Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2000.12.04
� CIJJTY O BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING — DECEMBER 4, 2000 PAGE 1 OF 3 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SUGGESTED ACTION 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 20, 2000 Approval 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Renewal of Amusement Permit for Fanny & Alexander Hearing, Action Restaurant, 1108 Burlingame Avenue and 308-310 California Drive b. Renewal of Amusement Permit for Alibi Club, 220 Lorton Hearing, Action Avenue c. Appeal of Planning Commission Determination on the Use of an Continue to January 2, 2001 Existing Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area d. Appeal Hearing on Council Denial without Prejudice for Hearing, Action Application for Design Review for 2-Story House, 112 Bayswater - Zoned R-1 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS a. Reconsideration of ORDINANCE to Install Two Stop Signs on Introduce Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue b. Report from Citizen's Committee to Review Proposed Presentation / Discuss Commercial Design Review Regulations c. Introduce ORDINANCE Regarding Recycling of Construction Introduce and Demolition Debris d. Introduce ORDINANCE on Utility Deposit Requirements Introduce e. City Council Calendar and Assignments for 2001 Approve f. Commissioner Items: Appoint Traffic Safety Parking Appointment / Commissioners; Schedule Interviews for Civil Service Schedule Interview Commissioner BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 49 2000 PAGE 2 OF 3 g. County Request for Funding Construction of New Shelter in South San Francisco ($10,000 - $30,000) h. Regular Meeting of December 18, 2000 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION Authorizing Burlingame Public Library to join the Golden Gate Library Network b. Update Exhibit A (Council Rotation List) of Resolution 117-99 c. RESOLUTION Authorizing Increased Rates for Charges by Towing Businesses d. Special Encroachment Permit for Wooden Fence at 1560 Barroilhet Avenue e. Special Encroachment Permit for Security Gate and Flower Rack at 1310 Broadway f. Reject Claims of Alice M. Alapai, Burlingame Aquatic Center, and Walt Cannon g. Reject Application for Relief from Claim Filing Requirement of Nada Joksimovich h. Amended Tentative Condominium Map for Proposed 6-Unit Condominium, 535 Almer Road, PM 98-12 i. Warrants & Payroll: October 2000 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library Board, October 17, 2000; Traffic Safety Parking, November 8, 2000; Senior, November 16, 2000; and Planning, November 27, 2000. b. Monthly Reports: Treasurer, October 31, 2000; Building, October 2000. c. Letter from Mayor O'Mahony to California ISO regarding electricity rate increases and response from California ISO and Senator Jackie Speier. City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 Discuss / Approve Approve Approval BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 2000 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 PAGE 3 OF 3 d. Letter from Lion's Club regarding proposed new recreational facility and response from Parks & Recreation Director John Williams. 13. CLOSED SESSION Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Governent Code § 54957.6: City Negotiator Dennis Argyres, Jim Nantell; Labor Organization AFSCME 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlinaame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING - DECEMBER 18, 2000 UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA December 4, 2000 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A special 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 Joe Galligan. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Finance Director Rahn Becker. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. MINUTES Councilman Coffey stated a correction to the minutes, item #6, Mayor Galligan nominated Councilman Spinelli for Vice Mayor; seconded by Councilman Coffey. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the amended minutes; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR FANNY & ALEXANDER RESTAURANT, 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE AND 303-305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CA Anderson noted the amusement permit for this establishment was initially issued approximately one year ago. Fanny and Alexander have been in the process of setting up their establishment since that time. The permit was last amended in October to accommodate the expanded space on California Drive. He recommended renewing the amusement permit for an additional six months. At that time they will be on the annual renewal cycle. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Weinberg, General Manager of Fanny and Alexander, came forward to answer any questions of staff or council. There were no comments, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the renewal of the amusement permit for Fanny & Alexander Restaurant, 1108 Burlingame Avenue and 308-310 California Drive; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice Vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council December 4, 2000 Unapproved Minutes it, b. RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR THE ALIBI CLUB, 220 LORTON AVENUE CA Anderson noted that this establishment had some problems earlier this year; the Burlingame Police Department was concerned about the problems and has been working directly with the owners. It seems to have improved but there are still concerns about the number of fights occurring at the club. CA Anderson recommended the amusement permit be renewed for six months until June 2001. Vice Mayor Spinelli noted he is concerned about renewing the amusement permit because of the fights and this concern should be relayed to the owners. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the renewal of the amusement permit for the Alibi Club, 220 Lorton Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. C. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON THE USE OF THE EXISTING BASEMENT AREA AT 340-348 LORTON, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA City Planner Monroe noted that the applicant requested this appeal be heard at the December 18, 2000, Council Meeting. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to continue the appeal of the Planning Commissions determination on the use of the existing basement area at 340-348 Lorton, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area to December 18, 2000; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. d. APPEAL HEARING ON COUNCIL DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR TWO STORY HOUSE,112 BAYSWATER, ZONED R-1 CP Monroe stated the applicant, Robert Cunningham, is requesting a design review to build a new two- story, three bedroom single family house with a one car detached garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned R-1. When this project was initially appealed to the Council, it had a front setback variance as well as design review. In the interim, the applicant submitted plans in which the house was moved back two feet. The applicant was concerned that moving the house back may affect access to the garage. The City Engineer has determined that moving the house back two feet would have no affect in terms of access. The Planning Commission denied the request for the front setback variance as they felt there were elements incorporated in the design that would make it stand out in the neighborhood. Suggested large plant material is added at the rear of the property to soften the appearance and size of the structure. At the September 28 h appeal hearing, Council denied the variance and denied without prejudice the action on the design review. The public hearing should be based on the plans dated October 31 and November 20, 2000. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. The applicant and owner, Robert Cunningham, was available to answer any questions for Council. Mr. Cunningham did not feel it would be a problem to add large plant material to the rear of the property as suggested by the Planning Commission. This December 4, 2000 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes could be made a condition and would be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve this project to include the five conditions listed in the staff report with the additional condition to add large scale vegetation at the rear of the property to screen the house and that this landscape plan shall be approved by the City Arborist; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chantell Paige, 112 Central Avenue, spoke in favor of the Interfaith Hospitality Network and the need for community support for the homeless. Joan Gubler, 1408 Cortez Avenue, requested the Council hear the issue regarding stop signs on Adeline and Cortez at the Council Meeting of January 2, 2001. 7. STAFF REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS a. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE # 1243 TO INSTALL TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AND CORTEZ AVENUE Director of Public Works Bagdon stated this is an item Council requested be brought back for the possibility of reconsidering the installation of two stop signs at Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue. In his staff report, DPW Bagdon explains the position of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission as well as staff. The Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission has recommended the placement of stop signs at this location'since pedestrians use the opening in the fence at the end of Cortez which allows them access Ray Park. From a traffic -engineering standpoint, staff finds no warrants for stop signs either based on the volume of vehicular traffic or the number of pedestrian/vehicle accidents at this location. In addition, staff has expressed the concern that drivers may not take the stop signs seriously because they are located so closely together; worried pedestrians in* the cross walk may have a false sense of security that vehicles will stop. At the last Council meeting where this issue was discussed, the police department indicated they had done extensive enforcement in this specific area and found there were numerous rolling stops being made at the stop signs at Balboa and Cabrillo. Feel a third set of stop signs would make it worse. An alternative would be to install more speed limit signage along with signage indicating there is a school in the area and increased police enforcement. Council questions: DPW Bagdon explained that the ordinance to install these stop signs is in effect right now; when Council indicated that this ordinance might be reconsidered, staff did not install the signs pending Council's decision. CA Anderson stated that in order to change the ordinance, Council would have to introduce and adopt another ordinance that would repeal the action taken in October. Mayor Galligan asked if there is a formal process to notify the neighbors of a public hearing regarding the installation of the stop signs. He felt all the neighbors were not aware of the request to install the stop signs. CA Anderson noted there is no established noticing process and explained that for this particular stop sign, Council could direct staff to give more notice if they decide to reconsider the ordinance. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso introduced the proposed ordinance to Reconsider Ordinance #1243 to install two stop signs on Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, motion approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Spinelli moved to Burlingame City Council 3 December 4, 2000 Unapproved Minutes introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. b. REPORT FROM CITIZEN'S COMMITTEE TO REVIEW PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS CP Monroe summarized in August Council appointed a committee of local business people, commercial property owners, leasing agents and residents to review the Planning Commission proposed commercial design review regulations and design guidelines. Ross Bruce, the Chairman for the Committee, was available to present their recommendations. Mr. Bruce noted after much discussion, the committee has found that Burlingame needs commercial design review with the following stipulations: all new construction should be subjected to commercial design review because of the impact on the community, also any and all remodeling that entails 50% or more of a fagade of a building, or 50 feet or more of a building frontage. Awnings and paint color should not be considered for design review. Suggest commercial design review be integrated into the building permit process so it does not slow down a project, by having two contract commercial design reviewers employed by the City to execute the process; there should be a sunset clause in the ordinance so after 24 months the City can review commercial design review; all the members of the committee have expressed a desire to participate in the actual drafting of the ordinance should the Council decide to go forward with this concept, and he suggested members of the Planning Commission also be involved with the committee. Council Comments: Councilwoman O'Mahony felt the guidelines were appropriate and liked the idea of reevaluating the program after 24 months; supported the guidelines and thanked the committee for their hard work. Cpuncilman Spinelli noted that the committee should review both ordinance and guideline booklet. He then suggested a committee be formed made up of the present committee, three Planning Commissioners selected by the Planning Commission Chairman and Councilman Coffey. Mayor Galligan noted that this was a good start; thought the proposed diversity of the committee was good and thanked them for their continuing efforts. C. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE REGARDING RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS ACM Becker noted this Ordinance is another in a series of recommendations related to Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939); the County reached 46% diversion rate. The most significant remaining recyclable waste is construction and demolition debris representing approximately 14% of debris going into the landfill. The Ordinance was reviewed with the Building, Planning, and Public Works Departments as well as the City Attorney. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso to introduce the proposed ordinance regarding recycling of construction and demolition debris. Councilman Coffey made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, motion approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney moved to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. December 4, 2000 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes d. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ON UTILITY DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS ACM Becker stated the $25.00 utility deposit that is required costs more to administer the collection and maintenance of the deposit. The billing/collections supervisor has come up with a better methodology that would apply to residents who don't pay their water bill. Mayor Galligan requested City Clerk Musso to introduce the proposed ordinance regarding recycling of construction and demolition debris. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, motion approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney moved to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. e. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR AND ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2001 Council reviewed the proposed City Council Calendar and Assignments for 2001 and made appropriate changes. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the revised Council Calendar for 2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan stated he would like to have himself as well as Councilman Coffey be on the Chamber of Commerce Committee and will revise who will handle which department for budget review. f. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: APPOINTMENT TRAFFIC SAFETY PARKING COMMISSIONERS; SCHEDULE INTERVIEW FOR CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER Councilman Coffey stated the three candidates interviewed were all excellent candidates. Have discussed at recent Council meetings the possibility of reducing the number of seats on the commissions. Both he and Councilwoman O'Mahony spoke to the members of the TSP Commission and supported the idea of reducing the number of commissioners from seven to five. Both Councilman Coffey and Councilwoman O'Mahony agreed with the reduction in the number of commissioners. Council Comments: Vice Mayor Spinelli felt reducing the number of seats would increase the efficiency of the group. CA Anderson stated an Ordinance would be introduced at the next Council meeting reducing the membership to five seats as directed by the Council. Mayor Galligan noted there is one opening on the Civil Service Commission. Two applications were received for this position; Mayor Galligan and Vice Mayor Spinelli volunteered to be the interview team. g. COUNTY REQUEST FOR FUNDING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SHELTER IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ($10,000 - $30,000) City Manager Nantell stated that San Mateo County and a number of the cities within the county have been working to try to find an ongoing site for a homeless shelter for single adults. A location was Burlingame City Council 5 December 4, 2000 Unapproved Minutes identified in South San Francisco; because of environmental concerns that identified with review of that site, the cost for'establishing the shelter at that location was $850,000 above what was anticipated. The County of San Mateo is requesting that cities assist the county to make up the deficit. The additional funding would come from the unreserved fund balance. The County is requesting a contribution in the range of $10,000 to $30,000. Council Comments: Councilwoman O'Mahony noted that several of the cities that have contributed are cities that have community development block grant funding which was used for this project. This source of funding is not available to the City of Burlingame. Agreed $15,000 would be an appropriate amount to donate to the fund. Councilman Coffey would like to see the City donate the maximum amount of $30,000 because stated he feels this program is very important to the County. Councilwoman Janney also supported the $30,000; Vice Mayor Spinelli was reluctant to contribute $30,000. Mayor Galligan asked CP Monroe if the $30,000 donation helped with the housing element for Burlingame. She noted that when the 1994 Housing Element was prepared, one of the questions was what does the City do for low-income households. The yearly contribution made by the City to the shelter program is considered in this program. Mayor Galligan was also supportive of the $30,000 recommended donation. Councilman Coffey made a motion that the City of Burlingame support the request for funding for the new shelter for homeless individuals in South San Francisco in the amount of $30,000; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. h. REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2000 There will be a regular Council Meeting held on December 18, 2000. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY TO JOIN THE GOLDEN GATE LIBRARY NETWORK City Librarian Escoffier recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of the Burlingame Public Library joining the Golden Gate Library Network, as part of the Library of California. b. APPROVE ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICE OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR CA Anderson recommending approving the rotation list for Mayor and Vice Mayor for the coming year. C. FEES INCREASE FOR TOW COMPANIES Chief of Police Missel recommended increasing the tow fees for D&M and Tresser's Towing Company for removal of abandoned and/or disabled vehicles from the streets and other public areas of Burlingame. d. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A WOODEN FENCE AT THE BACK OF THE SIDEWALK AT 1560 BARROILHET AVENUE December 4, 2000 6 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes DPW Bagdon recommended that Council approve the Special Encroachment Permit for a wooden fence in accordance with the drawings, permits and conditions. e. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A SECURITY GATE AND FLOWER RACKS AT 1310 BROADWAY DPW Bagdon recommended that Council approve the Special Encroachment Permit for a security gate and flower racks in accordance with the drawings and pictures submitted, with conditions. f. REJECT CLAIMS OF ALICE M. ALAPAI, BURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB, AND WALT CANNON CA Anderson recommended rejecting claims filed by Alice M. Alapai, Burlingame Aquatic Club, and Walt Cannon for alleged breach of contract. g. REJECT APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIM FILING REQUIREMENTS OF NADA JOKSIMOVICH CA Anderson recommended rejecting application for relief from claim filing requirements for Nada Joksimovich for personal injury on October 25, 1999. h. AMENDED TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A PROPOSED 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 8, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND CO., NO. 2, 535 ALMER ROAD DPW Bagdon recommended that Council approve the amended tentative condominium map with conditions. i. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL, OCTOBER, 2000 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 72624-73004 (excluding library checks 72754- 72799 and 73263-73304), duly audited, in the amount of $2,691,902.51; payroll checks 131305- 132148 in the amount of $1,365,958.26; and EFT's in the amount of $168,175.50 for the month of October, 2000. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey; the motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Spinelli attended the grand opening of the new International Terminal at SFO and Airport Roundtable Committee meeting. Councilwoman Janney also toured the new International Terminal and shops at SFO, labor lunch, Ted Lempert's Farewell dinner, Chamber's "Commerce and Coffee", CMAC meeting, Japanese American Library Fund Dinner. Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the labor lunch and the grand opening of the new International Terminal at SFO. Councilman Coffey attended the grand opening of the new International Terminal at SFO, the labor lunch and Chamber's "Commerce and Coffee". Mayor Galligan attended the Chamber's "Commerce and Coffee", Library Foundation event, Roger Grossman's debunking, school districts parcel tax steering committee Burlingame City Council 7 December 4, 2000 Unapproved Minutes meeting, Ted Lempert's farewell dinner, an event at Mercy High School to raise funds for an oak tree ` that fell down. 10. OLD BUSINESS Councilwoman O'Mahony noted a question was raised about the Airport MOU earlier in the meeting; she commented that Council had until January, 1995 to sign the MOU, which was not signed. 11. NEW BUSINESS An appeal hearing for 1360 Broadway was scheduled to be heard at the Council Meeting on December 18, 2000. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted that Mayor Galligan will be assuming duties of Budget Chairman for 2001. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library Board, October 17, 2000; Traffic Safety and Parking, November 8, 2000; Senior, November 16, 2000; and Planning, November 27, 2000 b. Monthly Reports: Treasurer, October 31, 2000; Building, October 2000 C. Letter from Mayor O'Mahony to California ISO regarding electricity rate increases and response from California ISO and Senator Jackie Speier d. Letter from Lion's Club regarding proposed new recreational facility in response from Parks & Recreation Director John Williams Council returned to closed session at 8:25 p.m. and returned to open session at 8:40 p.m. 13. CLOSED SESSION a. CA Anderson noted Council met in closed session with Dennis Argyres and Jim Nantell to discuss labor negotiations with the AFSCME bargaining units, particularly regarding medical benefits. Council directed Mr. Argyres and Mr. Nantell with regard to those discussions. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m. December 4, 2000 Unapproved Minutes Ann T. Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council M UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA November 20, 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 -Tall 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 Father Gerald Barron. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JXNNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 6, 2000; seconded by Councilman Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 6. CEREMONIAL MATTERS — Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor Mayor O'Mahony thanked the citizens of Burlingame who have worked with her this past year on city commissions and public forums. She thanked retiring City Manager Dennis Argyres for his many years of dedicated service to the City of Burlingame, as well as all of staff for their courteous and prompt help when needed. Mayor O'Mahony welcomed new City Manager Jim Nantell, who was then sworn in by City Clerk Ann Musso. Mayor O'Mahony nominated Vice Mayor Galligan as the new mayor. There were no other nominations and Vice Mayor Galligan was unanimously approved as Mayor. After Mayor Galligan reviewed his goals for the coming year, he asked for nominations for Vice Mayor. Councilman Coffey nominated Councilman Spinelli. There were no other nominations and Councilman Spinelli was unanimously approved as Vice Mayor. Mayor Galligan presented former Mayor O'Mahony with a plaque signifying her year as mayor. 7. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. in memory of Grace McCarthy, a former Mayor and Councilmember from Pacifica. A reception in the lobby was held to congratulate Mayor Galligan and Vice Mayor Spinelli. Ann Musso City Clerk r� CIT7 C BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT QW TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: November 27, 2000 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # 5 a MTG. DATE 12/4/2000 SUBMITTEDF BY i" APPRO BY — RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR FANNY & ALEXANDER RESTAURANT AT 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE AND 308-310 CALIFORNIA DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: Renew amusement permit for Fanny & Alexander Restaurant at 1108 Burlingame Avenue and 308-310 California Drive for six months on existing conditions. DISCUSSION: In October, 2000, the City Council approved an amendment to the amusement permit for Fanny & Alexander to allow expansion into the premises at 3 08-3 10 California Drive. The establishment has been operating for about 6 months and has had a number of problems, which the establishment will be working out as the expansion occurs. In order to give the establishment time to settle its security and admittance policies, it is recommended that the permit be renewed to June 2001. Attachment Current Conditions Distribution Chief of Police Fanny & Alexander Lorenz & Louisa Kao CONDITIONS FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR FANNY & ALEXANDER, 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE/ 303-305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Adopted October 16, 2000 Permit allows: Live music and dancing from 9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday. All alcohol beverage laws shall be strictly enforced. 2. Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the Police Department and full cooperation shall be given by employees and management of the business. No variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without obtaining an amendment to the permit. 4. No part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the Police Department. The amusement permit shall be non -transferable. 6. Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act occurring at the establishment shall be reported to the Burlingame Police as soon as any establishment employee is aware of such an incident. 7. Any request by anyone in the establishment for an employee to contact the Police shall be honored immediately, without question. 8. Last call for alcohol service shall be no later than 1:10 a.m. on nights when entertainment is offered, and no alcohol shall be served after 1:20 a.m. on those nights. 9. Labor Code Section 6404.5 regulating smoking shall be enforced at all times. 10. No minors are to be allowed on the premises during hours when there is no food service, unless they are there on lawful business, and no minors shall be allowed in the business after 10 p.m. when entertainment is being offered. 