City of Burlingame's C&D recycling outreach needs, it is estimated that the above -noted work scope will require an average of 20 hours per week on -site @ $35/hour plus two hours per week senior staff oversight, technical assistance and meeting attendance at $90/hour for the first year of this program. Total annual cost for contract services: $45,600. This is only slightly more than the time allocated to Hillsborough and Atherton for similar work (18 hours/week on -site plus two hours/week oversight), despite the fact that Burlingame has a higher population, more C&D activity, and a greater variety in types of projects requiring permits. The time allocation takes into account that in the past year much of the groundwork has been laid for identifying diversion opportunities, technical assistance strategies, and outreach and monitoring procedures that can be utilized for contractor technical assistance.