11. Loudspeakers for the business shall be directed toward the interior of the business; and The business shall not violate Section 10.40.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; and The entertainment shall not be audible outside the premises; and The establishment shall measure the current 24-hour ambient noise levels (L 10) at the exterior of the property along Burlingame Avenue and at the rear of the patio area using a methodology approved by the City Planner before opening for business; and Upon request by the City, the establishment shall conduct noise measurements to determine whether the noise from the establishment is exceeding the 5 dBA standard for increases in noise from the baseline as provided in the Burlingame General Plan, and shall report the measurements to the City; and The establishment shall ensure that the 5 dBA standard is not exceeded. 12. The establishment shall be operated as a single entertainment venue. No ingress or egress shall be allowed from California Drive during business hours, except for emergencies. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If anyone wishes to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, they must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. ®RN E STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: November 27, 2000 FROM: Lan E. Anderson City Attorney SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY `4 AGENDA 5 b ITEM C MTG. DATE 1r2/4/2000 f r RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR ALIBI CLUB, 220 LORTON AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: Renew amusement permit for Alibi Club, 220 Lorton Avenue, for 6 months on existing conditions. DISCUSSION: In April 1997, the City Council approved an amusement permit for the Alibi Club. During 1999-2000, the Club had a number of problem customers. The Police Department has worked with the owners to improve the situation; the problems have not worsened but continued efforts will be needed. It is recommended that the permit be renewed to June 2001. Attachment Current Conditions Distribution Chief of Police Alibi Club CONDITIONS FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR ALIBI CLUB, 220 LORTON AVENUE Renewed June 5, 2000 Permit allows: occasional entertainment -- live band, acoustical and rock 1. All alcoholic beverage control laws shall be strictly enforced; 2. Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the police with full cooperation from employees and management of the business; 3. No variation from the permitted entertainment applied for in the application shall occur without obtaining an amendment to the permit; 4. No part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the Police Department; 5. The amusement permit shall be non -transferable; 6. Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act occurring at "The Alibi" shall be reported to the Burlingame Police as soon as any employee is aware of such an incident; 7. Any request by anyone at "The Alibi" for an employee to contact the Police shall be honored immediately, without question; 8. At any time that there is entertainment, an employee shall be specifically assigned to check identification at the door; 9. Notice shall be prominently posted at the door and inside the bar that it is unlawful for any person under the age of twenty-one years of age to be on the premises of "The Alibi;" 10. Last call for alcoholic beverages shall be no later than 1:20 a.m.; 11. Labor Code Section 6404.5 regulating smoking shall be enforced at all times; and 12. No music shall be audible outside the premises. AGENDA ITEM #r JS C MEETING DATE: 1 2-4-00 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council - f.y.i. DATE: November 28, 2000 SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Determination on the Use of an Existing Basement Area at 340-348 Lorton, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Continue to January 2, 2001. 11414 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BUF�INGAME �y a MC b,oQtl TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2000 AGENDA ITEM # 5 d M.G.. DATE 12.04.00 SUBMITTED BY rVk ATr__ APPROVED / FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: Appeal Hearing on a Council Denial Without Prejudice for an Application for Design Review for a New Two -Story House at 112 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned R-1. RECOMMENDATION: At the Council meeting on September 18, 2000, Council directed the applicant to revise the project to eliminate the front setback variance and to deny without prejudice the design review so that the impact of the relocation of the house on garage access could be determined. The Council should hold a public hearing on the revised plans Sheets 1 and 2 date stamped November 20, 2000 and Sheets 3 and 4 date stamped October 31, 2000. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The possible action alternatives and criteria for design review are included at the end of the staff report. Conditions on the project considered by the Planning Commission were: That the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 20, 2000, Sheets 1 and 2, October 31, 2000, Sheets 3 and 4; 2. that during the demolition of the existing structure, site preparation and construction of the new structures, the applicant shall apply all applicable best management practices to prevent erosion and contamination of storm water runoff, 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first and second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6, 2000, memo shall be met; and 5. that any improvements for the use shall be all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Appeal Hearing on a Council Denial Without Prejudice for an Application for Design Review for a New Two -Story House at 112 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned R-1. December a, 2000 Planning Commission Action At their meeting on August 14, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-0-3 (Cers. Bcjues, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent) to deny the request for a front setback variance and design review for a new two-story house. In their action the commission noted: that they did not feel that the front setback variance requested was justified based on the lot size being exceptional since this is a standard lot, 5000 SF, which is the typical lot size in the city; this is a new house on a generally flat lot so there is no reason that it cannot meet the setback pattern in the neighborhood established by the zoning code; the existing 27 foot front setback is not a hardship because it is a greater setback than others on the block, there is variety on this block, next door the setback is 22 feet another house has a 15 foot; Commission felt that to grant a variance on any basis other than a hardship applicable to the property and one that does not exist on other properties in the district would set a precedent for future zoning code implementation. On the design the commissioners noted that the existing 27 foot front setback is a part of the existing pattern of the neighborhood addressed in the design guidelines criteria and should be met for that reason; that there may be no architectural pattern in this neighborhood, but there is an architectural pattern in Burlingame, there are elements incorporated in this design that will make it stand out in the neighborhood such as the stucco surround, columns, oval windows, width of the house from property line to property line; they noted that large plant materials should be added at the rear to soften the appearance of the size of the structure at the back. City Council Action September 18, 2000 At the Council meeting on September 18, 2000, the Council held a public hearing on the applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's action and made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the front setback variance (19'-6" required, IT-6" provided) and denied the design review request without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-1 voice vote with Councilman Coffey dissenting. In their action the City Council noted that if the front setback variance were granted any property owner could come forward to request the same using a calculation which exempted the front setback of the lot in question from the average calculation; code has always been applied including the setback of the lot to be developed because it is a part of the existing pattern of development; with the house moved forward applicant would have a 29 foot deep rear yard, bigger than typical on other similar lots in the city. In opposition it was noted that the code section could be read either way, to include the subject property or not in calculating the front setback average; the rear yard is important non-structural space in a house; it would be easy to correct the code to change the way the average is calculated; not a problem to grant a 2 foot variance at the front because it will not have a negative effect on the neighboring properties. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Rob Cunningham, is requesting design review to build a new, two-story, three -bedroom single family house (2976 SF, 61 % FAR) with a one car (I Y-6"w x 22'-0"d, 297 SF) detached garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing 1615 SF (33% FAR), two bedroom house and detached garage will be demolished. The existing house has a 27 foot front setback. The average of the existing front setbacks on this side of the street is 19'-6". It should be noted that the new house and garage have a total FAR of 61% (2976 SF) where the maximum FAR allowed is 61% (2986 SF). Since 441 SF is required for a two car garage, the existing garage area (297 SF) plus the remaining 10 SF of FAR from the house will not sufficient to allow for a two car garage on this site in the future without an FAR variance. The applicant submitted revised plans on November 20, 2000, for the new two-story single family house at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-l. He revised the project plans and moved the house back 2 feet, for a 19'-6" 2 Appeal Hearing on a Council Denial Without Prejudice for an Application for Design Review for a New Two -Story House at 112 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned R-1- December 4, 2000 front setback which is the average on the side of the street. This change eliminated the front setback variance. The City Engineer determined that access to the garage was adequate with the house relocated 2 feet to the rear. The applicant made no change to the exterior of the proposed building. The application requires a permit for: 1. Design review for a new two story house. Below is a table comparing the revised proposed project, as revised, to the R-1 zoning district regulations: PROPOSED* EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D .SETBACKS Front: I st f Ir 19'-6" 27-0" block average = 19'-6" 2nd,f lr 23'-10" N/A 20'-0" Side (left): 4'-6" 4'-0" 41_01' Side (right): 10'-0" 10'-3" 41_0" Rear: I st f lr 31'-6" 3 5'-0" 15'-0" 2nd f lr 26'-6" N/A 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE: 39.7% 32.9% (1615 SF) 40% (1958 SF) (1945 SF) FAR: 2976 SF/ 1615 SF/ 2986 SF/ 0.61 FAR 0.33 FAR 0.61 FAR' PARKING: one covered in garage one covered in garage one covered in garage (13'-6" x 21'-0" + 1 unc. in driveway (10'4' x 20'-0") + 1 unc. in driveway HEIGHT: 25'-6" 19'-0" 3072'/2 stories DH ENVELOPE: meets requirements N/A see code ' (32% x 4896 SF) + 1100 SF (+ 319 SF) = 2986 SF *Project as revised November 20, 2000. Design Review History: The applicant's first plan submittal for a new house on this site was studied by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2000. At that time the Commission asked the applicant for a better justification for the front setback variance. A number of design issues were also noted: front facade is fairly good, but the house does not project a strong statement of style, more articulation is needed on the side and rear elevations to give the house more character, the vertical mass on the right side needs to be broken up; suggestions of the availability of special permit provisions to enable consistent architectural style were noted as were some proposed items which needed to be adjusted in order for zoning and building code requirements to be met. The Commission referred the project to the design reviewer. 3 Appeal Hearing on a Council Denial Without Prejudice for an Application for Design Review for a New Two -Story House at 112 Baysivater Avenue, Zoned R-1. December 4, 2000 The applicant resubmitted plans on July 21, 2000, on these plans he noted he made several changes requested, including increasing the front setback from 15'-1 " to 1 T-6", where 19'-6" is required. Design Review Analysis: In the review of the July 21, 2000, plans the Reviewer (see Gumbinger letter August 4, 2000) noted that the applicant had made changes in the plans to respond to the Commission's concerns of May 8: the architectural style and window treatment of the proposed house is consistent within itself, and the distribution of the second floor mass has reduced the bulk of the residence and is now more compatible with the neighboring houses. Recommendation: The design review consultant recommended approval of the design review permit. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives, Requirements for Design Review Criteria City Engineer's Memo November 6, 2000 City Council Minutes September 18, 2000 Richard Farella letter to City Council, September 12, 2000 City Council Staff Report, September 18, 2000 with attachments including Planning Commission Staff Report August 14, 2000. Public Notice Appeal Hearing, mailed November 22, 2000 Plans Date Stamped November 20, 2000 n r ACTION ALTERNATIVES City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 112 Bayswater Avenue, December 4, 2000 ROUTING FORM DATE: November 1, 2000 TO: X CITY ENGINEER _CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL _FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-284-150. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, November 6, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Erika/Ruben 1/ 6 Date of Comments u"'`c :2rrvw✓� d � v Z ye. 8 yu Vp0L A*'4 w Vvee 7 4 7 n a401, I CA^ v ,S 4A, "44 dtedi C- b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 CP Monroe reviewed the staff report noting the applicant has requested design review and a front setback variance for 17'- 6" from the property line where 19'-6" is required. Request is to build a new two story, three bedroom single-family house at 61.9% FAR with a one -car garage, which is 297 square feet. The existing two -bedroom house with detached garage will be demolished. The existing house has a 27' front setback. In their action, the Planning Commission did not believe a hardship existed on the property to grant the variance; lot size is typical, lot is basically flat; occasionally hardships are established by the placement of existing structures on the site; in this case the house is being demolished so there are no such existing conditions; to grant a variance on any basis other than a hardship applicable to the property which does not exist on other properties in the district will set a precedent for future zoning implementation; regarding design, the commissioners noted that the 27' setback is a part of the pattern on this side of this particular block. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mr. Rob Cunningham, applicant and owner, and Mr. Pat Kelly, family friend and consultant, came forward to speak. Mr. Cunningham referred to the design reviewers letter stating he supported the design and the variance. Mr. Cunningham showed Council photos of the neighboring houses. He stated the two houses to the right of his house have a front setback of 15'. The two houses to the left have front setbacks of 22' and 18% 6", the average without his lot is 17'-6". Mr. Kelly stated the existing house is 98 years old; when demolished it would be replaced with a two story house, a great improvement to the neighborhood; feels a 17' setback is consistent with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Galligan asked Mr. Cunningham why he does not want to build a house with a 19'-6" setback. He stated he would like to have a larger back yard; also, his architect feels building the house with a 17' setback would make it easier to maneuver a car into the garage; the hardship that exists is that the lot size 48' x 102', which is long and narrow. Mayor O'Mahony referred to the code that states that the front setback has to be either 15' or the average front setback of the properties on the same side of the street, whichever is greater; with 17'-6" applicant is not counting one of the houses with the frontage on that side of the block. Vice Mayor Galligan noted if.the variance was granted, any property owner could come forward in the future and demand a variance; not a position he was willing to put the City in. Councilman Coffey noted, he discussed with the City Attorney the interpretation of the code; the determination of the average is a measurement taken from the front property line to any wall or any covered projection of any existing "or" proposed structure. He noted that the code section could be interpreted either using the current structure or eliminating it from the average. CA Anderson noted that the interpretation placed on the code section since it was adopted in 1993 was that the average should include the applicant's property, as it currently exists. Councilman Coffey feels the backyard is the most important non-structural space in a house. Discussed with CP Monroe what some of the negative ramifications would be if a determination was made to leave Mr. Cunningham's house out of the equation. The only negative factor was that it might have future ramifications; feels it would be easy to correct this code to read the way it was Minutes 4 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 there would. CP Monroe explained that her concern also is one business could run two separate operations. CA Anderson noted that under California law, the City couldn't condition a use permit on transfer of ownership. Vice Mayor Galligan asked if there were not a banquet scheduled, would the room still be used. Mr. Weinberg stated the space is for banquets, private functions, overflow dining, and possible dancing and live bands. He clarified that the main entrance on Burlingame Avenue is the only entrance to the facility; the doors on California Drive are for fire egress only. The only way to get to the 303-305 California Drive space is through Burlingame Avenue. Security personnel would be monitoring the fire doors from the inside as well as the outside of California Drive. CP Monroe stated an amendment would need to be made to condition #4 if dancing and live music were allowed at 303-305 California Drive, since based on the Planning Commission's application it describes the building as expanded lounge and banquet area only. There were no further comments from the floor and Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. Council Comments: Mayor O'Mahony noted her concern was losing retail but that this site is not really a part of Burlingame Avenue; wouldn't mind the building to be used for overflow patrons; would like to see a portable bar be one of the conditions of approval. Councilman Spinelli stated the retail portion of this property is in an area where there is very little foot traffic; doesn't feel it is a viable retail space and has no problem with it being converted to banquet use. Wants to be sure that in the future, 303-305 California Drive does not become a restaurant, bar or deli. Councilman Coffey feels the objective of any establishment the City supports is to give them the maximum opportunity to be successful; would like a provision that states the permanent bar be removed if the business changes. Feels there is a very big difference between the serviceability of a rollaway bar compared to a permanent installation. Agreed that this is not a viable retail space; the previous tenant, Frame-O-Rama, was a "destination" shop. CA Anderson stated it was possible to work with the owners to try to come up with a definition to meet that requirement. Mr. Weinberg was not opposed to having a bar without bar stools; their concern is being able to serve their customers. Councilman Spinelli noted he was not opposed to having this portion of the building mirror the business hours of the business at 1108 Burlingame Avenue. Vice Mayor Galligan asked if not allowing a dishwasher at the site be a feasible condition. CA Anderson explained this was something that may pose problems due to County Health requirements. Councilman Coffey made a motion that the appeal of the Planning Commissions denial be overturned for an amendment to the conditional use permit to expand seating area for the existing full service food establish at 1108 Burlingame Avenue (Fanny and Alexander's), Zoned C-1, Subarea A Burlingame Avenue commercial area with the additional changes to condition #3 & 4, the details of the service bar, with exact wording to be established by the City Attorney in conjunction with the applicant. Condition #4 should include dining, dancing and live music and that the hours of operation is concurrent with the Burlingame Avenue operation. Seconded by Councilwoman Janney; approved by voice vote, 5-0. CA Anderson proposed that the revised conditions be submitted with the resolution for action at the meeting when the Council considers the amusement permit. Councilman Spinelli wanted to emphasize that even though Council was overturning the Planning Commissions denial, the Commission did exactly what Council wanted as far as looking at Subarea A and the impacts of expansion of restaurants. Mayor O'Mahony noted the Planning Commission works extremely hard and is very grateful for them. Burlingame City Council 3 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 intended to read. Doesn't feel granting the two -foot variance will have a negative effect on the neighboring properties; feels it is not a required variance. Mayor O'Mahony stated that the code has always been determined in this matter; doesn't feel it should be interpreted any differently in this case. CA Anderson stated this was an interpretation that could be applied; it is not mandated by the code; this is a policy determination that Council needs to make. Councilman Spinelli read the exact wording at the request of Vice Mayor Galligan; concerned that somebody in the future will get penalized in the opposite manner. Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive, and Richard Farella, 114 Bayswater, spoke; stated Mr. Cunningham's backyard will be 29' feet, much larger than the average yard in Burlingame. Noted that the code has been applied in a certain way since adoption, and changing it for one applicant is not fair. Expressed concern over effect on the Planning Commission when many of the denials are appealed to the City Council and then overturned; opposed to variance; neighbors object to big homes and zoning requirements being changed; feel the Planning Commission did a good job in interpreting the code; interpreting the code any other manner than what has been done since adoption will pose future problems; urged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's denial for a variance and design review. There were no further comments from the floor and Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. Mayor O'Mahony stated she would follow the current code and not support the variance. Vice Mayor Galligan, Councilwoman Janney, and Councilman Spinelli agreed to support the Planning Commission's denial for the variance. Councilman Coffey stated he would support the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission's denial. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the variance for a front setback and to deny without prejudice the design review; Councilwoman Janney seconded the motion; approved by voice vote, 4-1, Councilman Coffey voting no. C. ORDINANCE #1639 OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 12.23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH CLEAR STANDARDS FOR THE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NEWSRACKS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz stated at the Council meeting held on September 5t', the news rack ordinance was introduced. The two main changes of the proposed ordinance is to establish a newsrack committee and that the news racks within the Broadway commercial area and Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area shall be modular units permanently affixed to the ground. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1639 amending chapter 12.23 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to establish clear standards for the placement and maintenance of newsracks in public right-of-way, seconded by Councilman Coffey; approved by voice vote, 5- 0. Burlingame City Council 5 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 t d. ADOPT ORDINANCE #1640 AMENDING CHAPTER 13.04 TO MAKE THE DEFINITION OF HOLIDAYS FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATION CONSISTENT WITH COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF HOLIDAYS IN THE CITY City Attorney noted the current provisions in the Municipal Code do not include Columbus Day as a holiday for purposes of parking enforcement. Some citizens have been cited for parking violations on this holiday; it also creates problems with the Police Department as it is also a holiday for some of the cities bargaining groups. This means there may not be parking enforcement officers available that day, which would require uniformed officers to issue parking citations. This would also carry over to power equipment usage on Columbus Day. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilman Spinelli made a motion to adopt the Ordinance #1640 amending Chapter 13.04 to make the definition of Holidays for parking enforcement and power equipment operation consistent with common understanding of holidays in the city, seconded by Councilwoman Janney; motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE #1641 ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS FOR DETACHED GARAGE DIMENSIONS, TO PROHIBIT WAREHOUSE STORAGE IN C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS, AND TO CLARIFY TIME LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF ZONING APPROVALS CP Monroe noted that at the Planning Commission meetings of July 24 and August 14, the Planning Commission suggested some revisions to the zoning code; the revisions were corrections in the text of the code for special permit requirements for garages, to enact a prohibition of warehouse storage use in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts and changing the expiration of zoning approvals to match new expiration times of tentative maps when a project requires both. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve Ordinance #1641 amending the zoning code to provide a special permit process for detached garage dimensions, to prohibit warehouse storage in C-1 and C-2 districts, and to clarify time limits on the exercise of zoning approvals, seconded by Councilwoman Janney; motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. f. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE #1642 AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF PARKING PERMITS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES IN MUNICPAL PARKING FACILITIES CM Argyres stated a request was received from library and city hall staff to look for ways to improve the parking situation in the area. Currently, the number of reserved spaces is not sufficient to deal with all the employees. Rather than increase the number of reserved spaces, a permit system has been suggested along with improving the TSM program incentives for city Unapproved Minutes 6 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 ti ' C `ti Richard Farella Merchandisers Inc. P.O. Box 665 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 114 Bayswater Ave. City Of Burlingame September 12, 2000 City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 112 Bayswater Avenue Appeal Attn: City Council 9/18/00 Apeal Hearing I request that at the meeting of the City Council on 9/18/00 the appeal application for 112 Bayswater Avenue be denied; that Council does not approve the design review and variance application. The Council should support the Planning Commission in their unanimous denial of the application on 8/14/00. Please review my letters on file to the Planning Commission of 5/2/00 and 8/8/00 for detailed facts for the basis for my request. To summarize, the design is not in character with the neighborhood and a variance has no basis to be granted. Also please review the minutes and recordings of the Planning Commission meetings of 5/8/00 and 8/14/00. At both meetings the minutes reflect the Commissioners unanimously advising the applicant and his architect that there was no basis for a variance being granted. Yet, they return twice with plans which request a front setback variance. At both meetings they were also advised that the design of the house does not fit the neighborhood. It is obvious that it does not. Finally, please review the applicant's appeal request and timetable dated 8/20/00 and his "editorializing" to the Independent newspaper on 9/2/00 and 9/6/00 (copies of articles attached). On 8/00 he is correct that "all issues were addressed" at the meeting; specifically that a front setback variance would not be granted and the house was too big (per minutes/recordings). On 8/14/00 the applicant still requests a front setback variance and unacceptable design and again is denied. An accusation is made that the denial is based on "personal preferences of the committee" (per 8/20/00 appeal request). On 9/2/00 and 9/6/00 the Independent newspaper editorializes the procedures of the Planning Commission with information that looks identical to the applicant's appeal application but with accusations of the Commission, individual Commissioners, and the entire process. The errors of fact in these articles are enormous compared to the actual events of the public meetings; even the street name is wrong. The appeal request to the Council is the legal avenue for the applicant. Not editorial criticism of an architectural review process I H that was drafted at the request of Burlingame residents by neighborhood committees, the Planning Department, and the Planning Commission with the guidance of the City Council. In summary, the appeal to the Council is two issues: 1. The design of the proposed house in context with the existing neighborhood and the effect on existing neighbors. The correct decision was made by the Planning Commission in their interpretation of the neighborhood and in their unanimous denial of the design. 2. The front setback variance request. Setback regulations and variance grantin regulations are a matter of City Zoning Law (# 25.28.072 and 25.54.020). The calculation of the front setback average for the applicant was weighted more to his benefit by the inclusion of 101 Victoria (see my letters of 5/2/00 and 8/8/00). The Planning,Commission with advise of staff determined the front setback to be equitable and therefore a requirement under City zoning regulations. The Planning Commission also found that the 4 conditions under Regulation #25.54.020abcd for granting a variance do not exist in this property. The Commissioners noted that the design of the house is hot a condition for granting a variance and, if done, wouO set a precedent. Again, the Planning Commission was correct in denying the variance and avoiding a legal compromise in the zoning regulations. Sincerely, r(- -7�-c�a,ct Richard Farella President Attachment: newspaper articles Fishy doings 'at design review body John Scott is a patent attor- ney who lives in Menlo Park i. ! and is a man on a mission. He Wants the Caltrain horns' turned down because he says the volume is too high. The fast passenger train coming i through Menlo Park is at 5.30 a.m. and he is awakened daily , rb-y the rasping sound of the "train's horn. Scott serves on the Menlo ' t Park transportation commit tee and he's vowed to do some- -;thing about the noise from the horn. There's a new federal law allowing a quiet zone in .I cities and all Menlo Park has to `• do is put in extra crossing arms and a concrete medium The Burlingame Design Review Subcommittee is one of the powerhouses in the city. just ask Rob Cunningham. a San Mateo resident who pur- ;cJtased arundown home at 112 -Bayshore Ave. with the inten- tion of tearing it down and Wildinga nice .2,600-square- foot home. One of the people he interviewed to design his new home was Jerry Deal. Instead, he hired someonl• who would have no conflict with the Planning Commission. Ray Viotti. On March 2 of this year _Cunningham and Viotti requested an application from the Planning Department On March10, Viotti received an application form for a variance and eight items listed for con gideration.These included pro- posed setbacks, elevations, location of window proposed in kitchen, proposed detached garage window, identity of pro posed landscape and removal of a street tree. On March 15, the ci ty .assigned architect. Cathy �Nilmeyer and city aff N08110Y. page 6Apage 6A NOBODY: `Good taste police':: Continued from IA character is — I challenge anyone. member Janice Jagelski to meet with Cunningham and Viotti at ' Then check out the Deal designs on Montrero and tell me if they the property. It was suggested conform to the character of the that revisions be made to the neighborhood. This design review plaits prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Two recom- process is a nightmare of bureau - cratic red tape run by the "good mendations were to work on roof taste police," whose taste remains vocabulary and to make windows in doubt. ..- more consistent and pronounced. About March 15, the Planning Commission first reviewed the plans submitted. Applications for plans were denied and advisory action was given based on front setback, ideas to break the mass along the sides of the house, revi- sion of the window style and rec- ommendations to blend with the character of the neighborhood. On June 19. Cunningham and Viotti met with Paul Gumbinger, the city -assigned architect and Janice Jagelski at the property site to review design and revise plans. On July 1.1. Viotti sent a letter to the Planning Department responding to variance applica- tion questions. The house would now match the existing neigh- borhood more closely ind adhere to the average setback on the block. On August 14, almost a half -year after the process began. the .Planning Commission conducted its second review of the project. The commission denied the appli- cation, stating the plans did not fit into the neighborhood and that the existing setback should be maintained. Cunningham believes the com- mission made its decision based upon personal preferences. What should have happened, though it' would not have changed the vote, is Deal should have abstained since he was interviewed by Cunningham to do the design and turned down. What really smells bad is the two homes that Deal designed for Otto Miller and Denise Langesen on Montrero that absolutely do not fit in with the character of the neighborhood and yet the Planning Commission gave its blessings. Behind one of the homes is a garage that stands at least three feet higher than home - home and a driveway with a tree smack in the middle. Those homes had better not be sold to anyone known to tip a few late at night. The Design Review Subcommittee is made up of jer Deal, designer of homes: Martin Drieling. architect: Stan Vistica. architect: and alternate Ann Keighran, whose husband is a contractor. Every person on the a subcommittee is involved one wa} or another with homes and all serve on the Planning " Commission. Check out the neigjborhood of 112 Bayshore and tell me what its ry A remembrance and celebration of Al Gottlieb's life will take place on Saturday. Sept. 9, at the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Redwood City on Brewster Avenue at 1 p.m.... Shelley Kessler, executive secretary -trea- surer of the San Mateo Central Labor Council, was elected vice president of the California Federation of Labor.... Longtime treasurer Lee Buffington says he will run for his fifth term and is beginning to gear up for the cam- paign now.... The Democratic . Party of San Mateo -Foster City will hold an open house at the Belmont Theatre in Belmont, where local candidates will hold court on Tuesday. September 12 at 7 p.m. Come speak to Lou Papan, Joe Simitian, Kevin Shelley, Byron Sher and whoever else makes the event. The theatre will be the scene of the presiden- tial -debates on the movie screen. The fourth annual Chili and Clam Chowder Cook -off in Half Moon Bay at Princeton Harbor is Sept. 30, a Saturday. Master of ceremonies is Sheriff Don Horsley. Richard Guilbault sends me a photo of a sign saying "Too Late" placed by Kobberman Properties on a property up from his home in Burlingame. No more 'Sold' signs, now it's a question of tim- ing _ The Economic Vitality Partnership is now called the Peninsula Policy Partnership. At a recent meeting to expand mem- bership, a hot discussion took place with city managers Ed Everett, Mike Wilson. Oracle's Randy Smith and Foster City Mayor Deborah Wilder vehement- ly opposed ._ Rich Landi. who led the Palomar Fire Department through thick and thin, has been saying for years that dispatching fire trucks in the unincorporated area from the California Division of Forestry communications cen- ter in Felton was costly, inaccu- rate and a waste of time. Now Kings Mountain and La Honda fire departments have joined the chorus and Supervisor Jerry Hill is working on changes in the sys- tem. -•� tion. Giansante was given the. - cold shoulder by Petersen wlieji he tried to discuss a plan to change the flight pattern by 1,500 feet ... Maggic Gomez o f the Jefferson Union High School Board has been active in teen Jui- cide prevention and got the board to agree to train students on early warning signs ... SAM G DA and the Peninsula Policy - Partnership will sponsor a confer- ence Friday, Nov. 10. on land use planning and housing. Guess I - where the conference will takS place — at one of the highest.Nro- file development areas in the county, Bay Meadows. i Matt Grocott, San Carlos activist, says he spent $3.28 pear vote in the last election. Tom Davids spent 52.88 and David Buckmaster S4.55. Grocott asil who would run against forme mayor Davids and an incumbent about to be mayor, Buckmaster? The answer, from Grocott, "proba- bly the same guy who receniq applied to the Planning �S Commission." }: The appointment went to AieX Phillips, who works at Oracle. Grocott asks the questions, "Mat are his technical expertise, whit does he see as major planning t. issues — the balance of rights i between property owners and neighbors — and most import tt- ly, what is his vision of San Carlos' future?' Those are valid questions Grocott raises and I'll see if I can get Phillips to answer them. Margaret Taylor reported on skilled nursing care in the county recently -after the deaths of tv-o persons at SunBridge Care and Rehabilitation in Burlingame ; during a heat wave. The coup has no control over the facilities. Skilled Nursing facilities are r e ulated under title 22, section 1250 of the Welfare and •- institutions Code. Oversight for the patients' health and welfrte is the responsibility of the •i; California Department of Hel It Services. The county, as the Area Agen y of Aging, contracts with Cathdlic Charities to administer the Long - Tenn Care Ombudsman Program. The program. under policies sFt by the state of California, is responsible for investigations of abuse within skilled nursing facilities. No new facilities ha been opened in the county in a years. g Neil Cullen, public works direc- tor and Gary Petersen's boss at the San Carlos Airport, has set up a meeting with Joseph Giansante, Redwood Shores resident who has some ideas about noise mitiga- Supervisor Mike Nevin will bd honored along with 50 other dig- nitaries from the Bay Area on. • . Sunday, Sept.17, at St. Marys; Cathedral in San Francisco. Hell be awarded the Papal Medal, Ptoi Ecclesia et Pontifice. ..1. - ------------ or THEINDEPENDENT TED FANG JOHN T. C. FANG GREGORY WATKINS Publisher Publisher Emeritus Managing Editor Design review flunks the test HE BURLWGAME City Council has put off a decision to create a commer- cial design review board to approve future construction of retail and office buildings. We believe that no new government board should be estab- lished until a need is demonstrated that one is necessary. We don't believe that Burlingame has suffered aesthetically in either commer- cial or retail construction during its years without a commercial design review board. There may be a few exam- ples here and there, but basically, when a developer spends the amount of money it takes to put up a building, there is the overwhelming desire to obtain a solid tenant. And no solid ten- ant is going to destroy its image by leas- ing an eyesore building. We have watched with dismay during the last few years when • a residential Design Review Board used its authority to make arbitrary judgments on designs, .etc. For many of those who have gone before the city's Design Review Board, the process has been a nightmare. Long ago when design review was first discussed by the council, we opposed the process. We believed it placed too much power in the hands of a few, and that many- judgments were relative to the - individuals - making* the decision. We note that on the residential Design Review Board there are two architects, one designer and the wife of a builder. Getting two votes from this board is difficult at best and painful at the least. An example of this harassment can best be seen in the recent denial of an appli- cation by a young man, Rob Cunningham, to tear down his home at 112 Bayshore Ave. He purchased a run- down home in the interest of upgrading the neighborhood, not with a monster home, but with a 2,600-square-foot house. The home was purchased in November and now, 10 months later, he is still struggling to get approval from the Planning Commission to build. Meantime, two homes on Montrero Ave. that, in our judgment, do not conform to the character of the neighborhood — and which were designed by Planning Commissioner Jerry Deal and built by Otto Miller — were approved by the Planning Commission. Drive by the two properties and one will note that at one home the garage sticks up three feet above the main structure and the driveways are not built on a straight line. The garage could have been built at the same height if the builder graded the proper- ty, which would have eliminated any concern about drainage at that site. The construction of these two homes, in our judgment, negates the Design Review Board's professed desire to con- trol the character of the neighborhood and to maintain an aesthetic appear. ance for homes. This is our opinion, just as the decision of the Planning Commissioners is their opinion. The problem is that their judgment, or lack of judgment, affects the lives of people struggling to live in this city. City Of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposed Residence At: 112 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame, CA Attn: Planning Commission 8/14/00 Public Hearing Richard Farella Merchandisers Inc. P.O. Box 665 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 114 Bayswater Ave. August 8, 2000 RECEIVED AUG - 8 2000 CITY OF 13URLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The redesigned proposed residence at 112 Bayswater still fails to address the primary concern of myself in my letter of,5/2/00 and the Planning Commission at the 5/8/00 Study Hearing: "There is no justification for a variance, this is a new house on a flat lot, no hardship on the property" (minutes of 5/8/00 meeting). The basis for the new variance request are outlined in the letter from Ray Viotti of 7/18/00 as "responses to the variance application questions. In reply: Point a. suggests removing the current house at 112 Bayswater to justify the variance. This is backwards planning; the house is required to be in the setback average, especially since it is the property being reviewed. My letter of 5/2/00 suggests that the house at 101 Victoria be taken out of the average but that would further increase the setback average. The benefit of an average is that it factors in impacts on existing streetside neighbors. The average has to include the property that is creating the impacts. Neither can the setbacks on the opposite side of the street be considered; those homes are not directly impacted and the guidelines do not allow it. The lot width is standard on the street -for all and no basis for a front variance. Point b. has no basis. Vehicle maneuverability is not limited. The garage will have the same straight, easy access without a variance. The proposed fence between the house and garage limits maneuverability more than anything else. Vehicle size also has no basis for the granting of a variance; this is residential, not commercial zoning. If the alternative to not being able to get in the garage without a variance (on a flat/unobstructed lot) is to park in the driveway or on the street, then it seems something is wrong with the design plans in the first place. t M � f 7 Point c. makes no sense. If the proposed house design compliied with the average setback, there would be no need to request a variance. It presumes the proposed house is already built and it will generate a new average setback for future development; a future benefit for the block for a granted variance? The immediate adverse effects of granting this variance request are -more in the context of this hearing than future development of the block. Adjacent properties will be adversely impacted with diminished views of the sky as well as street and traffic, diminished air circulation and sunlight (creating cold and damp comditions), and eliminates privacy. These health and safety considerations on adjacent properties outweigh any concern for car parking. Point d. does not answer the question being asked on the variance application. The problem which impacts the neighbors is still the same with the redesign as the original design studied at the 5/8/00 meeting: "There is too much buildng"(Commissioner comment, 5/8/00 minutes). The three adjoining perimeter single story homes and the proposed house does not interface well with them. The rear, second story balcony makes the proposed house even more intrusive on the adjoining neighbors' privacy.. As I stated in my letter of 5/2/00 "Buildings that appear tobe too he neighborhood in a general way, but also large not only impact t have direct and severe effects on the immediate neighbors". In reviewing this application, please consider these points along with my previous letter of 5/2/00 to the Planning Commission. The conditions for granting a variance under the Code do not exist on this property and the design should be more compatible with adjoining properties while staying within the Code. Sincerely, Richard Farella President Attachment: 5/2/00 letter City Of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010 Re: Proposed Residence At: 112 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame, CA Attn: Janice Jagelski Richard Farella Merchandisers Inc. P.O. Box 665 Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 114 Bayswater Ave. May 2, 2000 RECEIVED MAY - 3 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The proposed residence at 112 Bayswater is out of context with the rest of the homes on the city block and more specifically with the homes it will adjoin on the Bayswater block. Out of the 5 homes on the Bayswater block, only one is a two-story structure (118 Bayswater) which was added onto prior to the uproar which created the city's requirement for the design review process. The proposed hgme will dwarf the adjoining homes, especially my property at 114 Bayswater Ave. The total effect of the proposed house on my property would be to create a complete shadow over my entire house, from west to east fostering cold and damp conditions. It will also eliminate any privacy in my house or rear yard due to the proposed second story rear deck and hot tub. The basis given for the variance request are listed in the letter from Ray Viotti of 3-15-2000 as "responses to the variance application questions". In reply: Point a. of the letter requests a setback based on a street average of 1916" which is really closer to 20"7"; only 4 houses have addresses on Bayswater and 101 is on Victoria Rd. For that reason 101 Victoria is not a "longer" house but a wider house and not a standard for the block. Point b. blames denial of the variance for a small backyard; the small backyard is the result of too large a house. The small backyard is a trade-off within the applicant's property but a variance would be a trade-off that adversely impacts neighboring properties. The garage would still be accessible to cars without the variance. R Point c. is incorrect in that the proposed house will extend beyond all but one house on the street and will be detrimental to adjacent properties. Point d. describes a neighborhood only in terms of the number of stories (single or two) but design review is based on neighborhood compatibility, architectural integrity, and interface with adjoining properties; the proposed house is not compatible with the neighborhood or adjoining properties. In reviewing this application or any future applications for 112 Bayswater, I request that you consider the following points: 1. The compatibility of the proposed house to the neighborhood. "Buildings that appear to be too large not only impact the neighborhood in a general way, but also have direct and severe effects on the immediate neighbors." 2. The impact the proposed house will have on the existing property at 114 Bayswater Ave. in terms of southeasterly sunlight on the house and on the existing landscaping and how that will be further worsened with a variance approval. 3. The impact the proposed house will have on diminishing existing views and air circulation on 114 Bayswater, further worsened with a variance. 4. The effect proposed house site plan would have on water drainage and possible flooding onto 114 Bayswater property, especially if site levels are elevated and with a backyard with a large non -absorbent concrete patio. 5. The existing landscaping between 112 and 114 Bayswater, particularly the existing hedge, that is eliminated on the proposed site plan and replaced (?) with a fence. 6. The effect the proposed design will have on the privacy and noise levels on the adjoining properties. Sincerely, C i Richard Farella President y, CITY o TAFF REPORT r� YOR AND CITY COUNCIL To: HONOR.ABI-EMA DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 FROM! CITY PLANNER AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 09.18. 00 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY Tanning Commission Denial of a Variance for FrontSetback Avenue and SUBJECT: Appeal of P Design Review for a New Two -Story Residence at 112 Bayswater Zoned R 1. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should stated for the record The possible y action should be clearly include findings. The reasons for any a riance and design review are included at the end of the staff action alternatives and criteria for a va report. Conditions on the project considered by the Planning Commission were: 1. That the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 21, 2000, Sheets 1 through 4; 2. that the left side setback variance is permitted only for construction of the garage, all other portions of the structure must meet the side setback requirements; 3. that during the demolition of the existing structure, site preparation and construction of the new structures, the applicant shall apply all applicable best management practices to prevent erosion and contamination of storm water runoff, 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first and second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review, 11 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000, memo shall be met; and 6. that any improvements for the use shall be all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. -1- r Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for Front Setback and Design Review for a Ne►v Two - Residence at 112 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned R-1. September 18, Planning Commission Action At their meeting on August 14, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and vote( 0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent) to deny the request for a front setback variance a design review for a new two-story house. In their action the commission noted: that they did n feel that the front setback variance requested was justified based on the lot size being exception since this is a standard lot, 5000 SF, the typical lot size in the city; this is a new house on a generally flat lot so there is no reason that it cannot meet the setback pattern in the neighborho, established by the zoning code; the existing 27 foot setback is not a• hardship based on it being ; greater setback than others, there is variety on this block, next door the setback is 22 feet anotl house has a 15 foot; commission felt that to grant a variance on any basis other than a hardshi applicable to the property that does not exist generally on other properties in the district would a precedent for future zoning code implementation. On the design the commissioners noted that the existing 27 foot front setback is a part of the existing pattern of the neighborhood addressed in the design guidelines criteria and should be i for that reason; that there may be no architectural pattern in this neighborhood, but there is in Burlingame, there are elements incorporated in this design that will make it stand out in the neighborhood such as the stucco surround, columns, oval windows, width of the house from property line to property line; large plant materials should be added at the rear to soften the appearance of the size of the structure at the back. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Rob Cunningham, is requesting design review and front setback variance (17 4 proposed, 19'-6" average on the side of the street required) to build a new, two-story, three - bedroom single family house (3030 SF, 61.9% FAR) with a one car (13'-6"w x 22'-0"d, 297 detached garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1. The existing 1615 SF (33% FAR), tw, bedroom house and detached garage will be demolished. The existing house has a 27 foot frc setback. The average of the existing front setbacks on this side of the street is 19'-6"; and the applicant proposes to set the new structure back 17-6". A variance is required for the 2 foot difference. It should be noted that the new house and garage have a total FAR of 61.9% (3030 SF) where the maximum FAR allowed is 62.6% (3066 SF); the remaining 36 SF is not sufficient to allow for a two car garage on this site in the future without a FAR variance. The application requires the following permits: 1. Design review for a new two story house; and 2. A front setback variance for I T-6" where 19'-6" is required. History: The applicant's first plan submittal for a new house on this site was studied by the Planning Commission on May 8, 2000. At that time the Commission asked the applicant for a better justification for the front setback variance. A number of design issues were also noted: front facade is fairly good, but the house does not project a strong statement of style, more articulation is needed on the side and rear elevations to give the house more character, the vertical mass on the right side needs to be broken up; suggestions of the availability of special permit provisions to -2- • "` Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of a Variance for Front Setback and Design Review for a New Two -Story Residence ut 112 Bayswater Avenue, Zoned R-1- September 18, 2000 enable consistent architectural style were noted as were some proposed items which needed to be adjusted in order for zoning and building code requirements to be met. The Commission referred the project to the design reviewer. The applicant resubmitted plans on July 21, 2000, on these plans he noted he made several changes requested, including increasing the front setback from 15'-1" to 17-6% where 19'-6" is required. Design Review Analysis: In the review of the July 21, 2000, plans the Reviewer (see Gumbinger letter August 4, 2000) noted that the applicant had made changes in the plans to respond to the Commission's concerns of May 8: the architectural style and window treatment of the proposed house is consistent within itself, and the distribution of the second floor mass has reduced the bulk of the residence and is now more compatible with the neighboring houses. The design review consultant noted that "the variance allows a larger and more useable rear yard". Recommendation: The design review consultant recommended approval of the design review permit. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives, Requirements for a Variance, Design Review Criteria Monroe letter to Ray Viotti, Designer, August 23, 2000, setting appeal hearing Rob Cunningham, August 21, 2000, letter requesting appeal Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report, August 14, 2000, with attachments Notice of Appeal Hearing, September 8, 2000 Resolution -3- ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are as follows: I. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. fib, CITY C guR1JNCiAME CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Planning Department Burlingame, California 94010-3997 Tel. (650) 558-7200 August 23, 2000 Ray Viotti, Jr. 763 Polhemus Road, #1 San Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Mr. Viotti, Jr., At the City Council meeting of August 21, 2000, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing on your project at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1. A public hearing will be held on September 18, 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, 4 - - Marg ret Monroe City Planner MM/s 112BAYSW.acc C. Rob Cunningham 112 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 City Clerk 8/20/00 CITY OF BURLINGAME �Fn CITY COUNCIL & CITY CLERK CF, 501 Primrose Road 4&,, �� Burlingame, CA 94010 e000 RE. 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE ZONED R-1 APN 029-284-150 �iNv'��i c �FAr9�F Dear Sirs: I am requesting to be included on the Agenda of the City Council Meeting September 18,2000 to appeal the ruling by the Planning Commission on 8/14/00 regarding the above referenced property. The following details summarize the events to date on 112 Bayswater Ave: (1) NOV.'99 Engaged the services of Licensed Architect- Ray Viotti to design a set of plans in accordance with the Zoning Guidelines of the City of Burlingame. Procured and reviewed the following documents sent to Ray Viotti by the -City of Burlingame: Design Guidelines(April 1998) Minimum Requirements for Initial Review of Plans -Residential Second Story Construction or Additions City of Burlingame Building Code Construction Permit Application Procedure & The Plan Check Process Protected Trees City Ordinances. (2) MAR.2'00 Application was made to City of Burlingame for Proposed New Residential Project @ 112 Bayswater Ave.& plans were submitted. k-3 AR.10' 00 Ray Viotti received letter from Planning Department -City of Burlingame which included an application form for a variance. It was determined that the application submitted was incomplete and eight items were listed for consideration. These items included, proposed setbacks -elevations-location of window proposed in kitchen -proposed detached garage window- identify proposed landscape -removal of a street tree -prelim comments from the CBO. (4) MAR 15'00 approx City assigned Architect Cathy Nilmeyer & City Staff Member Janice Jagelski met with Ray Viotti and Rob Cunningham at the property. It was suggested that revisions be made to the plans prior to the Planning Commission Meeting. Point 1' one was to work on roof vocabulary and point two was to make windows more consistent and pronounced. (5) MAY 8'00 First review by Planning Commission of plans submitted. All issues were addressed and changes incorporated into revised proposed plans as discussed at the MAR 151h meeting. -Application for plans were denied and advisory action was given based on front setback ,break up of mass along sides, windows style and character of the neighborhood. (6) JUNE 19'00 Met with Paul Gumbinger (City assigned Architect) and Janice Jagelski at property site to review design & revised plans. (7)JULY 18'00 Letter from Ray Viotti to the Planning Dept. responding to the variance application questions. With the variance, the house will match existing neighborhood more closely as it will now fit into the neigborhood's average setback. Hardship was stated as well. (8) AUG.14'00 Second Review by Planning Commission. It stated that the plans did not fit into the neighborhood and that the existing 27 foot setback is an existing condition which contributes to the character of the neighborhood. Motion passed to deny the variance and design review based on personl preferences of the committee. Appeal procedures were advised. Respectfully submitted, Rob Cunningham- Owner 112 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 ( 050) 245-2033 cc: Rosalie M. O'Mahony, Mayor Martin Dreiling, Planning Commission Ann Musso, City Clerk Ann Keighran, Planning Commission Larry Anderson, City Attorney David Luzuriaga, Planning Commission Margaret Monroe, City Planner Ralph Osterling, Planning Commission Mike Coffey, City Council Stanley Vistica, Planning Commission Joe Galligan, Vice Mayor Mary H. Janney- City Council Mike Spinelli, City Council Joseph Bojue's, Planning Commission Jerry Lee Deal, Planning Commission F � � City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 14, 2000 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK �C VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (RAY VIOTTI, JR. A AUT CANT AND DFIRTGNER ; ROB CT TNTNWCTT4AM Reference staff report, 8.14.00, with attachments. City Planner discussed the report, reviewed criteria, Planning Department comments and conditions suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: are design reviewers to comment on variances? Staff noted it was her understanding that the reviewers would comment only if variance affected design criteria. How is average front setback measured? Staff noted all properties fronting on the same side of the street i.e., short side of property on street. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Rob Cunningham, property owner, and Ray Viotti, architect, represented the project. They noted that they met with the design reviewer and worked to break up the massing; if took out the 27 foot setback of this site, the average on the side of the street is the proposed 17'-6" which is the same setback as on the other side of the street and reflects the neighborhood. This design has no identifiable character or style, why? There is no style in the neighborhood to follow, client wanted a more modern style. There may be no pattern in the neighborhood but there is a pattern in Burlingame, there are elements in this house that make it standout, stucco surround, columns, oval windows, width of the house from property line to property line, why? Applicant noted that in his opinion this 48' x 102' lot is substandard, house is only 2600 SF, three bedrooms and 2 V2 baths; wanted to know how to progress. There are two story houses in the area which look nice on Bayswater and Victoria, this design will not fit in, what is the exceptional hardship on the property for the front setback variance? The exceptional hardship is the existing 27 foot setback on this lot which is greater than the neighbors. Others on the block do not have IT, next door the setback is 22 feet, another 15', the variety of setbacks on this street is the pattern. There were no further comments on the project from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted points have been made; this is not a substandard lot, a great many 5000 SF lots in the city; the variance is driven by the design of the house, which is not an exceptional circumstance; gave direction, there are good houses in neighborhood, design new house to be compatible with them; the design review was caused by the style of the architecture not the square footage; move to deny the application. Chair Keighran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: agree that there are no exceptional circumstances for the front setback variance, the square footage of the house is OK, for design need to look around to see what is in the neighborhood; can live with the setback variance if the house were well designed to fit into neighborhood; would like large plant material to be added in the rear yard to'soften the appearance of the size from the rear. For a variance must find exceptional hardship based on characteristics of the property, if do for any other reason will set a precedent. The existing 27 foot setback is an existing condition which contributes to the character of the neighborhood, and needs to be accepted. Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the variance and design review. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Luzuriaga, Vistica absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.. 1320 SKYVIrE DRIVE - NED R 1- APPLICA . N FOR DESIGN ED! FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADTION (L�\ CE CHEN, DESIGNER APPL��; S L H. AND ELAINE WONG, ReferenceAtaff port, 8.14.00 with chments. Staff�IZer discussed th report, re 'ted criteria and Planning Department mments; six con it'ons were suggested for consideration. Co n had o questions of staff. -6- Item # // City of Burlingame New Two Story Residence with Front Setback Variance 112 Bayswater Avenue City of Burlingame item # 11 Design Review and Front Setback Variance for New Two -Story Residence Address: 112 Bayswater Avenue Meeting Date: August 14, 2000 Request: Application for design review for new two-story residence and front setback variance at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.040; 25.28.072). Property Owner: Rob Cunningham Applicant: Ray Viotti, Jr, Designer APN: 029-284-150 Designer: Ray Viotti, Jr. Lot Area: 4896 SF (48' x 102') General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Date Submitted: July 21, 2000 Summary: This project was initially reviewed at the May 8, 2000 study meeting where numerous questions were raised regarding the proposed design review and variance applications. The applicant has revised the elevations and variance application and proposes to demolish the existing two -bedroom, single - story residence, detached garage and accessory structures and construct a new three -bedroom, two-story residence with a detached one -car garage. In the revised materials, the applicant still requests a variance for the front setback, but the applicant's responses to the variance application and the building's elevations and footprint have been modified based on the Planning Commission's comments at the study meeting. Staff Comments: Attached. Table Comparing Proposed Project with Existing and Required R-1 Standards Proposed Existing Required Front Setback - 1st floor 17'-611* 27'-0" 19'-6" (average) Front Setback - 2nd floor 21'-10.5" N/A 20'-0" Right Setback 9'-0" 10'-0" 4'-0" Left Setback 4'-6" 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear Setback - 1st floor 29'-0" 31'-0" 15'-0" Rear Setback - 2nd floor 29'-0" N/A 20'-0" Height 25'-6" 1-story 30'-0" DHE meets code N/A see code Lot Coverage 1947.6SF= 39.9% 1615 SF = 33% 1958 SF = 40% FAR 3030 SF = 61.9% 1615 SF = 33% 3066 SF = 62.6% # Bedrooms 3 2 N/A Parking 1 detached cov + 1 detached cov 1 cov + 1 uncov 1 uncov + 1 uncov * front setback variance required for 17'-6" setback where 19'-6" average along block is required. Study Meeting: At the May 8, 2000 Study Meeting, the Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide a better justification for the requested front setback variance. Regarding the design, the commission noted that the front facade is fairly good, but the house does not project a strong statement of style. More articulation is needed on the side and rear elevations to give the house more character. The vertical mass Design Review and Front Setback Variance 112 Bayswater Avenue along the right side (driveway) needs to be broken up. The commission advised the applicant to explore modifying the declining height envelope and height limits of the house because special permits for exceptions to these standards can be approved if the architectural style and design of a new house warrants an increase in height above 30'-0" or projection into the declining height envelope. The commission noted that the window in the stairway is too large and the window styles need to be consistent with the rest of the house. The detached one -car garage has a work bench inside which encroaches into the required 20'-0" clear area required to park the car. The eaves on the garage cannot be built as designed, and the applicant should clarify the requirements with the Building Department and Fire Marshal regarding placement of eaves near property lines. In conclusion, the commission recommended that this project be reviewed by one of the design review consultants who should be directed to examine the mass and bulk of the proposed house, as well as review the design elements discussed during the study meeting. The applicant revised the plans and resubmitted revised drawings on July 21, 2000, indicating that he had worked with the design review consultant to address the window pattern, architectural style of the house on the side and rear elevations, and further reduce the apparent mass and bulk of the residence. The first story front setback was increased to 17'-6", which still requires a variance, and the variance application was revised to include additional analysis completed by the applicant. The applicant compared the average front setback of the houses on the opposite side of the street (odd number addresses) which turned out to be 17'- 6", which is consistent with the setback requested by the applicant. The applicant also averaged the front setback of the houses on his side of the block except that his house with the 27'-0" front setback was omitted, and this average was 17'-6", which is the setback proposed for the new house to replace the existing residence. Design Review. Analysis: The Design Review Consultant met at the project site with the applicant and toured the immediate neighborhood for examples of architectural styles that the applicant could emulate to include more character in the proposed new residence. After the applicant prepared revised plans, he forwarded them to the design review consultant who reviewed the plans for the issues raised by the commission at the study meeting. The Design Review Consultant noted that the applicant changed the plans to respond to the Commission's concerns. The architectural style and window treatment of the proposed house is consistent within itself, and the distribution of the second floor mass has reduced the bulk of the residence and is now more compatible with the neighboring houses. The Design Review Consultant noted that he supported the findings for the front setback variance to increase the size and useable space in the rear yard, and he recommended that the commission approve the design review permit. Findings for a Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of 2 Design Review and Front Setback Variance 112 Bayswater Avenue existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1603 adopted by the Council on September 23, are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and should include findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 21, 2000, Sheets 1 through 4; 2. that the left side setback variance is permitted only for construction of the garage, all other portions of the structure must meet the side setback requirements; 3. during the demolition of the existing structure, site preparation and construction of the new structures, the applicant shall apply all applicable best management practices to prevent erosion and contamination of storm water runoff; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first and second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000 memo shall be met; 6. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Janice Jagelski Planner c: Ray Viotti, applicant 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 8, 2000 DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED R 1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (BOB CUNNINGHAM, OWNER RAY VIOTTI JR APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) CP Monroe briefly presented the staff report. There were no questions about the project from the commission. CA Anderson noted that tonight the Commission cannot approve a project, the purpose of the design review study meeting is to exchange information with the applicant provide some direction and the Commission must act to refer the project to a designer review consultant for further review to the consent calendar; these actions are not appealable. Vice Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Robert Cunningham, property owner, and Ray Viotti; architect, noted that they would respond to any questions the commission might have. Commissioners discussed: that the applicant provide justification for the front setback variance, explain the hardship; applicant noted that the minimum front setback requirement is 15' and that the existing house has the largest front setback on the block at 27which affects the average, need additional room to maneuver a vehicle around the house and into the detached garage; Commissioners discussed the proposed addition with the architect noting that the front facade is fairly good, more articulation should be added to the side and rear walls in order to give the house character, exceptions to declining height envelope and building height if justified by design may help with articulation, there is too much building, the proposed two story stucco house is nondescript, there is no statement of style options, there are many good examples in the neighborhood and area, the neighborhood is made up of many different styles don't emulate stucco box style, need to break up the vertical mass along the right side; window style should be more consistent; need to add street trees to help screen the new house, work bench encroaches into 20' required parking space length, garage eaves cannot be built as shown, applicant should check with the building department; the window in the stairway is too large and not consistent with the rest of the house; plans show that the proposed front setback is 15' but applicant is requesting a front setback variance for 16-2% please clarify, see no reason to grant a front setback variance for a new house.. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission Comment: there is no justification for a variance, this is a new house on a flat lot, no hardship on the property; needs articulation, code includes ways to encourage traditional architecture. C. Deal moved to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction that: windows need to be consistent on all building elevations; add articulation to side and rear walls and carry details of the front facade drawings to rest of house; avoid the stucco box style, there are many examples of good architecture in this neighborhood, may have to look beyond the immediate block; direct the design review consulfant to the mass and bulk section of the design guidelines. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Luzuriaga absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:16 p.m. 1320 S DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLI� O�N_�FOR SIDE SETBACK V STAIRS AND IGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST -SECOND STORY ADD] CP Monroe briefly pre ted the staff report. Commission asked wlu that the Skyview Drive ontage is the narrowest portion of the lot and FOR NEW ENTRY AWRENCE CHEN, ZS) is considered to be tlihee, :fore considered to be the staff noted Vice Chairman Vistica op ed the public hearing. Lawrence Chen, applicar and designer, noted that would respond to any questions the co ion might have. Commissioners discussed the posed addition with the applicant noting that the detailing of this project on this corner lot is not.in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood, Unapproved Minutes page -5- z AWIR -�� `" -IWIR ,. GUMBNGEf� RECEIVED _ = ASSOCIATES AUGhoo 60 Ea,,,nird Avenue, Suite 300, Srn Mateo, CA 94401 HV G 2000 Fax: (650) 579-1402 • TEL: (650) 579-0995 E-Mail: Gumbassoc@GumbingerAssociates.com CITY OF BURLINGAME ARCHITECTS S PLANNING DEPT. 98121.35/2.7 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 1, 2000 TO: Janice Jagelski, Planner City of Burlingame Sent Via Facsimile 342-8386 FROM: Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA RE: 112 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame REVISED PLANS DATE STAMPED July 21, 2000 T (Received July 27, 2000) GENERAL After an onsite meeting with the applicant, applicant's architect, staff planner and design reviewer, the drawings were significantly revised. The applicant's architect met again with the design reviewer and the revised submittal reflects the firrther suggested design refinements. DESIGN GUIDELINES 1. COMPATIBLILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. The architectural style of the proposed house is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood 2. RESPECT THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD - The proposed detached garage is appropriate to the neighborhood. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURE, AND INTERNAL CONSISTENCY OF THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN The architectural style and window treatment of the proposed house is consistent within itself and has responded to the concerns of the Planning Commission by adding articulation and detail. The interior arrangement is consistent with the structural design. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE ADJACENT STRUCTURES TO EACH SIDE. Because of the added articulation and breakup of the second floor mass, the house will better interface with the adjacent structures to each side. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. The proposed landscape treatment is proportional to the mass and bulk of the structural components. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for the proposed house. The Design Reviewer also supports the variance for the front setback to allow a larger and more usable rear yard. Paul J. Gumbinger, FAIA President & CEO Noemi K. Avram, AIA Associate City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: New Residence At: 112 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame, CA Attn: Janice Jagelski Raynold C. Viotti Jr 763 Polhemus Rd. #1 San Mateo, CA 94402 July 18, 2000 The following are the responses to the variance application questions: RECEIVED JUL 2 12000 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. a. The variance request is for the granting of a front setback of 17'-6" in a neighborhood where the average setback is 19'-6" and the zoning minimum is 15'. The 19'-6" average, includes a 27' setback of the current house at 112 Bayswater which is proposed to be removed, meaning the 27' setback would not apply to any future projects on the street. If the 27' setback is removed, the average setback on the block is reduced to 17'-6". The average setback on the opposite side of the street is 17'-9" where there is a combination of one and two story homes. The house needs to be pushed as far forward as possible, because the garage is detached and in the rear yard (which is preferred by the design guide lines), and the lot is 48' wide where the standard is 50'. Which makes for a narrow deep house. b. If denied, parking/access in the garage would be limited due to less space for maneuverability. This would restrict the homeowner as to what size vehicle(s) they could drive in order for the car(s) to be parked in the garage. Otherwise the vehicle(s) would have to be parked in the street or left in the driveway, which could present undesirable safety and aesthetic concerns. c. If granted, the house complies with the average setback of the remaining houses on the block. These will be the same houses that set the average for any future development on that block. It will not be detrimental or injurious to adjacent properties as it still conforms to the intent of the zoning ordinance. And in fact would be an improvement as the homeowners car(s) could be parked in the garage without restriction, which is preferable for safety, traffic and general welfare purposes. d. The house is being built in a neighborhood where there is a mix of single and two story houses. The house is stepped back in the front and side (east side) to lessen the impact of the house on its neighbors. With the granting of the variance, the house will match existing architecture in the neighborhood more closely as it will now fit into the neighborhood's average setback. If there are any questions please give me a call at (650) 572-8690. erely, C Ray Viotti CITY OF BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO ZME PLANNING COAEMSSION Type of Application: Special Permit.�Variance-,�,-Other L 51C� i t 1 i Assessor's Parcel Number(s): o2n- ZP - ISO APPLICANT �1t1 Uo :G • Phone (w): t9-30 • ✓"i2-8trft� (h) fax: C9S0 . ARCHITECT/DESIGNER PROPERTY OWNER Name: C > k1kM y,1(: jA i Address: 2 City/State/Zip: Phone (w) Name: �� \-� 1 corn -T\k-_ Address: 1 tsi2 R-)LAE"U D V-* 1 City/State/Zip: f2% KKr=0. <'o!_k �D Z Phone (w): CQIIz:n- r2: - P,(dFtC) (h): (h): fax. Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this application. RECEIVED MAR - 2 2000 fax: (c-ZO' J6-12' '-!�>MSI CITY OF BURLINGAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �� cia PLANNING DEPT. AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE• hereby ce 'fy under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct th best of owledge and belief. Applicant's Signature Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning q.oTmission. _ 117 , z /Z5 Propbrty Owner's -Signature // Date / ---- ------- ----------- ------- ------FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ------ Date Filed: Fee: MAR o 2 200 Planning Commission: Study Date: Action Date: ' L;IrrOF BURLINGAME PLAVW3 DEPT. ROUTING FORM DATE: July 24, 2000 TO: CITY ENGINEER x CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL X FIRE MARSHAL SR. LANDSCAPE INSPECTOR CITY ATTORNEY FROM: CITY PLANNER/PLANNER SUBJECT: Review of REVISED SUBMITTAL for request for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a new two-story, 4-bedroom residence with a detached one -car garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 029-284-150. Previously Reviewed At Planning Commission Study Meeting on May 8, 2000 - minutes attached. SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MEETING: to be determined STAFF REVIEW BY MEETING ON: Monday, July 24, 2000 THANKS, Maureen/Janice/Ruben �O Date of Comments S L V GZ W 3�- CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans forthis project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Plannin '] Department at �501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge tfie�subjectap e �s) m c art; -yyou maybe limited to raising onl}% hos .;, ssues a fie else ed a the public hearing, described in thesnotice 014 _ to correspond cc eli er d to the city at or prior t tIMlj+vg _ Property o ers vino re ttit �ti e des' onsi tenants abo t thino�tiee o d I i��na1 informatio 558-7250. hank U. is + Margaret MbV6&%Q_ City Planner PU (Please refer to other side) CITY os CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLIN AME i •� 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 -,,• ,' TEL: (650) 558-7250 „ 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-284-1.50 ming their call (650) Study of an application for design review and PUBLIC HEARING front setback variance for a new two-story NOTICE house with a detached garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1. i The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on (Monday, May 8, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Louncil Uham ers located at 501 Primrose_(3} Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed April 28, 2®00 I (Please refer to other side) • � 5 CITY 01- BURLINGAME A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to dle nleeting at the Plannin{7 Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. California. 1f you challenge the subject application(s) in court, YOU may be limited to raisin_ only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing, Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call�(650) 558-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. (Please refer to other side) CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME 13URUN(iAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 o. TEL: (650) 558-7250 �'> > •!'`y.l mot- .-ii r's!t a;: ... _. __. .... F'• t_. ,�'i LSr ='aY� c_ttr 01-1 On an - s rn ' '' design ei eta PUBLIC HEARING t1 ;^nrff ; Vci"r'iaTIC e for S il€tu tWo— oNOTICE i!, dye tgi.th -a detached �r-ane a4 _1 2. of $B.!!'r'.iingame Pla•,in-iii ! am Iv�:ft6725_IDi! he following D•ub ;cheay"iriE ij11 C' ! 1 n r!da.,August 14, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the . {'s Hall C,:) ncil ChJi Iber s located at 501, Road, t'f'.t 1 r;93tG>r, Ca l i .r 1r=D x Mailed H!ig!ist 4, 2€ 00 (Please refer to other side) Design: Review and Front Setback Variance 112 Bayswater Avenue RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for -design review and front setback variance for a new two-story residence and detached one car gara�i at 112 Bayswater Avenue zoned R-1 Rob Cunningham,rop�rty owner, APN• 029 284 150; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 14, 2000 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per CEQA Section 15301, Class 3, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review and variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such variances and design review applications are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. DAVE LUZURIAGA, CHAIRMAN I,_Ann Keingran , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14 th day of August. 2000 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ANN KEIGHRAN, SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Variance 112 Bayswater Avenue effective August 21, 2000 Conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 21, 2000, Sheets 1 through 4; 2. that the left side setback variance is permitted only for construction of the garage, all other portions of the structure must meet the side setback requirements; 3. during the demolition of the existing structure, site preparation and construction of the new structures, the applicant shall apply all applicable best management practices to prevent erosion and contamination of storm water runoff; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first and second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 5. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 24, 2000, memo shall be met; 6. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. t i � • CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME ��F PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLJM9. ME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD k. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 •.' TEL: (650) 558-7250 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-284-150 Appeal hearing on a Planning Commission denial of an application for a design review PUBLIC HEARING and front setback variance for a new two- NOTICE story house with a detached garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1. FIELD (1)_ The City of Burlingame City Council announces FIELD_(2)_ the following public hearing on Monday, FIELD 3) September 182000 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed September 8, 2000 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applica ay be reviewed prior to the meeting a la gi D pa ent 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, C I 1' If you chall 16git I raising onl os ssues� describedid t42SWC2 at or prior t $MIN C ,A L 1 F 0 Property. o iers Q--r 1 tenants -ab t ahi no 558 7250lank u ` Y 17 S s 1V�argaret ! �CifyfPlanner o0, i,''_f_: N I A rmatio limited to is hearing, to the city wing their call = (650) irr CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT e�Runtite 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 r i 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE Appeal hearing on a denial without prejudice of an application for a design review for a PUBLIC HEARING new two-story house with a detached garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R-1. NOTICE (APN: 029-284-150) The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Monday, December 4, 2000 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed November 22, 2000 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applica an ay be reviewed prior to the meeting ala gi D pa ent 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cal If you chal get u ma raising onl os ssues ed a hej described i t - 'c 'tee at or prior t C A L l F O R N I A Property ov iers are I I sibl r i tenants abo. t thi no i lnformatio ple 558-7250. 1 iank u. Margaret M City Planner 6D. PU ICE I (Please refer to other side) limited to is hearing, to the city ming their call (650) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review for a new two-story residence and detached one -car garage at 112 Bayswater Avenue zoned R-1, Rob Cunningham propg , owner- APN: 029-284-150; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on August 14. 2000. at which time said application was denied; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on Smember 18. 2000, at which time the front setback variance application was denied and the design review application was denied without prejudice; WHEREAS, this matter was resubmitted to the City council for design review and Council held a public hearing on the design review appeal on December 4. 2000, reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing and voted to -approve the design review application. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and Categorical Exemption, per CEQA Section: 15303 - Existing Facilities, Class 3(a), Single-family residences not in conjunction with the building of two or more such units. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed under this exemption is hereby approved. 2. Said design review is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review application are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day of December, 2000 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK ►^ /so1'1. Conditions of approval Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Variance 112 Bayswater Avenue effective DECEMBER 4, 2000 Conditions: That the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped November 20, 2000, Sheets 1 and 2, October 31, 2000, Sheets 3 and 4; 2. that during the demolition of the existing structure, site preparation and construction of the new structures, the applicant shall apply all applicable best management practices to prevent erosion and contamination of storm water runoff, that any changes to the size or envelope of the first and second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4. that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6, 2000, memo shall be met; and that any improvements for the use shall be all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tel:(65O) 558-7230 Fax:(65O) 685-9310 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 November 2, 2000 To: Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission From: Philip Ho, Traffic Engineer Subject: Pedestrian Accidents in Crosswalks CORPORATION YARD Tel:(65O) 558-7670 For your reference, I have attached an article titled "Pedestrian Accidents in Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks: A Quantitative Study," prepared by the City of Los Angeles, Department of Transportation and published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, September 2000. A total of 104 intersections were studied for pedestrian accident history at marked and unmarked crosswalks. This study concluded that the removal of marked white crosswalks at unprotected intersections resulted in a 73% reduction in the number of pedestrian accidents without an increase in the number of pedestrian accidents at adjacent non -signalized intersections. This finding is statistically significant, and not merely a coincident. In other words, the pedestrian accident potential at marked crosswalks is nearly four (4) times that at unmarked crosswalks at non -signalized intersections. This is consistent with an earlier study of 400 intersections by the City of San Diego which concluded that "about twice as many pedestrian accidents occur in marked crosswalks as in unmarked crosswalks." The Commission may wish to take these findings into consideration when formulating recommendations to staff and City Council in response to requests for crosswalks. If you have any questions about this notice, please call me at 650 558-7236. ITE Article - Ped Accidents in Crosswalks.wpd Pedestrian Accidents in Marked and Unmarked Crosswalks: A Quantitative Study. THE MAIN GOAL OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IS AN The study further suggested that important concern to the City of Los "Existing crosswalks should be re-eval- THE STUDY DISCUSSED Angeles Department of Transportation uated to see whether they meet the (LADOT). While pedestrian accidents revised warrants." BY THE AUTHORS WAS account for 6.7 percent of all traffic- LADOT has often referred to the related accidents in the city (1998 data), San Diego study to justify the removal TO CONDUCT A they account for 42 percent of all traffic- or denial of the installation of marked related fatalities. Accordingly, LADOT crosswalks at unprotected locations. QUANTITATIVE has developed practices in an attempt to For purposes of this report, the term reduce such accidents. "unprotected" refers to a legal crossing EXAMINATION OF A For over 25 years, LADOT's cross- at an intersection where stop signs or a walk installation practice has been traffic signal are not in place to control RANDOM GROUP OF greatly influenced by a study published vehicles on the street that the pedes- in August 1970 by Bruce Herms of the trian is crossing. By removing marked PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS City of San Diego titled Pedestrian crosswalks at locations where they Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted were not deemed appropriate, AT UNPROTECTED and Unpainted Crosswalks. In the San LADOT was seeking to reduce pedes- Diego study, pedestrian accidents were trian-related accidents. However, citi- CROSSWALKS IN THE CITY investigated at 400 intersections over zens and the media have challenged five years. Each of these intersections this practice and questioned whether OF LOS ANGELES AND TO had two unprotected crosswalks —one the removal of crosswalks was improv- marked and one unmarked —crossing ing safety or creating an unfriendly DETERMINE THE VALIDITY an arterial roadway. Both of these pedestrian environment. In recent crosswalks were legal crossings by defi- years, opponents of this practice have OF THE CURRENT CITY nition in the California Vehicle Code. become more vocal. They view the San An "unmarked" crosswalk is a legal Diego study as antiquated, since the PRACTICES. crossing approximately perpendicular data is from a report completed a gen- to the roadway that does not have eration ago. Although more recent painted lines or special surface mater- studies appear to support the findings ial to designate the prolongation of the of the San Diego study, they may not sidewalks of an intersecting cross be as well researched or are conducted street. The San Diego study concluded in cities that the critics view as not rep - "in terms of use, that approximately resentative of Los Angeles. twice as many pedestrian accidents occur in marked crosswalks as in CURRENT PRACTICE unmarked crosswalks." Recognizing For a number of years, it has been the that there are both advantages and dis- practice of LADOT to install marked advantages to marking crosswalks, the crosswalks at unprotected locations in San Diego study rec- special situations. Generally, the circum- ommended, in part, stances include locations where there is a that "Existing cross- need to identify a preferred crossing walk warrants should be reviewed and point or where there is frequent pedes- updated. Special consideration should trian usage, such as at bus stops, institu- be given to pedestrian channelization tional buildings, or active retail areas. needs, nighttime illumination, vehicle Where these circumstances are not pres- approach speed, and motorist inability ent, painted crosswalks are not installed to see pedestrians or the crosswalk at nor reinstalled when they are removed the critical safe stopping distance." due to a street resurfacing. 42 ITE JOURNAL / SEPTEMBER 2000 marked, unprotected crosswalks supports a policy of caution before installing these markings. The results of this study revealed that: • When only the legs of the intersec- tions that previously had marked crosswalks are considered, pedes- trian accidents declined from 116 to 31 after the marked crosswalk was removed; this was a 73 percent reduction. • When both legs (previously marked and unmarked) of the intersections are considered, pedestrian accidents declined from 129 to 50 after the marked crosswalk was removed; this was a 61 percent reduction. .• These accident reductions were accomplished without increasing the number of pedestrian acci- dents at non -signalized, adjacent intersections. • At 15 intersections where marked crosswalks were retained, the num- ber of overall pedestrian accidents did not decrease. Based, on Dietz's curve of signifi- cance testing, the reduction in pedes- trian accidents after the removal of marked crosswalks is statistically signif- icant and not due to random chance. Even taking into account that pedes- trian exposure rates and possible street lighting improvements may have been factors in these pedestrian accident -rate reductions, the numbers are significant enough to support a policy of selec- tively installing or reinstalling marked, unprotected crosswalks only after care- ful consideration. ■ References 1. Dietz, S.K. "Significance Tests for Acci- dent Reduction Based on Classical Statistics and Economic Consequences." Transportation Sci- ence, August 1967. 2. Since one adjacent intersection was thought to be too far away to be a practical alter- native for pedestrians, it was not included as part of the study. OHTARI & Xff*tOntario '�' TRAFFW. pos) & 712 �' Fax [%518301674 �•: web �: �.«4tb rror�.b«r, Inc. � E-mb1: ofiCaK 0do-traft.eom SERVICES AVAILABLE THROUGHOUT ONTARIO • Volume • Speed • Axle/Length Class (FHWA) • Gap • Headway • Lane Occupancy Loop Counts • Weigh -In -Motion (WIM) Studies • Turning Movement and Classification • Pedestrian • Parking Inventories • Origirr/Destination Studies • Computerized Travel Time Surveys • Radar Gun Studies • Weaving/Conflict Studies • Roadside Interviews • Public Transport Surveys • Queue and Delay Studies • Gap Measurements • Distance Measurements •Video Surveys • Physical Inventories • Observance/Compliance Studies • Data Processing • Technical Reports • ATRs (sales and rental) • Rental of Radar Guns • Road Tubes • PK Nails • Clamps THOMAS L. JONES, PE, is a Senior Trans- portation Engineer with the City of LosAngek% CA, USA. He is agrad- uate oflowa State Vni- versity with 35years of service in the Departmmts of Transportation and Public Works He is currently mponsible for traffic - signal and pavement -delineation designs for the city PATRICK TOMCHECK, PE, received a B.S. degree from Northuxst- ern University before joining the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation. He has been involved in many areas of the department during his 16years with the city He is currently the Transportation Engineerfor the Geometric Design section. Tomcheck is an Associate Member of ITE. The Impulse RM* The laser -based, remote -reading retro-reflectometer. Point -and -shoot simplicity for distance and retro- reflectivity measurements. A compact, rugged, reliable solution for sign management. Public P.O. Box 923 • Durham, NH 03824-0923 603/498-6797 • 520/752-3628 Fax 46 ITE JOURNAL / SEPTEMBER 2000 COMPARISON OF PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS WHERE MARKED CROSSWALKS REMAINED When the arterial streets in the study were resurfaced, not all of the unprotected, marked crosswalks were removed. Fifteen unprotected, marked crosswalks that were in place before the street resurfacing and then rein- stalled after the street was repaved were investigated. Eight of these cross- walks were on the same street; the remaining seven locations were located on six other arterial streets in various parts of the city. As Figures 2a and 2b show, 27 pedestrian accidents occurred at these 15 intersections during the "before" period. Of this total, 24 pedestrians were struck while crossing in the marked crosswalk; 3 were hit while crossing the intersection in the unmarked leg. During the equivalent "after" period, 30 pedestrians were struck while crossing the arterial street (23 in the leg with the marked cross- walk, 7 in the unmarked leg). Applying DietZs curve to these totals, it can be shown that the actual change to the number of pedestrian accidents from the "before" period to the "after" period is not statistically significant; however, it is interesting that these locations did not experience the dramatic reductions in pedestrian accidents as did those locations where the marked crosswalks were removed. INFLUENCE OF CROSSWALK REMOVAL ON PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS AT ADJACENT, UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Some citizens who have challenged the crosswalk removal practices suggest that when marked crosswalks are removed, some pedestrians instead cross at adjacent intersections, thus making them susceptible to accidents at these locations. Although this study did not quantify the number of pedes- trians who chose to cross at an alterna- tive location once the marked crosswalk was removed, an accident analysis :was conducted to 'determine the validity of this theory. Number ofPedestrian accidents �47 t at 32 of the adgt aln 6 Ar.>,. iatam,atiam before marked arosewalk was removed 24 23 -_ Number of pedestrian acdda" at 63 mu� a40r4rl4JnfArdeCYdans before marked aoeavalk was removed at study locations F(�2`} � n aovveerr. 7 .e.,M...n, F n..aunaovte L*HTING CONDITION -DAY IMKOKOARK DAY I DUSK OK DARK LOCATION WITHIN INTERSECTION BOTH LEGS BOTH LEGS Number of pedestrian accidento at 32 of the originaLawdy Int ona after marked crosswalk was removed 14 i 10 Number of pedestrian accidents at 63 n=sigealm adJ=4at_Im1XAcct10n5 after Marko! crosswalk was removed at etudy lacatlo 9 12 eoo re xr.e !p{� E .t.yirt�sM LrAMNG CONDITION J DAY DUSK OR DARK DAY i DUSK OR DARK LOCATION WHIN INTER5ECTIOti> BOTH LEGS BOTH LEGS —II Figures 3a and 3b. Pedestrian accidents at study locations and non -signalized adjacent intersections. At 72 of the 104 locations (69 per- cent), at least one of the two intersec- tions adjacent to the study intersection along the arterial highway was signal- ized. The unprotected, marked cross- walk may have been removed to encourage pedestrians to cross the arterial roadway at these nearby signal- ized locations, where maximum posi- tive control is provided. This may account for a portion of the reduction in pedestrian accidents at the study locations, since some pedestrians may indeed have decided to walk down the street and cross with the protection of a signal. As for the 32 other study locations, neither adjacent intersection along the arterial was signalized. Pedestrian -accident histories for these adjacent intersections were further analyzed. Figures 3a and 3b show summaries of the pedestrian accidents at the 32 study locations that were not adjacent to a sig- nalized intersection, as well as the pedes- trian accidents at the adjacent non- signalized intersections themselves. These adjacent intersections are divided by their proximity to each of the 32 study locations [less than 300 ft. (91.4 in) between the two intersections, 300 ft. to 599 ft. and 600 f. or over]., Forty-seven pedestrian accidents occurred at the 32 study locations while the marked crosswalk was in place. Dur- ing this same "before" period, there were 24 pedestrian accidents at the 632 non - signalized, adjacent intersections. After the crosswalk was removed at the 32 original study locations, 14 pedestrian accidents occurred during the same number of months at these intersections, a statistically significant 72 percent reduction. During this same "after" period, the number of pedestrian acci- dents that occurred at the 63 adjacent intersections did not increase, but actu- ally decreased from 24 to 21, a nonsig- nificant 13 percent reduction. This result indicates that selective marked crosswalk removal does not result in an increase in pedestrian accidents at adjacent unsignalized intersections. INFLUENCE OF WET PAVEMENT Of the 179 total pedestrian accidents studied, only 15 occurred during wet weather conditions. This number was not large enough to support a conclusion that would be statistically relevant.-.-.. CONCLUSIONS This quantitative analysis concerning the number of pedestrian accidents in ITE JOURNAL / SEPTEMBER 2000 45 �-116 m 1 51 F 5 LIGHTING CONDITION DAY DUSK OR DARK DAY DUSK OK OAKK LOCATION WITI1M MTEKSECnON MARKED LEG UNMARKED LEG 22 19 F 9 & i1 INN LIGHTING CONDITION DAY DUSK OR DAKK DAY I DUSK OR DARK . LOCATION WITHIN INTEK5ECnON PIOUSLY MARKED LEG REV UNM ARKED LEG Figure 1 a. Number of pedestrian accidents at study locations with a marked crosswalk in place. Figure 1b. Number of pedestrian accidents at study locations after removal of marked crosswalk. ' — 24 15 Before Street Resurfacing 9 i 2 1 LIGHTING CONDITION DAY DU5K OK DARK DAY DU5K OK DARK LOCATION WITHIN INTERSECTION MARKED LEG UNMARKED LEG 23 �kDAY 7 I 16 After Street Resurfacing ' 3 LIGHTING CONDITION DAY DUSK OR DARK DUSK oR DARK LOCATION WITHIN INTE95ECTION PREVIOUSLY MARKED LEGMARKED LEG figures 2a and 2b. Number of pedestrian accidents at nearby locations with a marked crosswalk continuously in place. involved, the seriousness of their injuries, the directions the vehicles and/or pedestrians were traveling at the time of the collision, and the weather (sunny, cloudy, rain) and lighting (day, dusk, or night) conditions. IMPACT ON PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS All of the accidents in this report involve a pedestrian traversing the arter- ial roadway at an unprotected intersec- tion crossing (painted or unpainted) who was struck by a motorist traveling on the arterial street. Although accidents involving motorists turning right or left from the cross street and striking a pedestrian crossing the arterial roadway were also examined, they are not included in this summary. The pedestrian accidents that occurred at the 104 study locations were divided into those accidents that took place at the intersection prior to the removal of the unprotected marked crosswalk and those accidents that took place after the marked crosswalk was removed. The accidents were fur- ther categorized as those that occurred as a pedestrian was crossing the leg of the intersection in which the marked crosswalk existed (or previously existed) as opposed to those accidents that occurred as the pedestrian was crossing the leg of the intersection where no marked crosswalk had existed. Finally, the accidents were divided into those that occurred dur- ing daylight hours vs. those that hap- pened during periods of dusk and dark. Street lighting was present at 103 of the 104 intersections studied. The pedestrian -accident summaries are shown in Figures la and lb. In the before condition shown in Figure la, a total of 116 pedestrian accidents took place in the marked crosswalks across the arterial roadway as compared to 13 accidents in the unmarked crossings during the same time period. After the marked crosswalk was removed, 31 accidents took place during an equiva- lent period of time in the legs of the intersections where the marked cross- walks had previously been located. The number of pedestrian accidents that occurred in the legs that never had the marked crosswalks increased to 19 acci- dents. When both legs of the intersec- tions (previously marked and unmarked) are considered, pedestrian accidents declined from 129 to 50, an overall reduction of 61.2 percent. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTING An analysis was conducted to see whether this pedestrian -accident reduction was statistically significant or due to random chance. To deter- mine the statistical significance of changes, Dietz's curve,) based on a 95 percent confidence level (95 percent certainty that the reduction was not due to random chance occurrence) was used. Based on Dietz's curve, for the 129 accidents that occurred before the marked crosswalks were removed, any reduction greater than 20 percent is considered not to be due to random chance. Since the actual overall pedes- trian number of accidents fell by over 61 percent,, . this reduction is indeed considered significant. The result shows that the selective removal of marked crosswalks, as practiced .by LADOT, produces significant safety benefits. 44 ITE JOURNAL / SEPTEMBER 2000 The LADOT follows the policies of the State of California Traffic Manual, which states: ".Crosswalk markings serve primar- ily to guide pedestrians into the proper path. Pedestrian crosswalk markings should not be used indis- criminately. Pedestrian crosswalk markings may be installed where they are advisable to channelize pedestrians into the preferred path at intersections when the intended course is not readily apparent or when in the opinion of the engineer, their presence would minimize pedestrian -auto conflicts. In general, crosswalks should not be marked at intersections unless they are intended to channelize pedestrians." Where marked, unprotected cross- walks are installed or reinstalled fol- lowing street resurfacing, a full complement of traffic controls is also included to advise motorists to be alert for pedestrians. Advance pedestrian warning signs and pavement markings, double -posted pedestrian warning signs at the crosswalk itself and a "no stopping" zone in advance of the painted crosswalk are all installed. The length of the parking prohibition is based on the safe stopping distance required for a motorist approaching the crosswalk to see a pedestrian at the curb line. Ladder -style markings are now being included at uncontrolled locations to enhance the visibility of the crosswalk. STUDY GOALS This study is not intended to be an updated version of the San Diego crosswalk study. Rather, the main goal of this study is to conduct a quantita- tive examination of a random group of pedestrian accidents at unprotected crosswalks in the City of Los Angeles and to determine the validity of the current city practices. A further goal of the study is to address an issue that often arises when pedestrian safety is discussed. Some critics contend that when a marked crosswalk is removed, the pedestrian -accident rate at that location may improve at the expense of increasing the accident frequency at adjacent intersections. To investigate whether this argument has merit, pedestrian -accident histories were examined at intersections that were adjacent to an intersection where a painted crosswalk was removed. Unlike the San Diego study, pedestrian volumes and exposure rates were not evaluated. The study also did not eval- uate the adequacy of street lighting and other variables that may impact pedestrian safety. STUDY PARAMETERS LADOT investigated 104 intersec- tions throughout the City of Los Angeles where marked crosswalks had been removed on arterial streets due to street resurfacing from February 1982 through December 1991. The intersections selected for this study were not chosen for their pedes- trian -accident histories, but solely because they were on streets resurfaced during the years investigated. When a street is to be resurfaced, a plan is pre- pared to update the roadway striping to current needs and design practices. As part of this design process, unprotected marked crosswalks are analyzed to see whether they should be retained. If retained, traffic controls are installed as previously described. If the marked crosswalk is not reinstalled, all related pedestrian warning signs and pavement messages are also removed. The marked crosswalks that were removed consisted of two parallel 12-inch (292 millimeter) white lines, typically 12 feet (ft.) or 15 ft. [3.7 meters (m) or 4.6 m] on center. Although LADOT now installs "ladder - style" designs for marked, unprotected crosswalks, none of the crosswalks stud- ied included this treatment. Further- more, no school crosswalks were removed. The marked school crosswalks and related warning signs and pavement markings were retained after the street resurfacings because school crossing guards are. stationed atthese crosswalks during certain hours of the day to assist children crossing the street. It is believed that by retaining the traffic control devices at these locations, drivers are more respectful of the authority of the crossing guard. Some of the arterials in this study had multiple unprotected crosswalks removed when the street was resur- faced. On other streets, only one or two unprotected crosswalks were removed. However, not all unpro- tected, marked crosswalks were removed. An evaluation of the pedes- trian -accident histories at those loca- tions where unprotected, marked crosswalks were retained is included in this report. BEFORE AND AFTER STUDY To compare the number of accidents before and after a painted crosswalk was removed, a study period for each inter- section was established that contained the equivalent number of "before" months and "after" months. The LADOT database for reported traffic accidents extends back to Jan. 1, 1979, so that date was a limiting factor in establishing the study period for each intersection. For instance, for a cross- walk that was removed in January 1984, a 120-month study period was used (60 "before" months from Jan. 1, 1979, to Jan. 1, 1984, and 60 "after" months from Jan. 1, 1984, to Jan. 1, 1989). The study period varied from loca- tion to location, depending on the range of time for which accident data were available or whether a significant opera- tional change occurred at the intersec- tion under study. If a traffic signal was installed at an intersection, for example, the "after" study period terminated with the activation of that signal. The shortest study period for any location was 36 "before" months and 36 "after" months; the longest study period was 111 "before" months and 111 "after" months. The average study period was 87.4 "before" months and 8.7.4 "after" months. All together, 9,109 months (759 years) each of "before" accident data and "after" accident data was evalu- ated for the 104 intersections. The compiled accident summaries contain information from accident reports written by police officers who responded to the scene of the accidents. This information includes the date and time of the accident, the location of the collision, the ages of the persons ITE JOURNAL / SEPTEMBER 2000 43 'BAGENDA y URL® STAFF REPORT ITEM# 7 a MTG. 1 2/4/00 DATE To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: November 16, 2000 BY AP OVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO INSTALL TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: Council should provide further direction to staff regarding the installation of stop signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue. If Council wishes to amend the Municipal Code to delete the stop signs, then Council should: a. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. b. Waive further reading of the proposed ordinance. c. Introduce the proposed ordinance and instruct the Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: Council adopted Ordinance No. 1643 to install stop signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue at their October 16, 2000 meeting. Council recently asked that this action be reconsidered and possible alternate measures be pursued regarding safety at this intersection. DISCUSSION: Following is the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission's (TSPC) as well as staff s position on the stop signs: • TSPC - The TSPC recommends the installation of the crosswalks and stop signs. The TSPC believes that the signs are needed to improve safety for the pedestrians crossing Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue. There are stop signs at adjacent crosswalks along Adeline Drive at Balboa Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue. However, pedestrians (including elderly, adults, parents with strollers, and school age children) currently use Cortez Avenue for more direct access to Ray Park and Lincoln School. The TSPC and residents believe that the gate at the dead end of Cortez Avenue is an open invitation for pedestrians to cross Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue. The option of closing the gate at Cortez Avenue is strongly opposed by the residents. • Staff - Staff determined that City warrants were not met for vehicular volume and accidents to justify the installation of stop signs. A radar survey in 1999 and recent radar samplings on Adeline Drive showed a critical speed of 33 mph with some (7 percent) vehicles exceeding 35 mph. The Adeline Drive/Cortez Avenue intersection carries less than 250 vehicles per hour (warrant requires 300 per hour) and has had no accidents in the last five years (warrant requires three per year). In addition, staff believes that the stop signs could provide a false sense of security for pedestrians using the crosswalks. Staff is concerned that, due to the number of closely spaced crosswalks/stop signs along Adeline Drive, drivers may not take them seriously and perform rolling stops which could endanger pedestrians. In lieu of stop signs, Council may wish to pursue alternate actions to improve intersection safety such as greater police enforcement of traffic speeds and additional and/or larger speed limit signage. c: City Clerk Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Stops at Adeline&Cortez.wpd I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE 3 TO DELETE OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. Subsection 13.20.010(a) is amended by deleting "Adeline Drive approaching 8 Cortez Avenue;". 9 10 Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 11 12 Mayor 13 14 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 15 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 16 of , 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 17 on the day of 200� by the following vote: 18 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 21 City Clerk D:\wp51\Fi1es\0RD1NANC\repea11643.ordwpd 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 �CITY o� STAFF REPORT gVRL"Q To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: NOVEMBER 28,2000 FRom: CITY PLANNER AGENDA ITEM # 7 b MTG. DATE 12.4.00 SUME BY Vr ,,►. SUBJECT:Report to the City Council from the Citizen's Committee Appointed to Review Proposed Commercial Design Review Regulations RECOMMENDATION: Hear presentation of Committee's conclusions and direct staff regarding the next step in preparation of regulations to address commercial design review. Council might wish to consider one of the following alternative actions: 1. Introduce the proposed commercial design review ordinance; or 2. Refer the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Commission for them to address the comments and recommendations made by the citizen's committee, hold public hearing and make a recommendation to council; or 3. Continue the citizens' committee with representation from the Planning Commission to revise the proposed commercial design review ordinance and guidelines for resubmittal to the Planning Commission for public hearing and recommendation and subsequent Council action. BACKGROUND: At the August 21, 2000, meeting Council decided to appoint a committee of local business people, commercial property owners, leasing agents and residents to review the proposed commercial design review regulations and design guidelines which Council had asked the Planning Commission to prepare in May. Beginning in October, the committee has met regularly. They have arrived at the attached recommendation on the proposed commercial design review regulations and guidelines, for Council consideration. Ross Bruce, chairman of the committee, will be at the council meeting to present the committee's report and recommendations. ATTACHMENTS: Report to City Council from the Committee to Review Proposed Commercial Design Review Regulations, December 4, 2000. -1- REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL FROM THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS Meeting Date: December 4, 2000 To: City Council From: Committee Appointed to Review Proposed Commercial Design Review Regulations: Ross Bruce, Chair Ron Karp Tim Auren Sam Malouf Kevin Cullinane Carolyn Root David Hinckle Subject: RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW History At their meeting on August 21, 2000, the City Council was asked to introduce an amendment to the zoning code which created commercial design review in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. In lieu of introduction, the City Council decided to appoint a citizen's committee in order to get in put from affected property owners, merchants and residents. The City Council asked that the committee report back to them with a recommendation in 90 days. ( City Council minutes August 21, 2000) The committee met first on October 19, 2000, and three times subsequently. They selected Ross Bruce to serve as their chair. Findings The committee members reviewed the proposed ordinance and identified the following reasons behind their recommended changes: - Construction of new buildings should be subject to design review because of their potential to have a significant impact on the street; - Changes to 50% or more of a building's facade or 50 lineal feet of street frontage should be subject to design review because such a change will have a bigger impact on the street than changes to less than these proportions; - Requirements for design review for awning replacements would discourage people from installing new awnings; - Commercial design review should be limited in order to provide an opportunity for personal expressing which is lost with "micro management" of design. - Including building color in design review will discourage merchants from painting their storefronts; Committee Report to Cite Council Findings on Commercial Design Review December a, 2000 - It is important that design review take place in a timely manner, so should occur as a part of the existing review process and not be an additional process; - Applicant's need criteria and guidelines to establish a common understanding and a starting point for review; and - An expiration date or sunset clause is needed for the ordinance in order to catch missed opportunities or unforseen consequences resulting from commercial design review. Recommendation The following recommendations address the provisions of the proposed commercial design review regulations reviewed by the City Council on August 21, 2000. It is the consensus of the committee members that there be commercial design review in Burlingame but that it be limited to the following activities in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts: All new construction of commercial buildings; and Remodel of 50 feet of the lineal frontage of the front property line and/or 50% of the total facade of the building. Commercial design review should not include awnings and building color unless the site is subject to commercial design review because it meets one or both of the criteria requiring commercial design review. 2. The design review process should be an administrative process which occurs during the building permit process. Two contract commercial design reviewers should be employed to execute the process. The regulations should include guiding criteria and the council should adopt commercial design review guidelines to establish parameters on the review. The criteria listed in the proposed ordinance (CS 25.57.030 f) should be used to guide the design reviewer. In like fashion the proposed design guideline booklet should be used to guide applicants. The regulations should include a Sunset Clause which would mandate review of the commercial design review 24 months after the effective date of the ordinance or termination of the ordinance provisions if not extended by the City Council at that time. It is the consensus of the group that they would be willing to continue to meet to revise the provisions of the ordinance for future city review. 2 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT euRUNGaME FINANCE DEPARTMENT a oq o� TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTI FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ APPROVE] Administrative Services Director AGENDA ITEM # 7 c MEETING DATE: 12-4-00 SUBJECT: Ordinance Regarding Recycling of Construction & Demolition Debris RECOMMENDATION Introduction: A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Public Hearing: A. Adopt proposed ordinance. B. Direct city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: Building, Planning, and Public Works have been meeting with staff of the South bayside Waste Management Authority to develop a construction and demolition material recycling ordinance. In November, Council approved in concept the hiring of staff through SBWMA to assist in the administration of this program. The C&D program is key to achieving the state -mandated 50% recycling goal dictated by AB 939, the Integrated Waste management Act. 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. SBWMA estimates that this material represents about 14% of the waste currently going to the landfill. The requirements of the ordinance will be largely the realm of the Building Division. The contract staff support will assist Building and the contractors to implement the program. The costs for this position, estimated at $45,000 per year, will be paid by SBWMA and charged to the Burlingame rates when garbage rates are reviewed at the end of 2001. This will have little impact on the rates, and continues council practice of charging AB 939 costs to those who dispose of trash headed for the landfill. Contractors participating in the program are expected to benefit in many cases from the lower cost of recycling the materials. C: George Bagdon, Director of Public Works Margaret Monroe, City Planner Kathleen Gallagher, SBWMA Program Manager 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.17 TO THE BURLINGAME �F CONSTRUCOI ONEAND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND DIVERSION The City Council of the City of Burlingame, California, does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby finds and determines that the City is committed to protecting the public health, safety, welfare and environment; that in order to meet these goals, it is necessary that the City promote the reduction of solid waste and reduce the stream of solid waste going to landfills; that under California law as embodied in the California Waste Management Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 40000 et seq.), Burlingame is required to prepare, adopt and implement source reduction and recycling elements to reach reduction goals, and is required to make substantial reductions in the volume of waste materials going to landfill, or pay penalties; that debris from demolition and construction of buildings and tenant upgrades represents a significant portion of the volume presently coming from Burlingame, and that much of this debris is particularly suitable for recycling; that Burlingame' s commitment to the reduction of waste and to compliance with State law requires the establishment of programs for recycling and salvaging construction and demolition materials; the City Council recognizes that requiring demolition and construction debris to be recycled and reused may in some respects add modestly to the cost of demolition and in other respects may make possible some cost recovery and cost reduction; and that it is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare that this ordinance is adopted. Section 2. A new Chapter 8.17 is added to the Municipal Code to read as follows: H H 11/21/2000 Draft 1 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 Chapter 8.17 RECYCLING AND DIVERSION OF DEBRIS FROM CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION 8.17.010 8.17.020 Definitions Deconstruction and Salvage and Recovery 8.17.030 Diversion Requirements 8.17.040 Information Required Before Issuance of Permit 8.17.050 Deposit Required 8.17.060 Administrative Fee 8.17.070 On Site Practices 8.17.080 Reporting 8.17.090 Penalties 8.17.010 Definitions. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply: (a) "Contractor" means any person or entity holding, or required to hold, a contractor's license of any type under the laws of the State of California, or who performs (whether as contractor, subcontractor, owner -builder, or otherwise) any construction, demolition, remodeling, or landscaping service relating to buildings or accessory structures in the city. (b) "Demolition" means, for the purposes of the recycling and diversion requirements in this chapter, the intentional removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of an existing structure. (c) "Demolition and construction debris" means and includes: (1) Discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non -hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum, wallboard, and lumber from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure and/or landscaping, and including rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally results from land clearing, landscaping and development operations for a construction project; (2) Clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from any construction and/or landscape project; (3) Non -construction and demolition debris wood scraps. (4) De-minimis amounts of other non hazardous wastes that are generated at 11 /21 /2000 Draft 2 1 2 3 4 5 1.6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16' 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 construction or demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the industry. (5) Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris. (d) "Designated recyclable and reusable materials" means and includes: (1) Masonry building materials including all products generally used in construction including, but not limited to asphalt, concrete, rock, stone and brick; (2) Wood materials including any and all dimensional lumber, fencing or construction wood that is not chemically treated, creosoted, CCA pressure treated, contaminated or painted with lead paint. (3) Vegetative materials including trees, tree parts, shrubs, stumps, logs, brush or any other type of plants that are cleared from a site for construction or other use. (4) Metals including all metal scrap such as, but not limited to, pipes, siding, window frames, door frames and fences. (5) Roofing materials including wood shingles as well as asphalt, stone and slate based roofing material. (6) Salvageable materials including all salvageable materials and structures including, but not limited to wallboard, doors, windows, fixtures, toilets, sinks, bath tubs and appliances. (7) Any other materials that the chief building official determines can be diverted due to the identification of a recycling facility, reuse facility, or market accessible from the city. (e) "New construction" means the construction of a completely new structure or the construction of an addition to an existing structure that exceeds fifty percent (50%) of the value of the existing structure as determined by the building official. (f) "Structure" means anything constructed or erected, except fences, the use of which requires permanent location on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground and that contains 150 square feet or more of floor area. H 11 /21 /2000 Draft 3 1 8.17.020 Deconstruction and Salvage and Recovery. 2 Every structure planned for demolition shall be made available for deconstruction, 3 salvage, and recovery prior to demolition. No person shall begin such a demolition until a 4 period of five (5) working days has elapsed from the date of issuance of the demolition permit, 5 in order to facilitate that pre -demolition deconstruction, salvage and recovery. The owner, the 6 general contractor and all subcontractors shall recover the maximum feasible amount of 7 salvageable designated recyclable and reusable materials prior to demolition. In the event that it 8 is determined that no materials can be salvaged for reuse from a particular project, written 9 documentation shall be provided to the City as to the reasons why salvaging cannot take place at 10 least three (3) working days before demolition begins. Recovered and salvaged designated 11 recyclable and reusable materials from the deconstruction phase shall qualify to be counted in 12 meeting the diversion requirements of this chapter. Recovered or salvaged materials may be 13 given or sold on or from the premises at which they were recovered or salvaged, or may be 14 removed to reuse warehouse facilities for storage or sale. Title to reusable or recyclable 15 materials forwarded to the operator of a recycling facility, landfill, or other disposal facility will 16 transfer to the service provider upon departure of the materials from the site. 17 18 8.17.030 Diversion Requirements. 19 The minimum percentages of waste tonnage of demolition and construction debris 20 generated from every demolition, remodeling and construction project, as defined below, shall 21 be diverted from going to landfills by using recycling, reuse and diversion programs as follows: 22 (a) From demolition: 23 For all residential (single-family and multi -family) and commercial demolition projects in 24 the city: At least sixty percent (60%) of all generated C&D tonnage from the project shall be 25 diverted. When total tonnage generated from a project includes soil, concrete and/or asphalt, 26 the total diversion rate shall remain at sixty percent (60%) but at least twenty-five (25%) of the 27 C&D tonnage that excludes soil, concrete, and asphalt shall be diverted. For example, if total 28 tonnage generated is one hundred (100) tons, the total diverted tonnage shall be at least sixty 11/21/2000 Draft 4 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (60) tons. Of this amount, the total tonnage diverted through materials excluding soil, concrete and asphalt, shall be at least twenty-five (25) tons and the remainder (35 tons or more) can be obtained through diversion of soil, concrete and asphalt. (b) From new construction: All residential (single-family and multi -family) and all commercial new construction projects shall be covered by the same diversion requirements as for demolition: Sixty percent (60%) of total waste tonnage generated from the project shall be diverted. When total tonnage generated from a project includes soil, concrete and/or asphalt, the total diversion rate shall remain at sixty percent (60%) but at least twenty-five (25%) of the waste tonnage that excludes soil, concrete, and asphalt shall be diverted. For example, if total tonnage generated is one hundred (100) tons, the total diverted tonnage shall be at least sixty (60) tons. Of this amount, the total tonnage diverted through materials excluding soil, concrete and asphalt, shall be at least twenty-five (25) tons and the remainder (35 tons or more) can be obtained through diversion of soil, concrete and asphalt. (c) Separate calculations and reports will be required for the demolition portion and for the construction portion of projects involving both demolition and construction. 11 8.17.040 Information Required Before Issuanze of Permit. (a) Every applicant shall submit a properly completed "Recycling and Waste Reduction Form," on a form as prescribed by the city as an integral part of the building or demolition permit application process. The applicant's submission shall include an accurate estimate of the tonnage or other specified units of construction and demolition debris to be generated from construction and demolition on the site. Approval of the form as complete and accurate shall be a condition precedent to issuance of any building or demolition permit. (b) The building official will review the Recycling and Waste Reduction Form for the purpose of confirming the accuracy of the estimated waste generation and gathering data on the amount of waste generated for the project in the city. 11/21/2000 Draft 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19i 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8.17.050 Deposit Required. As a condition precedent to issuance of any permit for a building or a demolition permit that is subject to section 8.17.030, the applicant shall post a cash deposit, surety bond, or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of fifty dollars (S50.00) for each estimated ton of generated construction or demolition. The deposit or cash bond shall be returned, without interest, in total or in proportion, upon proof to the satisfaction of the building official, that no less than the required percentages or proven proportion of those percentages of the tons of debris generated by the demolition or construction project have been diverted from landfills and have been recycled or reused. If a lesser percentage of tons or cubic yards than required is diverted, a proportionate share of the deposit will be returned. The deposit shall be forfeited entirely or to the extent that there is a failure to comply with the requirements of this chapter for timely reporting or compliance with the percentage diversion. 1 8.17.060 Administrative fee. As a condition precedent to issuance of any permit for a building or a demolition permit that involves the production of solid waste destined to be delivered to a landfill, the applicant shall pay to the city a fee as established by resolution to compensate the city for all expenses incurred in administering the permit. 11 8.17.070 On -site practices. During the term of the demolition or construction project, the contractor shall recycle or divert the required percentages of materials, and keep records of diversions in tonnage or in other measurements approved by the city that can be converted to tonnage. The building official will evaluate and monitor contractor reports from each project to gauge the percentage of materials recycled, salvaged, and disposed from the project. To the maximum extent feasible, on -site separation of scrap wood and clean green waste in a designated debris box or boxes shall be arranged, in order to permit chipping and mulching for soil enhancement or land cover purposes. In order to protect chipping and grinding machinery and personnel, metal and other 11 /21 /2000 Draft 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 materials which cannot be chipped or ground shall not be placed in such boxes. On -site separation for recycling and salvaging of other materials shall be undertaken to the extent feasible. 8.17.080 Reporting. (a) No later than sixty (60) days following the completion of a demolition project or construction project, the contractor shall, as a condition of final inspection and for issuance of any certificate of occupancy, submit documentation to the city that proves compliance with the requirements of section 8.17.030. The documentation shall consist of a final completed "Recycling and Waste Reduction Form" showing the tonnage of materials recycled and diverted, supported by originals or certified photocopies of receipts and weight tags or other records of measurement from recycling companies, deconstruction contractors, and landfill and disposal companies. Receipts and weight tags will be used to verify whether materials generated from the site have been or are to be recycled, reused, salvaged or otherwise disposed of. If mixed debris is taken to a facility that provides both mixed C&D processing and disposal services, documentation shall be provided to show that the delivered materials were processed for recycling and also indicate the average diversion rate achieved by the facility from mixed load processing. (b) If a project involves both demolition and construction, the report and documentation for the demolition portion ofthe project shall be submitted no later than sixty (60) days following the completion of the demolition portion of the project, and must be approved by the city before issuance of a building permit for the construction portion of the project. The permittee shall then submit the report and documentation for the construction portion of the project no later than sixty (60) days following completion of the construction portion as specified in subsection (a) above. (c) As an alternative, a permittee may submit a declaration stating that no waste or recyclable materials were generated from the permittee's project or a particular portion of a project. 11 /21 /2000 Draft 7 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (d) Any deposit posted pursuant to section 8.17.050 shall be forfeited to the city if the permittee does not meet the time requirements for reporting pursuant to this section. (e) All reports, letters, and documentation submitted pursuant to this section are subject to verification by the city. (f) On an annual basis, the building official will compile a report that, at a minimum, describes the number and type of permits issued, the number and type of projects covered by diversion requirements, the total tonnage generated, and the estimated diversion resulting from these projects. (g) It is unlawful for any person to submit a report to the city under this section that the person knows to contain any false statement of tonnage of materials recycled or diverted, or any false or fraudulent receipt or weight tag or other record of measurement. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof nor other applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 200__, by the following vote: 11 /21 /2000 Draft 8 s 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 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILNIEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: D:\wp51\Files\ORDINANCkkmorecycl.bld.w,pd City Clerk 11/21/2000 Draft z CITY 0 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 7 d BURLINGAME FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: 12-4-00 c` November 27, 2000 J TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ APPROVED BY Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Amend Ordinance on Utility Deposit Requirements RECOMMENDATION: Introduction: A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Public Hearing: A. Adopt proposed ordinance. B. Direct city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: The current procedure requires a deposit in the amount of $25.00 for all tenants ($50 for food related businesses.) Deposits are retained for four years and then refunded to the customer as a refund check. If the account is closed before the four-year period, the deposit is applied to the closing bill. If the same tenant moves to another address in Burlingame, they are charged another deposit and the procedure starts over. This process is extremely time consuming for staff and certainly does not adequately cover the costs to administer. In addition, the amount of deposit does not cover the costs for a customer who has defaulted on payment of a final billing. Since the city has the ability to shut off water for non-payment on an account, there is little chance of a significant loss due to non-payment. Staff proposes to amend the city code to provide that deposits will only be required for the turn -on of water service for any customer whose account has had a delinquency during the previous 12 months in an amount equal to two months estimated consumption, or $50.00, whichever is greater. If no further delinquencies occur on the account over the succeeding 12-month period, the deposit will be applied as a credit to the account. CC: George Bagdon, Public Works Director Chris Rogers, Billing & Collections Supervisor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7' 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDINANCE No. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1630 TO CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPOSITS FOR BEGINNING WATER SERVICE The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Paragraph (h) of Ordinance No. 1630 is amended to read as follows: (h) Deposits for turn -on of water service. (1) Deposits will be required for the turn -on of water service for any customer whose account with the city has had a delinquency on a city water account during the previous twelve (12) months in an amount equal to two (2) months estimated consumption, or $50.00, whichever is greater. If no further delinquencies occur on the account over the succeeding twelve-month period, the deposit shall be applied as a credit to the account. (2) If a delinquency occurs on an account to which a deposit has been made, the delinquency shall be satisfied first from the amount on deposit. Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Mayor I, ANN T. MUS SO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: D:\wp51\Files\Water\depositchge.ord.wpd City Clerk 1 AGENDA ITEM # 7 f CITY OF BURLINGAME MEETINGDATE: 12-4-00 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: November 28, 2000 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Commissioner Items Prior to the December 4 council meeting, the citizens listed below are scheduled to interview for the Traffic Safety Parking Commission vacancies. Council may wish to appoint two candidates to the commission. Traffic Safety Parking Commission (2 positions: terms to 11-6-03; Interview team: Coffey/O'Mahony) Amy Chang Howard Page Richard Cottrell Erik Winkler As of the November 27 extended filing deadline, the below -listed residents have applied to serve on the Civil Service Commission: Civil Service (1 position: term to 12-1-03) Bill Garcia Rolando Pasquali Council may choose the following: 1. Select council interview teams as necessary and schedule candidate interview date(s). 2. Extend the application filing deadline for Civil Service Commission to Tuesday, December 26, 2000. 3. 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. `James Nantell City Manager v Attachments (Council only) ���, My GAZ BURIJNGAF,E STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED BY DATE: 1 1 /29/00 APPROVED �f FROM: James Nantell, City Manager BY SUBJECT: County Request for Funding of New Shelter Located in South San Francisco AGENDA ITEM : 7 MTG. DATE 12-4-00 RECOMMENDATION: Review request from San Mateo County requesting additional funding for the new shelter in South San Francisco. Determine: A: If interested in providing some additional funding, and if so, B: Determine the amount of funding that would be provided. BACKGROUND The cost of the new South San Francisco homeless shelter exceeded start up funding by $850,000 due primarily to changes required by HUD to address environmental concerns. The County is requesting that all cities assist in making up the deficit. This onetime capital request is in addition to the annual contribution for the emergency winter shelter's operational cost. In our case we have $7,000 budgeted for that purpose. BUDGET IMPACT The additional funding if approved would come from our unreserved fund balance. The requested funding is between $10,000 to $30,000. Using the $30,000 donation from South San Francisco as a guide, a comparable per capita amount for Burlingame would be $15,000. f Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD S. GORDON MARY GRIFFIN JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBSON MICHAEL D. NEVIN JOHN MALTBIE COUNTY MANAGER' CLERK OF THE BOARD COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94063-1655 (650) 363-4653 WEB PAGE ADDRESS:hfp://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us FAX: (650) 599-1027 November 8, 2000 The Honorable Rosalie O'Mahony Mayor, City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Request for Additional Funding for New Shelter in South San Francisco Dear Rosalie: We write to request that your city assist with the funding of the construction of the new emergency shelter that will open in South San Francisco this December. As you may know, this project has been long in development as we searched for a replacement for the winter shelter site we have had for many years at the National Guard Armory in San Mateo. We have been working for over a year with a working group of north county mayors, state and federal legislative liaisons and others to locate a site in the north part of the county. Earlier this year, we located a site at the north county SamTrans facility parking lot. Our unghial budget for the project was $1.1 million, which we were able to raise hvnl a combination of county, city, state and foundation sources. A list of original funding sources is attached. A full $778,400 came from the five Community Development Block Grant jurisdictions —the urban county, Daly City, South San Francisco, San Mateo And Redwood City. Since all cities in the county are represented through one of the five jurisdictions, all cities contributed to the original construction. We were forced to change the original design for the project to address environmental concerns of HUD. These design changes resulted in a significant increase in cost due to both the new design and the need to make up for lost time in order to be ready for this winter. We now face an approximate $850,000 deficit for the project. We request your city's assistance in bridging this gap, asking large cities for $50,000 and smaller cities for between $10,000 and $30,000. We will be approaching all possible sources to make up the shortfall and are using County General Funds to cover the construction costs so that we can move forward for a December opening. The City of South San Francisco, the host site of the shelter, has already made an additional contribution of $30,000. This request is a one time capital request and ought not to supplant any annual contribution your city makes to Samaritan House for the Emergency Winter Shelter's operation. Thank you for considering supporting this critical need in our community. Please let us know by December 1, 2000 if your city may be able to assist. Sincerely, Jerry Supervisor, District 2 Mary Griffin Supervisor, District 1 c: City Mayors, Councilmembers and City Managers North County Emergency Shelter Location Committee Enc. Initial Funding, North Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RICHARD S. GORDON MARY GRIFFIN JERRY HILL ROSE JACOBS GIBSON MICHAEL D. NEVIN JOHN MALTBIE COUNTY MANAGER CLERK OF THE BOARD COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER • REDWOOD CITY • CALIFORNIA 94063-1655 (650) 363-4653 WEB PAGE ADDRESS:http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us FAX: (650) 599-1027 New Shelter in South San Francisco Summary of Sources Initially Committed CDBG, County of San Mateo $368,000 CDBG, City of Daly City 160,000 CDBG, City of San Mateo 125,000 CDBG, City of South San Francisco 72,000 CDBG, City of Redwood City 53,400 City of San Bruno 25,000 State of California, Sen. Speier Member Item 250,000 Remainder of Family Housing &Homeless Trust Fund 75.643 Total $1,129,043 AGENDA ITEM # 7 h MEETING DATE: 12-4-00 CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: November 28, 2000 FROM: "Old" City Manager SUBJECT: Council Meeting December 18, 2000 In order to act on the Tourist Business Improvement District proposal and possibly the revised Broadway Streetscape plans, staff recommends that we plan on having a City Council meeting on Monday December 18, 2000 at 7 PM. Dennis Argyres City Manager CITY C BURL INGAME m November 15, 2000 STAFF REPORT Burlingame Public Library TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY• AGENDA ITEM # 8 a MEETING DATE: 12-4-00 FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian APPROVED BY:% SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Burlingame Public Library to join the Golden Gate Library Network, as part of the Library of California Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of the Burlingame Public Library joining the Golden Gate Library Network, as part of the Library of California. Background: Senate Bill 409, which created the Library of California, was signed into law by Governor Wilson on September 28,1998. The law provides for multi -type library networking and portions of the bill replace the California Library Services Act. Burlingame currently receives over $160,000 per year from CLSA for direct loan and interlibrary loan reimbursements. The four major components of the law include: improved telecommunications infrastructure, information database licenses to provide greater patron access to expensive databases, reimbursement for direct loan and interlibrary loan, and regional library network development. Seven regional multi -type library networks have been established. The Golden Gate Library Network includes libraries in the Bay Area, including San Francisco, Oakland, etc. Approval of this membership by December 31, 2000 will assure Burlingame of having access to half a million dollars in database availability network -wide. Most local libraries have or are joining the Golden Gate Library Network. The Library Board of Trustees has approved this Resolution at their November 14"' meeting. Budget Im,Ract: No budget impact is seen at this time. The Library will benefit by being able to offer users increased access to information databases. Attachment: Resolution Resolution Authorizing Burlingame Public Library to join the Golden Gateway Library Network, as part of the Library of California. Whereas, the State of California has established the Library of California and the seven regional networks to improve library services state-wide and regionally, and Whereas, the Golden Gateway Library Network has been established to improve an individual library's access to other libraries' resources and to improve library technology and services throughout the region, and Whereas, the Burlingame Public Library perceives the benefits of joining the Golden Gateway Library Network, and Whereas, the Burlingame Public Library agrees to comply with all provisions of the Library of California Act and Regulations and conditions of membership within the network, and Whereas, the City of Burlingame agrees not to reduce funding for library services as a result of network participation, and Whereas, the Burlingame Public Library agrees not to reduce funding of library services as a result of network participation, and Whereas, the Burlingame Public Library agrees that it's participating libraries will: • Share resources and services with other members of the Golden Gateway Network. • Provide resources and services for other members of the Golden Gateway Network. • Meet the minimum resource sharing performance standards of the Golden Gateway Network, and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Burlingame authorizes membership of the Burlingame Public Library in the Golden Gateway Network, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees recommend the City Council approve membership in the Golden Gateway Library Network /,,,ecile Approved by Library Board of Trustees oar November 14, 2000 Board President �a6 CITY 0 BU,t41NGAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: November 28, 2000 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM # 8 b MTG. DATE 12/4/2000 SUBMITTED BY APPRO ` BY- pftt'l APPROVE ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR RECOMMENDATION: Approve rotation list for Mayor and Vice Mayor for coming year. DISCUSSION: Resolution No. 117 (1999) sets forth the process for rotating the offices of Mayor and Vice Mayor. Pursuant to that resolution, the rotation list is to be updated each year so that the rotation list is kept current. Attached are the rotation lists for November 1, 2000 (before the current rotation) and December 1, 2000 (the current rotation list). Attachment Rotation List (November 1, 2000, and December 1, 2000) ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (November 1, 2000) 1. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony 2. Vice Mayor Joe Galligan 3. Councilmember Mike Spinelli 4. Councilmember Mary Janney (Immediate Past Mayor) 5. Councilmember Mike Coffey (Newly elected councilmember) ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (December 1, 2000) 1. Mayor Joe Galligan 2. Vice Mayor Mike Spinelli 3. Councilmember Mary Janney 4. Councilmember Mike Coffey 5. Councilmember Rosalie O'Mahony (Immediate Past Mayor) AGENDA ITEM # H c MEETING DATE: 1 2-4-00 N T E R MEMO O F F I C E To: DENNIS ARGYRES, CITY MANAGER From: GARY MISSEL, CHIEF of POLICE Subject: FEES INCREASE FOR TOW COMPA IES Date: November 13, 2000 Burlingame Police Department uses two towing companies (D&M and Tressor's) to remove abandonded and/or disabled vehicles from the streets and other public areas of Burlingame. Those companies charge various fees for towing and storage. The owner of D&M (Marc Rochette) has requested an increase in towing and storage fees (see requested increases below). Sergeant Ransom has surveyed San Mateo P.D., Millbrae P.D. and the California Highway Patrol to determine what those agencies authorize for towing and storage fees (see chart below). In March of 1999, the City Council increased the maximum allowable towing fees to $115 and the maximum storage fees to $29/day (Resolution #25-1999). After reviewing Sgt. Ransom's survey and Mr. Rochette's justification for increases (see copy of letter to Sgt. Ransom), I recommend that the Council approve a new maximum towing fee of $130 and a new maximum daily storage fee of $34. Requested Increases Towing (abandonded or disabled): $132.25 Storage Fee: $33.35 Authorized Maximum Towing and Storage Fees (November 2000) Towing Storage/day California Highway Patrol $130 $40 San Mateo Police* $120 $30 Millbrae Police $105 $40 * - currently considering increases in towing and storage fees c: Sgt. Ransom To: Honorable Mayor & City Council Date.: 11-14-00 Recommend approval of attached resolution increasing maximum towing fee tO $130 and maximum daily storage fee to $34. 10000 k Dennis Argyres City Manager D & M Towing 1640 Rollins Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 348-7474 September 15, 2000 Sergeant Ransom Burlingame Police Department 1111 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Sergeant Ransom: This letter is to inform you of our annual towing and storage rate increase. This rate increase is not limited to but includes the following items: 1. Cost of living increase; 2. 72% increase in fuel cost compared to this time last year; 3. Increase in cost of disposal of abandoned vehicles, which includes transportation to disposal facility and new administrative costs; 4. Limited access and high expenses of vacant storage properties in Burlingame. Our current charge for a police tow is $115.00; storage is $29.00 per day. We have forecasted a 15% increase in cost for towing and storage for the coming fiscal year. This would be reflected as an increase of $17.25 in towing and $4.35 for storage fees. These increases are necessary in order to maintain a high quality of service, training of employees and the future of this company. We look forward to continuing our service with the Burlingame Police Department. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the above number. Sincerely yours, Marc Rochette President RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING INCREASED RATES FOR CHARGES BY TOWING BUSINESSES ON THE BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT ROTATION LIST RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Burlingame Police Department uses a rotation list of qualified towing businesses to remove abandoned or disabled vehicles from public streets and rights -of -way in the City; and WHEREAS, the qualifications placed on towing businesses under the rotation list is that their maximum charges be subject to City approval; and WHEREAS, D&M Towing has requested that the City allow increased charges for towing and storage consistent with nearby agencies; and WHEREAS, a survey of other agencies shows that the California Highway Patrol currently allows a charge of $130 for towing and $40 per day for storage; and WHEREAS, the Chief of Police has recommended an increase for towing and storage charges under the rotation list to $130 for towing and $34 per day for storage, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The following maximum charges are authorized for use by towing businesses on the Burlingame Police Department rotation list: Description of Service Maximum Charge Towing disabled vehicle $130 Towing abandoned vehicle $130 Storing of towed vehicle $ 34 / day (storage for each 24 hour period or fraction thereof in excess of first 8 hours of storage after tow) 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: 2 CITY CLERK 13U.RLINGAIMEREPORTSTAFF `\ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 20, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A SIDEWALK AT 1560 BARROILHET AVENUE AGENDA ITEM # 8 d MTG. 12/4/00 DATE SUBMITTED BY At ;OVED BY ? _% r, I WO'WEN FENCE AT THE BACK OF THE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Special Encroachment Permit for a wooden fence in accordance with the attached drawings, permit and 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 replace an old fence with a new 6-foot high fence. The fence is located in the public right-of-way 3.1 feet from the property. line at the back of the sidewalk. Staff has reviewed this application, visited the site and has found neither utility conflicts nor sight distance obstructions. Therefore, staff recommends approval if the above conditions are met. EXHIBITS: Application, Special Encroachment Permit, Drawings, Pictures F5�"" -L22m�v� Donald C. Chang, P. E. Senior Civil Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\1560barroilhet.wpd SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION A.P. No._ 1 ,�Ir a 3a Address of Proposed Encroachment j J (O 'FLAA�29's Lot No. 16 Block No. __� Subdivision Applicant E' AV(N I) A-T & _ Phone 6 SO - 967- 71VI / Address (560, E3A RRO t 1-1-F-PT- Xv. . Best Time to Call 1AITIT C 9-L% �m 3� 3 - t $mot I Property Owner PRRUfN Pi4-r�L Phone f�SG - I Address I S 6 O 1 #3 R-JZ PD C L FV- & T A-v . Best Time to Call \"I I F ( `fA 4 p` m ) Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicable) NtQ.ec�. n l,oY LC7�(��YiVcrcL( -o►� �R�2F20fLt+�T 53� 4ILC 1tot1SZ .( bnc(,t, ia� Give Reasons for Request Date 1 00 Signed t - I--0_ 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 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 11-22-00 (Date) TO OWNER: Pravin Patel 1560 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 In compliance with your request of 11-17-00 and subject to all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted for a 6-foot high fence encroaching 3.1 feet into the City's right-of-way per City Council action 12-04-00 in accordance with the followinis 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 the construction reconstruction or maintenance work is required in the public right-of-way. AT 1560 Barroilhet Avenue Lot 16 Block No 3 Burlingame Heights Subdivision Assessor's Parcel No. 028-301-310 . General Provisions 1. Definition; Revocability. The term "encroachment" is used in this permit to mean any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, under, or over, any portion of the right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice. 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 2-28-2001 . 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 By 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 names) 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 k sib 3-1 �— p—o4-D-- - — -__ - _ ----- �J I t� -------Ej � � s ,� �� �; ' �_ v�" .� �-� ��, �\ z� � � � f ��, �¢� � � ��� i �� � � ��� � `� , s � � �,, .p � ., � -p � � -� o-....---t- {� .,� t- �� � �`� � �� �, �'� ;©�td, b ` l L'� , \ f '� �(�,� �� � � � � Y�1;�S'Q e ii 2� L2`�E_ � CJTV O BUR STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL f 9POAe, DATE: November 27, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A 1310 BROADWAY AGENDA ITEM # 8 e MTG. 12/4/00 DATE SUBMITTED BY APPRO�D r� BY SECURITY ATE AND FLOWER RACKS AT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Special Encroachment Permit for a security gate and flower racks in accordance with the attached drawing and pictures with the following conditions: All the flower displays shall be removed at the end of each business day. The owner shall remove the gate at her expense on or before April 1, 2001 due to the construction of the Broadway Streetscape Improvements project. The owner may reinstall the gate when the sidewalk fronting this site is completed, and at the approval of the City Engineer. BACKGROUND: Staff has reviewed this application and visited the site. The existing security gate and racks encroach approximately 5.5 inches into the sidewalk. There is no existing permit found for these encroachments. As the gate will interfere with the sidewalk installation fronting this address, staff requests that it be removed temporarily during streetscape construction. There are no utility conflicts by this installation. Staff recommends approval of the permit if the above conditions are met. EXHIBITS: Special Encroachment Permit, Application, Pictures, Drawing Donald Chang, P. E. Senior Civil Engineer pa c: City Clerk, Applicant S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\1310 broadway.wpd ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR NON -PERMANENT FIXTURES November 27, 2000 (Date) TO APPLICANT: LINDA BULLIS BELLA LUNA 1310 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 343-6975 In compliance with your request of October 24, 2000 and subject to all of the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted to for a security gate and flower racks at 1310 Broadway in accordance with the following conditions: All the flower displays shall be removed at the end of each business day. The owner shall remove the gate at her expense on or before April 1 2001 due to the construction of the Broadway Streetscape Improvements project The owner may reinstall the gate when the sidewalk fronting this site is completed and at the approval of the City Engineer. AT 1310 Broadway Lot No. 33, Block No. 16, Subdivision - Burlingame Grove (Lot, Block and Subdivision or legal description) Assessor's Parcel No. 026-095-140 1. Definition, Revocability. The term "encroachment" is used in this permit to mean those objects described above when they are placed in the right-of-way of the City of Burlingame in the manner described in the drawing attached hereto and in the City standards for such encroachments. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice. 2. Acceptance of provisions. It is understood and agreed by the permittee that placing the above objects in the public right of way pursuant to this permit shall constitute an acceptance of the provisions hereof. 1 November 27, 2000 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 3. No precedent established. This permit is granted with the understanding that this action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent on the question of the expediency of permitting any certain kind of encroachment within or upon right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. 4. Permit on premises. This permit shall be kept at the site of the encroachment and must be shown to any representative of the City or any law enforcement officer on demand. 5. Future moving of installation. It is understood by the permittee that whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work on the right-of-way may require, the installation provided for herein shall, upon request of the City, be immediately removed by and at the sole expense of the permittee. 6. 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 its 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. 7. Liability Insurance. The applicant shall maintain public liability insurance in an amount not less than $500,000 for personal injuries, in an amount not less than $100,000 for property damage and in an amount of $ 1 million for serving alcoholic beverages. Applicant shall furnish satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required to City concurrently with the execution hereof. Each policy shall provide for at least ten (10) days prior written notice to City of cancellation. All insurance shall be primary and shall name the City as additional insured. A current Insurance Certificate must be on file with the City Engineer's office or encroachments must immediately cease. Continuing lack of certificate will cause permit revocation. 8. Maintenance. The permittee agrees, by the acceptance of this permit, to exercise reasonable care to.maintain properly the encroachment placed by it in the City right-of- way, and to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and immediately 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. 9. This permit shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 10. Sketch. See attached. STANDARD CONDITIONS: 1. A minimum of five feet clearance for the pedestrian walkway shall be maintained at all times. This includes the persons using any tables, chairs or benches. 2. The sidewalk area fronting the store shall be kept clean of debris and spills at all times during the business hours. 3. All potted plants shall be pruned, trimmed and watered periodically; and all planters shall be maintained in good condition and kept clean of debris maintaining a neat appearance. 4. A copy of the permit, including drawings, shall be available inside the store during business hours. 5. No person shall use a non -permanent fixture in such a manner as to obstruct, hinder, or delay the free passage or use of any street, sidewalk, passageway, or other public place. It is the business management's responsibility to keep customers or users from violating any of the above conditions or moving any of the permitted fixtures. This permit shall not be effective until such time as the on -sale license for the public eating place is amended to permit service of alcoholic beverages in the designated sidewalk seating area, and a copy of that amended license is filed with the City Department of Public Works. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES: 1. Violation A City representative will inspect the site upon receiving a complaint to confirm whether a violation of the permit conditions exists. In addition, periodic inspections will be conducted by City representatives. A notice of violation will be sent to the owner if a violation is observed. 2. Suspension If there are three violation notices within three months, the subject location's encroachment permit may be suspended for a period of up to one month as determined by the City Engineer. The period will be based on the degree of impact the violation has on public safety, health, and general welfare in addition to the past history of suspensions and violations. If a violation results in a significant incident, such as an injury, a suspension or revocation may be imposed immediately. All non -permanent fixtures will be removed from the sidewalk by the permittee or by City forces. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 3. Revocation After the suspension period is completed, the encroachment fixtures may be placed in accordance with original permit conditions. If there are again two or more violations within the next six month period, the permit may be revoked for a period of six months after which an application for a new permit will be necessary. The new permit may be issued for a specific time frame dependent upon the past history of violations. The decision of the Public Works Department may be appealed by the applicant to the City Council. Such appeals will be made in writing within five days after written notice of the decision of the Department of Public Works is sent to the permittee. f ACCEPTED: THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPLICANT: (BUSINESS NAME) (Please Print) (Please Print) BY: DATE: BY: DATE: 0� SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Address of Proposed Encroachment_4 w Lot No. Block No. ( Subdivision Applicant Address Property Owner Address f_ I A.P. No. Best Time to Call e - 6— Pho4 Best Time to Call Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicable) ice, i f fnAt & r w o(x-,, I1 � Give Reasons for Request <� 0, CI" Ir'(h4 90112-� / ' 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 SAAPublicWorksDirectory\FORMS\General Office Forms\ENCRSPCL.APP i45 .r� I E } !4 r .x � r r, f MW 03ues SALADS . o. 4� act x7N i< P'Or 1 4 Oh 1 3p --p i f 1, A IT7 C BU,tLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: November 27. 2000 FROM: LaM E. Anderson City Attorney SUBJECT: REJECT CLAIMS OF ALICE M. ALAPAI, BURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB, AND WALT AGENDA ITEM # 8f MTG. DATE 12/4/2000 CANNON RECOMMENDATION: SUBMITT - — . V BY f APPROVE BY f, a Reject claims filed by Alice M. Alapai, Burlingame Aquatic Club, and Walt Cannon for alleged breach of contract. DISCUSSION: Alice M. Alapai, doing business as Burlingame Aquatic Club, was retained in June 2000 to provide the first swim coach services for the Burlingame Swim Center. Because of questions about the structure of the Aquatic Club and other issues, the contract offered was only for 2 and a half months. Walt Cannon was the employee of the Club who was the lead coach. The City decided that 2 and a half months was enough of a contract with the Club, and the contract came to an end on August 31, 2000. The Club and its owner Alapai and employee Cannon now contend that they were promised a 4-year contract and will sue the City if they don't get satisfaction. The Council may meet in closed session if the Council wishes to hear a more detailed discussion of the Club, Alapai, and Cannon. Attachment Claim filed by Claimants Distribution Director of Parks & Recreation TIMOTHY B. BhODERICK ATTORNEY AT LAW November 9, 2000 Via First Class Mail Larry Anderson Burlingame City Attorney 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Anderson, RECEDED NOV 13 Z000 Gi>nOf. om EAA WyNiak1f Re: Burlingame Aquatics Club Law Off les: 2600 El Camino Real Suite 506 Palo Alto, CA 44306 Tel (650) 857-WW Fax (650) 557-1100 timbroderlck®Ibm.net Admitted: California Penneyivania New Jersey Washington, D.C. I represent Alice M. Alapai, an individual who was doing business with Burlingame Aquatics Club and who entered into a contract with the City of Burlingame. I also represent Walt Cannon, who was hired as the swimming coach. In. September of 2000, the City of Burlingame terminated its contract with my clients, despite persistent promises that the quarterly contract would be renewed in order to "effectuate a four-year contractual relationship between the parties. As a beneficiary of the contract, Mr. Cannon has been damaged in a very significant amount. He has not been able to find suitable employment since the City of Burlingame refused to renew the quarterly contract, as its representatives had previously and consistently promised to do. Randy Schwartz, Mike Blondino, and Jordan Schneiderman of the Recreation Department are familiar with the situation concerning my clients. Please contact me within the next 10 days and let me know if you are willing to talk. The cooperation of the City of Burlingame would be appreciated, and may avoid the mutual expense of litigation. However, if I do not hear from you, I will have no practical alternative other than to recommend to my clients we proceed with litigation. Sincerely, �4 Timothy B. Broderick cc: Alice M. Alapai, Walter Cannon It CITY BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: November 27. 2000 FROM: Larry E. Anderson City Attorney SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 8 9 MTG. DATE 12/4/2000 SUBMITTED-1- BY APPROVED /4 BY REJECT APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM CLAIM FILING REQUIREMENTS OF NADA JOKSIMOVICH RECOMMENDATION: Reject application for relief from claim filing requirements for Nada Joksimovich for personal injury on October 25, 1999. DISCUSSION: Ms. Joksimovich apparently fell on the sidewalk near 1301 Burlingame Avenue on October 25, 1999. However, she did not contact the City. We did not learn of her accident until October 23, 2000, when her attorney asked leave to file a late claim. The justification for the application is that Ms. Joksimovich was led to believe in a January 2000 letter from Chubb Insurance that she could file a lawsuit about the injury up to a year after the accident. However, she apparently waited until two days before the one year ran to contact an attorney. Under California law, an injured party has six months to file a claim with the City. This provides the City with the opportunity to check the location of the injury and determine the circumstances of the accident. In the present case, a year has passed, and sidewalks change a lot over 12 months. One of the key issues is the condition of the sidewalk at the time of the accident — not 12 months later. Therefore, rejection of the application for relief from claim filing requirements is recommended. Attachment Application submitted by Ms. Joksimovich Distribution ABAG Plan 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T. TROY OTUS (4-14S41 1) EDWARD P. KELLY (#053878) THE LAW OFFICES OF OTUS & ASSOCIATES 533 Airport Boulevard, Suite 505 Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)548-2100 CLAIM OF NADA JOKSIMOVICH ) vs. ) CITY OF BURLINGAME ) TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME: RECENED CITY CLERK'SF RUR�n GFICEAM;= CITY APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT (Govt. Code § 911.4 1. Application is hereby made, under Government Code §911.4, for leave to present a late claim founded on a cause of action for personal injury, which accrued on October 25, 1999, for which a claim was not presented within the 6-month period provided by Government Code §911.2. For additional circumstances relating to the cause of action, reference is made to the proposed claim attached to this application. 2. The failure to present this claim within the 6-month period specified by Government Code §911.2 was through inadvertence and mistake, and the City of Burlingame was not prejudiced by the failure, all as particularly shown by the attached declaration of T. Troy Otus, Esq. 3. This application is being presented within a reasonable time after this cause of action accrued, as more particularly shown by the attached declaration of T. Troy Otus, Esq. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this application be granted and that the attached proposed claim be received and acted on in accordance with Government Code §§912.4-913. DATED: T. OTUS orney for Claimant NADA JOKSIMOVICH Claim Against the City Please return to: City Clerk ��,A CITY o" 501 Primrose Road 8V.RUHr?!►ME Burlingame, CA 94010 Please =ee or print clearly. Complete the following, adding additional sleets as necessary. CLAIMANT'S NAME: — ��•� sT�GJ.,� ►M d �� CLADJANT'S ADDREss: I 1 ,S P 4 (SntUr OR P O XX MAC. OM STATE. 27P) of Burlingame t i CITY CLERK'S Qi FiC:_ ""ITY OF RIJRI iNGAMF (,-",-' , rA ��'J/c1 CLA)MANT'S HOME PHONE: .,'I" w� r WORK PHONE: af G 1 -��( c) l !� - AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $ D vV' 2-9 t C (ATTACH CQFW cF WA&tMW7EV IF AMOUNT CLAIMED LS MORE THAN $10, , ICATE WHMM JURISDICTION RESTS: 13 MUNICIPAL COURT SUPERIOR COURT ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT, IF DIFFFRENT'FROM LDW 1 AND 2: (Stxzr at p o a= MAMM _,¢ 'F TIP) DATE OF INCIDENT: T vAE OF INCIDENT: LOCATION OF INCIDENT: at &" DESCRIBE THE DwwENT OR ACCIDENT IIVCI.0 vw YOUR REAwK FOR BELzVIN(j =AT THE CRY IS LIABLE FOit YOUR DAMAGES: � I l C _1 4-1 / CIA I k-7.% J DESCRIBE ALL DAMAGES WHICH YOU ijum E YOU RAVE V;CUMM AS RESULT OF THE Wcwn r nJ 1 f -� jv e c NAMES OF mw= EieLOYWs) C uma THB DAMAGES YOU ARS CLAvAm: t—"I t< ^ J I---, I hereby de76,--j Pmauy of Pommy, that l ham rand the foregoing and that the sane is true to the best of my biowledg 2 Dace- J Signab= A►y person wlio. inventmd�F+oyd, presents �olss orfioudulentet may be pwilthed b' "pdi=wxw r orJiw or bo& cyatmAwpe I+ 7' die to personal ptwpaq 'bs,Jltsd uiflibt Id0 days of lwebfsta; all orlter eloJnts mum* bed ww4 oasYear4I'bwv*aL Sss �srsr eee Code Seetb+s 9A9ggg ccsaa�wl 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 T. TROY OTUS (# 148411) EDWARD P. KELLY (#053878) THE LAW OFFICES OF OTUS & ASSOCIATES 533 Airport Boulevard, Suite 505 Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)548-2100 CLAIM OF NADA JOKSIMOVICH ) vs. ) CITY OF BURLINGAME ) RECEIVED J v ' 2 itIY 0LEKI-c' ., ��. �►Rl.i(1GA�.1E DECLARATION OF T. TROY OTUS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM I, T. TROY OTUS, hereby declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all the courts of the State of California and attorney of record for Claimant herein. 12. On or about October 25, 1999, claimant was injured when she tripped and fell on the sidewalk in front of Bay View Bank located at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California. 3. Claimant has been in contact with the insurance company (Chubb Insurance Company) for the bank. On January 20, 2000 claimant was advised by the Chubb Insurance adjuster that she had one year from the date of loss to settle her claim or to file suit. (A copy of the Chubb letter of January 20, 2000 is attached hereto.) 4. Claimant assumed that this time limitation applied to the City of Burlingame also. 5. On or about October 12, 2000, claimant retained my office to represent her in this matter. We are therefore filing this application on her behalf. Wherefore, it is respectfully requested that this application be granted and that the attached proposed claim be received and acted on in accordance with Government Code §§912.4 - 913. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED: t 0 23 U� T. TRO. S Attorney for Claimant CHUBS 3ROUP OF INSURAN = COMPANIES ranuary 20% 2000 Nada Joksimovich 1155 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 'RE: INSURED: POLICY NUMBER: DATE OF LOSS: Dear Ms. Joksimovich: Bay View Bank 3533-87-28 10-25-99 Please contact the undersigned at 415-954-0489 and advise the current status of your injury related to your fall on the above date. Please note that the statute of limitations for bodily injury is one year from the date of loss. You have until that time to settle your claim or have a lawsuit filed to protect your right to recovery. If we do not hear from you within 30 days from the date of this letter, we will assume you are not pursuing a claim and we will close our file. Sincere Mike n Senior Claims Examiner CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CLAIMANTS NAME: NADA JOKSIMOVICH CLAIMANTS ADDRESS: 1155 BAYSWATER, #103, BURLINGAME CA 94010 (650)347-3088 AMOUNT OF CLAIM: Damages will exceed $25,000.00. Jurisdiction will be in the Superior Court - Unlimited Jurisdiction. ADDRESS WHERE NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT: RECEIVED The Law Offices of OTUS & ASSOCIATES U C 1 ). `? 21'.109 533 Airport Blvd., Suite 505 CITY CLERK'S o FICE CITY C!F PLIPi `NGMME Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)548-2100 DATE & LOCATION OF INCIDENT: October 25,1999 on the sidewalk in front of Bay View Bank at 1301 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California HOW DID IT OCCUR?: Claimant tripped and fell on a raised section of the sidwalk. NAME OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE() CAUSING INJURY, DAMAGE OR LOSS(if known): UNKNOWN ITEMIZATION OF CLAIM: TOTAL $50, 000.00 I declare under a penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Burlingame, California, on October 23, 200 Signature of Claimant: T. TROY OTU ttorney for Claimant 0 mio% M - I BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 8 h qQW MTG. 12/04/00 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: November 28, 2000 BY 01 APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: AMENDED TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A PRO OSED 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 8, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND CO. NO. 2 - 535 ALMER ROAD, PM 98-12 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve this amended tentative condominium map with the following conditions: All existing sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter shall be replaced. The conditions, covenants and restrictions for the map shall be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approved conditions and City codes. The developer shall pay $6,000 to the City as a development fee for the storm drain water line proposed on Almer Road. This fee is based on 4.5 % of the engineer's estimate prepared by MacLeod and Associates and represents the project's contribution of runoff to the storm drain line. BACKGROUND: The Council had approved a 7 unit condominium project at this location on June 21, 1999. The applicant has modified his design from 7 units to 6 units. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application at their November 13, 2000 meeting with the above conditions. There are no other major changes in the civil and grading plans. The final condominium map will be brought to Council once the structure has been substantially constructed. EXHIBITS: Map, Previous Staff Report Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reportsl535 ALMER.wpd STAFF REPORT MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MAY 26, 1999 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM ? 8 B MTG. 6/21 /99 suBJEcT: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A PROPOSED 7 UNIT CONDOMINIUM -PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 8, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO. 2 - 535 ALMER ROAD, PM 98-12 RECOMMENDATION: If Council decides to approve this condominium project, the tentative map should be approved at the same time with the following conditions: • All existing sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter shall be replaced. • The conditions, covenants and restrictions for the map shall be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approved conditions and City Codes. • The developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City to contribute a portion of the construction cost of installing an 8" minimum storm drainage line along Almer Road to the storm drainage creek on Almer Road. The proportional cost shall be based on the projects lot surface area as compared to all other lots which are or would be connected to the storm drainage line. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission denied the application without prejudice at their meeting of April 12, 1999 and the project was called up by Council for review. Should Council approve the tentative map, the final condominium map will be brought to Council once the structure has been substantially constructed. EXHIBITS: Map, Staff Reports Donald T. C Senior Civil pa c: City Clerk, Applicant &Aap0 icworks\uaffrepwU\53Salmec.uf wpd i PC 11/13/2000 ITEM # " MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: CITY ENGINEER DATE: OCTOBER 27, 2000 RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A PROPOSED 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, PORTION OF LOT 13, BLOCK 8, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO.2 - 535 ALMER ROAD, PM 98-12 I have reviewed the Tentative map together with the Condominium Permit plans. This application is a modification of previous approved map dated June 1999. This application is to reduce the number of units from 7 to 6. There are no other major changes in Civil and grading plans. The map is recommended for Council approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Show all existing sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter to be replaced with new. 2. The CC&R for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approved conditions and City Codes. 3. Owner shall pay $6,000 to the City as a development fee for the storm ground water line proposed on Almer Road. This fee is based on a 4.5% share of the Engineer's estimate prepared by MacLeod and Associates. cc: Owner, Architect S:\WP51\FILES\COND09.MAP Syed uza,P.E. City Engineer 1 ROSALIE M. O'MAHONY, MAYOR JOE GALLIGAN, VICE MAYOR Tfjr rC11ifV of BurfiYIgamr MIKE COFFEY MARY JANNEY CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROB TEL: (650) 558-7200 MIKE SPINELLI BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94017 FAX: (650) 342-8386 October 8,2000 Terry M. Winter Jan Smutney-Jones President and Chief Operating Officer Gir,Board of Governors Cal. Independent System Operator Cal. Independent System Operator 151 Blue Ravine Road P.O.Box 639014 Folsom, California 95630 Folsom,California 95763 Re: ISO Board Consideration of Congestion Management Reform Proposal Dear Mr. Winter and Mr. Smutney-Jones: I am writing to express Burlingame's serious concern over the Congestion Managment Reform proposal before the ISO Board of Governors. This proposal would subject Bay Area consumers - as well as others in California, e.g., San Diego - to significant price increases for electricity use. Regional inequity is patently unfair. I request that the ISO provide complete information about the potential impact on California consumers before this or any other proposal is adopted. Please ensure that this program does not require consumers to pay higher prices because of inadequate transmission facilities or generation supplies in their geographic area. I ask that the citizens and businesses of Burlingame not be subjected to sudden rate increases and other adverse impacts of this volatile electric market. Yours Truly, Rosalie M. O'Mahony Mayor cc: ISO Board of Governors CPUC Commissioners EOB Members CALIrORNIA ISO Terry M. Winter President and Chief Executive Officer October 30, 2000 California Independent System Operator RECEIVED CITY CI_.II?K'SOFFICE Rosalie M. O'Mahony Helen M. Allen Daniel F. Quigg Mayor Mayor Mayor The City of Burlingame City of Concord City of Millbrae City Hall - 501 Primrose Road 1950 Parkside Drive, MS/01 621 Magnolia Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Concord, CA 94519-2578 Millbrae, CA 94030 Re: ISO Board Consideration of Congestion Management Reform Proposal Dear Mayors O'Mahony, Allen and Quigg: The California Independent System Operation shares in your concerns about the increases in electric rates in California. We believe that those rates reflect systemic problems of underinvestment in the generation and transmission infrastructure needed to deliver electricity to end users; the lack of price responsive demand; and market rules that allow for significant percentages of energy purchases to occur in our real-time market - the most volatile market. The CA -ISO has been doing an in-depth investigation of our markets and is preparing to go to our Board with final recommendations in November. On Friday, October 20th, we filed with the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission an offer of settlement to deal with market power concerns throughout our system. We believe our proposal will limit the payments generators can receive for their generation. We are currently assessing the cost impacts of our proposed market re -design. We will publish a qualitative assessment of these impacts, to be posted on our website early next week. (www.caiso.com) However, since these changes are primarily focused on the ISO -facilitated markets, we anticipate that addressing larger systerrlic problems will produce even larger cost savings to consumers. We are doing what we can to lower costs to consumers in the long term and short term. We cannot do it all alone and are therefore working with regulatory agencies, transmission owners, and other market participants to proved the environment that is needed for a truly competitive market. Such a market should realize the vision of lower costs to consumers. Sincere) Terry inter Pre ' ent and Chief Executive Officer 151 Blue Ravine Road Folsom, California 95630 Telephone: 916 351-4400 Cc: Louis J. Papan, California State Assembly, 19th AD, P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249 Gov. Gray Davis, State Capitol, Sacramento, CA Senator Richard Rainey, State Capitol, Room 4090, Sacramento, CA Assemblymember Lynne Leach, State Capitol, Room 3132, Sacramento, CA 95814 Assemblymember Tom Torlakson, State Capitol, PO 942849, Sacramento, CA 95814 Michael A. Kahn, Chairman, Electricity Oversight Board, 770 L St., Ste. 1250, Sacramento, CA Loretta Lynch, PreS.,CA Public Utilities Comm.,505 Van Ness Ave., SF,CA 94102 Members of the Concord City Council Edward R. James, City Manager Lydia Du Borg, Assistant City Manager Ron Howard, Director of Finance Mardie Traver, Interim Director City Management Daniel Carrigg, League of CA Cities,1400 K St., Ste 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 Gonsalves & Son, 925 L Street, Ste. 250, Sacramento, CA 95814 California Independent System Operator r STATE CAPITOL ROOM 2032 SACRAMENTO. CA 95614-4906 �916� 445.0503 FAX,916�327.2136 DISTRICT OFFICES 400 S. EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 630 SAN MATED. CA 94402 (550� 340-SS—'C FAX,650,340-1661 HIRAM W. JOHNSON STATE OFFICE BUILDING 455 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE SUITE 14200 SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102 .415) 557-7857 FAX 1415) 557-7864 E-MAIL. senator.speier@sen.ca.gov WEBSITE: www.sen.ca.gov/speier October 30, 2000 Ql,aliflarnin tat>r *enaty JACKIE SPEIER STATE SENATOR REPRESENTING SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN MATEO COUNTIES Mayor Rosalie O'Mahoney and Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor O'Mahoney and Council: Coro %ii-.TEES . CHAIR. INSURANCE SELECT COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT AGRICULTURE & WATER RESOURCES BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS ENERGY. UTILITIES & COMMUNICATIONS TRANSPORTATION JOINT COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AUDIT Thank you for contacting my office. The pricing of electricity in California is a critical issue for many households. I sit on the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee and I'm very aware of the problems with our electrical grid. The committee will be holding hearings on the problem when the Legislature reconvenes, probably in December or January. Until that time, committee staff is gathering information and recommendations so that we.can consider additional legislation. As you probably already know, the rate of return on assets was fixed by the state for many years, and electricity prices were controlled through this mechanism. With passage of deregulation, it was hoped that new supplies would be created and that prices would go down. The opposite has happened. We haven't built generating capacity and the economy boomed, thereby delivering consumers into the eager hands of suppliers who are able to demand sky high prices. We haven't fully felt the impact of this yet because PG&E isn't legally able to pass along most of its extra casts. However, consumers in San Diego recently saw their electricity prices skyrocket. We've passed legislation to speed up the construction of generators. Some of these generators will be coming on line in about two years. However, we also need to pass legislation to ensure that the lack of available new supply does not lead to skyrocketing prices for consumers anywhere in California. As your letter notes, electricity is an essential service and we have to ensure that it is affordable. There are several choices being examined and I am certain that bills on the subject will be introduced once the Legislature reconvenes. The Legislature conducted hearings on the problem in San Diego, and generally throughout the state, before it recessed this year. When the new hearings start and the new evidence comes forward in testimony, I believe it will demonstrate that deregulation needs to be restructured. This is imperative if we are going to ensure that California consumers get a fair deal as a result of all the changes in the marketplace. Thank you again for contacting my office, and please don't hesitate to contact me if I may ever be of any assistance in the future. All the best, e Speier ATESENATOR Senate District KJS/bp RECEIVED t — r Lawrence J. Panzica T4 1 C�LERi'� S 1'-)F 1(":_ President ITV ^l- -, ;`D? !Nr-' a,M Burlingame Lions Club P. O. Box 206, Burlingame, California 940I I The Honorable Mayor Galligan and Members of the City Council of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 November 14, 2000, Dear Mayor Galligan and Members of the City Council: Jack VanEtten First Vice President Ross Bowling Second Vice President Bill Reilly Third Vice President Judy Malfatti Secretary Larry Putman Treasurer Burlingame Lions Club members, Dr. Charles Pascal and Ross Bowling recently met with the consultants to discuss the proposed new recreational facility. Our committee discussed the several questions proposed, and we will respond to them by separate correspondence to the consultants. However, a particular concern was raised by our committee which we feel should be called to your attention. We were informed that the current schedule is as follows: Pre -design - October 15 to November 1; Site analysis - November 1 to December 15; Schematic - December 15 to February 15; Final master plan - February 15 to March 15. As we understand it, there will be no input from the general public until after the schematic is done. We are concerned about this. We appreciate that representatives from our club, the Historical Society and others have been consulted. However, much of the general public is not represented by those persons and organizations, and it appears they will have no opportunity to contribute or comment until after the location is decided and the initial design is completed. Yet there may be residents of the city (particularly the north end) who may have thoughts about the location, or there may be potential users, such as current tenants or Burlingame L-iterrnediate School students and families, who should be heard before the design is started. We therefore ask that you consider having public forums much earlier in the process so that areas of the community will not feel they have been slighted, and so that their points of view may be heard before ideas start becoming fixed. Since this proposed facility is to serve the whole community, it appears that it would be wise to have these points of view early, rather than later, in the process. This letter is submitted to you on behalf of the members of the Burlingame Lions Club as endorsed by its Board of Directors. Respectfoy, Lawrence J. nz ca. esiden cc: Dennis Argyres, City Manager CITY - CITY OF BURLINGAME �� \I PXRKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME. 8�0 13urlin_,1111I: A\rnue. BurlinL',111W. C:Ilit'01111,1 9401 0-2S99 f0 `�4 PO R9i ,f • F:i\ t 050 � t,1 )0 ', 16 F-nuii!: hurlrCC (c a()I C(llll November 28, 2000 Lawrence J. Panzica. President Burlingame Lions Club P. O. Box 206 Burlingame, CA 94011 Dear President Larry: Thank you for your letter of November 14, 2000 regarding the planning process for the proposed Teen Center/Community Center/Lions Hall project. I have been asked to respond to you on behalf of the City Council. We appreciate your representatives participating in the meeting of October 27, 2000 to assist in the first phase of this project. The City Council and City staff want to receive the maximum feedback and input from all sectors of the community on the location and design of any new facility. A public meeting is scheduled for December 14 to review information developed by the project architects and to give further input to the architects. A second public review will be held as part of the Parks & Recreation Commission's January 18. 2001 regular meeting. Anyone is also welcome to present any other information pertinent to the project to me or my staff at any time. After several years of considering and investigating potential teen center sites in Burlingame, the city staff, the Parks & Recreation Commission and Burlingame Together participants settled on the Washington Park site as the only viable site for the project. The City Council concurred with those recommendations and directed staff and the project architect to evaluate the potential for a new facility in Washington Park. It is difficult to invite public comments or further participation in a review process before some alternative schemes and cost estimates are developed. Your Lions Club asked that this site evaluation process include a review of other possible sites for a teen center and the City Council increased the amount of the consultant's contract in order to allow a review of other sites. The Cit}''s contractor can also study alternative sites for a relocated Lions Hall, but. to date, no one in the community has proposed any alternative site suggestions for review. At such time as we have some practical alternatives to review, the City Council and Parks & Recreation Commission will welcome all discussion regarding alternatives. I encourage you and your club to suggest other possible locations which our consultant and staff can evaluate. Thank you again for your club's participation in this evaluation process. Sincerely, Joha Williams Par s & Recreation Director cc: ✓gurlingame City Council Jim Nantell, City Manager Randv Schwartz, Recreation Superintendent